MOVING DAY

The Good and the Right has moved to http://thegoodandtheright.blogsome.com/.

Please, please, please: Update your blogrolls . . . or, add me to your blogrolls if you haven't done so already.

A new The Good and the Right?

I've been considering finding a new blog-hosting service for a little while now (for a few reasons), and I've just recently found Blogsome. So I've quasi-relocated. Before I make the move, however, I'd like the opinions of my (very) few readers: Is the new spread better, worse, or are you indifferent? I kind of like the layout of Blogsome a little better, but if I get the impression that my readership prefers things the way they are, I'll stick around here. I've opened the comments up so that anyone can toss in their two cents. Thanks in advance for any responses.

The (potentially) new and improved The Good and the Right can be found here.

Blog update

I've added a few names to my blogroll (look for the bold lettering).

More Friday reads

1. Everything you need to know about Donald Rumsfeld.

2. From the Washington Post:

What strategists call the "religion gap" between Democrats and Republicans may be widening, despite efforts by Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and other prominent Democrats to talk about their faith and the religious underpinning of their positions.

A Pew Research Center poll released yesterday found that 29 percent of the public sees the Democratic Party as "generally friendly" toward religion, down from 40 percent a year ago and 42 percent in 2003. A 55 percent majority continues to see the GOP as friendly toward religion, according to the poll.

Shocking! Full story here.

3. The recent censoring of Ann Coulter.

4. Week Two of Elephants in Academia's "Conservative men we love . . . and why we love them".

5. Week Three of Right Hand of God's Founding Father Friday.

6. Senator Dick Durbin insinuates that the confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court would send the moral fabric of America backwards to a time when African-Americans couldn't safely cross state lines. Not kidding.

7. And a funny picture (courtesy of Caption This!):


Yeeeaaarrrggghhh!

The latest in "classy" from The Huffington Post

I don't think I could make this nonsense up if I tried. From Van Jones over at The Huffington Post:

Don't say that a hurricane destroyed New Orleans. Hurricanes don't drown cities.

It was a "perfect storm" of a different kind that put that great city underwater: Bush-era neglect of our national infrastructure, combined with runaway global warming and a deep contempt for poor African-Americans.

In a few related stories:

Lighting doesn't split trees in half, Bush-era neglect does.

Strong gusts of wind don't blow people's hats off, Bush-era neglect does.

Frozen precipitation doesn't make driveways slippery in the winter, Bush-era neglect does.

But we can't get too upset with this administration, because:

The sun doesn't give people tans, Bush-era neglect does.

And, lest we forget:

The refraction of light doesn't cause rainbows, Bush-era neglect does.

So remember: If Bush weren't "wasting" so much money on this "war for oil," there'd be no rainbows. Food for thought.

Seriously though, S. T. Karnick at Tech Central Station addresses the claim that Katrina can be linked to Van Jones' "runaway global warming".

And I've got lots to say about that "deep contempt for poor African-Americans" comment, but at least for now, I'll hold my tongue.

APPENDIX A: Here's an impressive, but nowhere-near-exhaustive list of left-wing crazies and their responses to Katrina. [My favorites are #8, #9, and #11.]

APPENDIX B: It's quite a time-consuming read, but Michelle Malkin's got everything you need to know about the underfunded-levee argument that those on the left are heralding.

APPENDIX C: I meant to add this earlier, but the guys at Right Hand of God have got their hands on photographic evidence tying Bush to Hurricane Katrina.

ADDENDUM: Since I decided to hold my tongue in regards to Van Jones' pulling of the race card, I'll simply refer you to these two posts (this one and this one) at Pike Speak.

On a personal note: I've actually spent time in the projects of New Orleans. I've met those people. And I can gaurantee that, for the most part, they decided to stay in the city during the hurricane, not because they didn't have the means to evacuate, but because they didn't care enough to evacuate. These people are not looting Foot Lockers because they've been driven to do so by some storm or by some repressive federal government, but because they see this as an opportunity to snag some new Air Force 1s. It's not a matter of circumstance; it's a matter of character.

Living in a big city, my heart breaks for homeless people who are suffering because of other people's poor decisions (e.g., kicked out of the house by their deadbeat parents, etc.). My heart does not break, however, for homeless people who got themselves there because of their own dumb choices (e.g., drug addictions, infidelity, etc). (Someone sucker-punching you in the face is one thing; slamming your own face into a wall is another.) Similarly, I feel horrible for those who were unable to get themselves out of the city in time. Everything in our power should be done to help those people out. On the other hand, when you're told that a giant hurricane is headed for your rickety-old home and you stick around - presumably to test your own endurance - it's really, really hard for me to feel sorry for you when you find yourself stranded in the middle of a river that was once your living room. Since when were people obligated to feel sorry for others having to face the consequences of their own really bad decisions? If you walked up to someone crying with a broken nose and asked, "Oh my gosh, what happened? Are you alright?" and the guy looked at you and said, "I slammed my face into a brick wall just to see if I could," how compelled would you be help the guy out?

Call me a hard-ass, but here's how it is: All suffering humans ought to be helped . . . and when you stop using this disaster as an opportunity to rob jewelry stores, when you stop fighting other people for their belongings, and when you show yourself to be human, help will be on the way.

To all the innocents: Help is on the way. I've donated as much as I can afford. And you are, of course, in my prayers.

So much for holding my tongue.

[And just in case anyone takes these comments of mine as racist: Not only have I spent time in the projects of New Orleans, but I've also spent time in Nigeria. The black people of Nigeria (at least, all the ones I had the pleasure of meeting) are humiliated by the kind of behavior we're all seeing from some of the black people in New Orleans. Nigerians, by and large, are some of the most malnourished and mistreated people on Earth; they're also some of the smartest, most joyful, appreciative people I've ever met. I've got nothing against black people . . . but I've got a real problem with idiots.]

Some reading for your Labor Day weekend

It's been called ""the most brilliant cover-up ever achieved in a nation where investigative procedures are well developed and where the principles of equal justice prevail, at least during some of those moments where people are watching." Can you guess what I'm talking about? Answer (and much, much more) here

For some reason . . .

. . . this picture makes perfect sense to me.


Seriously though, I'm not trying to make a mockery of this horrible situation; I just couldn't help but smile when I saw this.

Can you blame 'em?

From here (underline mine):

Buddhist Monks Leave Order for Beer Girls
In central Cambodia, according to an AP report, two Buddhist monks fell in love with two teenage girls who sold beer across from their temple. The monks, both 19, apparently abandoned their vows and pursued the beer girls. Cambodia, with a population of 13 million people, has 60,000 monks who live in more than 4,000 pagodas across the country. Ninety percent of the population is Buddhist.

I can imagine how difficult it must've been to concentrate during their meditations. "Dude, do you see what I see?"

Unacceptable drivel from a philosopher

Brian Leiter has done it again. It's amazing to me when professors of philosophy seem so incapable of thinking critically. I don't mind that some philosophers are naturalists, I just disagree. Similarly, I don't mind that some philosophers prefer Continental studies to Analytic studies, though I'm not sure I see the point. However, I can't quite get my head around the fact that there are professors of philosophy out there who honestly blame the devastation in New Orleans on George Bush.

The title of Leiter's post almost says enough: "A 'Natural' Disaster--But Also a Manmade (i.e., Republican) One"

Leiter cites this story, which states:

As the New Orleans Times-Picayune has reported in a devastating series of articles over the last two years, city and state officials and the Corps of Enginners had repeatedly requested funding to strengthen the levees along Lake Pontchartrain that breeched in the wake of the flood. But the Bush administration rebuffed the requests repeatedly, reprograming the funding from levee enhancement to Homeland Security and the war on Iraq.

This year the Bush administration slashed funding for the New Orleans Corps of Engineers by $71.2 million, a stunning 44.2 percent reduction from its 2001 levels. A Corps report noted at the time that "major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. . . . Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now."

Work on the 17th Street levee, which breached on Monday night, came to a halt earlier this summer for the lack of $2 million.

"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay," Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana told the Times-Picayune in June of last year. "Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

These are damning revelation that should fuel calls from both parties for Bush's resignation or impeachment.

First of all, is there any way of quantifying how much of the destruction in New Orleans is due solely to the weak levees? No. There's really no way of knowing how different, if at all, the scene would be if the $71.2 million were kept in the hands of the NOCE. So we're already operating on assumptions.

Second, a modern-day parable: Suppose I built my house on a foundation of sand. After some time, it becomes clear to me that this shaky foundation just won't hold up, so I ask the Federal Government for $71.2 million in order to correct my poor decision and protect my family from potential disaster. They respond, "We'd love to, but right now we've got splendid reason to think that more people than just your family are at risk of potential disaster. Terrorists have their eyes set on America, so we've decided it best to spend that $71.2 million on the protection of our nation. When our hands aren't tied by the threat of terror, we'll get some money to you as soon as possible." And unfortunately, my house's foundation shifts, the walls cave in, and my family is tragically crushed beneath the rubble. Who's to blame for the tragedy? Only an idiot incapable of seeing a world beyond his own agenda would respond, "The Federal Government."

Third, suppose it wasn't Katrina, but another terrorist attack on America. Whose fault would it have been for not spending enough money on homeland security? Bush is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Then Leiter cites this story which states:

The catastrophic hurricane was an act of God. But the U.S. war effort in Iraq is a continuing act of the president. And now, that effort is hampering the capacity of the National Guard to save lives at home.

Wrong. Less than 35% of the National Guard is currently deployed. That leaves over 65% of the Guard here at a home for rebuilding efforts. During our history, the National Guard has always promised state governors that at least 50% of any state's National Guard would be available at any given time to address concerns within the state. Both Louisiana and Mississippi currently have over 60% of their National Guard forces ready for rebuilding efforts, with much more available from surrounding states. There's plenty of personel to do the job.

In the end, thousands of people are dead in one of America's greatest cities. Is this really the time to politicize? It would seem that common human decency would say "No." I can only suspect that Leiter has none.

What an embarrassing shame to my future profession.

Promising statistics

From here:

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.'"

Hmm. Teaching more than one side of an issue and letting students figure things out on their own . . . in some circles, that's called education. Heaven forbid.