As if I'd never left

One of my most distinct memories of growing up in Southern California is walking to school on fall mornings with the Santa Ana winds blowing in. By 7:30 AM it's already in the low 70's with a hot breeze in your face.

We've been in the house two weeks and already have our first dose of Santa Ana conditions. When I pointed out this little barb, I wasn't aware of exactly where the fire in question was burning.

I discovered via news scrolls while enjoying some prime-time TV last night that it in fact is fairly close to friends and family:

More than 1,000 firefighters worked against the tricky combination of dry brush, low humidity and temperatures in the high 90s along the line that divides Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

"We are not going to stop this fire until we get a break in the weather," Fire Capt. Mark Savage said.

Shelters were opened in both counties, and many residents responded quickly to evacuation orders.

We still have friends in the SFV as well as Simi, and hope for their well-being in the middle of all this.

Why it's good to wait

Tom Delay, Republican strong-arm in the House of Representatives was indicted today by Texas prosecutor Ronnie Earle:

The indictment accused DeLay, 58, of a conspiracy to violate Texas election law, which prohibits use of corporate donations to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates. The alleged scheme worked in a roundabout way, with the donations going to a DeLay- founded political committee, then to the Republican National Committee and eventually to GOP candidates in Texas.

This has been bubbling for quite some time and now has bubbled-over as Earle is moving forward to prosecute. DeLay has stepped down temporarily as House Majority Leader while the case is investigated and/or taken to trial.

DeLay has many detractor's in the public-at-large as well as the political- and pundit classes. I have read and heard many a liberal lambaste DeLay over this in recent months, assured that he is guilty before even investigated, much less tried.

I would offer a word of advice to those folks; it is always wise to wait and watch how things resolve. It's the surest way of avoiding looking like an ass.

Case in point are the screamers and the howlers over the Katrina response. Seems that not all the tales of woe from New Orleans were accurate or true.

Hugh's post from 9/10 lays the groundwork for a discussion on what exactly the media was giving us. Yesterday's LA Times gives us yet another report to ponder.

"It just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done," [Major Ed]Bush said Monday of the Superdome.His assessment is one of several in recent days to conclude that newspapers and television exaggerated criminal behavior in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, particularly at the overcrowded Superdome and Convention Center.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune on Monday described inflated body counts, unverified "rapes," and unconfirmed sniper attacks as among examples of "scores of myths about the dome and Convention Center treated as fact by evacuees, the media and even some of New Orleans' top officials."

Indeed, Mayor C. Ray Nagin told a national television audience on "Oprah" three weeks ago of people "in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."

Meanwhile, the Bush-Haters went into over-drive after hearing such reports and leveled hugely unfair and inaccurate criticisms of the Federal response that I could hardly believe. Now, after having time to digest and wade through it all it begins coming out that many of those criticisms and claims were based on bad information.

While I hate to "play politics" with something horrific as Katrina, I still can't help but laugh at the chumps who walked out on this limb in their histrionics only to see it break under them.

I would caution them not to get too far out on this particular branch, to say perhaps too much about what did or didn't happen in the DeLay matter and to give it all the time it requires for finding a full understanding. Unless they like looking like chumps...

Under 'F' for "The Feds must do everything!"

Hugh posts a comedic gem:

Fires have been burning in southern California for nearly two hours. No sign of FEMA yet. Another FEMA collapse. They ought to have known that Santa Anas kick up this time of year.

When will Senators feinstein[sic] and Boxer present their demand for billions in fire break maintenance funds?

Why didn't President Bush supersede his constitutional authority and order the military into these hard-hit areas? It could be hours or days before the Governator asks for help, and what of the poor victims of Firestorm '05?!

"Whose bright idea was that!?" (Even more from Tales of the Great Unpacking)

As the days go by, I've occasionally been reminded why I was willing to leave California for the desert in 2002. Today was one of those days.

I stopped by my new insurance agent's office this afternoon to review my homeowner's policy with him as well as discussing getting our auto policy converted over from Arizona. And there it was, one of those absolutely ridiculous kinds of things that can only come from the delusional mind of a state law-maker...

Under Section III, so-called "Optional coverages applied," though according to the agent it is mandatory by state-law and built-in to the basic homeowner's policy, is this fun little surprise:

Workers Compensation and Employers Liability

Caught off guard, I asked the agent for clarification. The answer I got stupefied me, and in fact six hours later, still stupefies me.

By state-law, anybody I "hire" or contract with to come onto/into the premises to work (landscaping, housecleaning, etc.) is entitled to make a worker's compensation claim in case of injury under my home-owner's coverage as if I were their employer and my home were there regular place of work. Never minding, that they would have been hired as, essentially, contractors in business for themselves.

Now, I will not pay a huge amount for this but then that is most certainly not the point. Only in Sacramento can someone think that an independent contractor working on a client's premises is an employee of that client and thus entitled to state benefits.

Absurd.

Anti-Warriors, or Fascists in Sheep's Clothing?

Christopher Hitchens rightly reminds us who sponsored the anti-war rallies in DC on Saturday. While I believe most of the protestors legitimately want peace, I wonder if they knew that the rally's organizers do not? Hitchens explains.

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation—these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake—would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

Preach it, brother.

Sullivan's Reading My Dogs

Maybe not. But he agrees with the Simster on Bush and conservation. He just adds some stronger analysis and puts it in a nicer package, that's all. LOL

Points I wish I'd included in this morning's submission are bolded.

BUSH IN CARTER-LAND: The president is now asking Americans to conserve gas? I wonder what's next. Will he ask his own government to balance its budget? Not so long ago, the vice-president derided conservation as a matter of "personal vanity." Now it's a national duty? Once again, you see how incoherent this presidency has become. If a government wants to conserve a particular product, it does not need to make rhetorical pleas for people not to use it. It can adjust its own policies to make us more fuel-efficient and less dependent on foreign oil, especially from the Persian Gulf. The Bush administration has, alas, never made this a priority. I think they're right to drill in ANWR and encourage new energy development in the U.S. and they've been better on fuel standards than their critics will concede. But the obvious complement to this - conservation and sane energy taxes - remains unthinkable to them. Simply put: We need to increase the cost of gas to force the auto industry to move to newer, better fuels and consumers to make wiser choices. A phased in gas tax of a dollar on the gallon is a tax that most sane economists support, helps wean us off foreign oil, helps the environment, and defunds the terror-masters. Bush should have proposed it as an anti-terror message after 9/11. Pathetic pleas now to stop driving on Sundays and the like are no substitute for something that actually might solve the basic problem. Look: I'm a low tax kind of guy. I support Bush's tax cuts on most areas (I exclude the estate tax, because it rewards inheritance rather than work). But this is an area that, in every substantive regard, is a win-win. Except that politically, it's lose-lose. The test of leadership is whether a person can persuade people that an unpopular measure is still better for everyone in the long run. Has Bush ever done such a thing? Or even tried to?

On that last point, I suppose Iraq counts. But he's not doing a good job of advancing that argument, though.

A Missed Opportunity for the Dems

I can't be counted upon to quote Mark Shields very often, but on Friday night on the Jim Lehrer NewsHour, Shields came through with a gem on the Democrats' response to the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Forget that the nation and the party would both have been better served by the temperamentally suited and professionally qualified John Roberts' winning Senate confirmation with 90-plus votes. The nation would have been better served because such a margin would have represented an un-petty act in a city descended into hateful pettiness. And the Democrats, because by acknowledging Roberts' obvious assets -- intellectual firepower, genuine respect from, and friendship with, colleagues who are active Democrats, a reputation for open-mindedness and not being a captive of ideology -- they could have then believably used the "Roberts standard" to measure President Bush's future court nominees.

Shields expands on the riff here.

Rita: "Just a Little Wind & Rain"

I thought the "Occupied New Orleans" comments would finally demonstrate Cindy Sheehan's status as an unhinged moonbat. But this comment on Kos shows her for what she is, and should serve to be the final nail in the coffin:

rita (3.33 / 3)
i am watching cnn and it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain...it is bad, but there are other things going on in this country today...and in the world!!!!
by CindySheehan on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 06:29:15 PDT

I see. We are expected to mourn the death of her son and take drastic action in his name, but Cindy couldn't give a flip about what's happening to her fellow citizens who are fighting for their lives on the Gulf Coast. Just a week earlier, Garden Hat Cindy was crying in her soup about the poor folks of Algiers, LA in the wake of Katrina. But then she was leveraging that to draw attention to her own agenda. But unfortunately, Rita dared to steal the spotlight on Saturday from the International ANSWER anti-war rally in Washingon (click here to watch Cindy's pathetic speech, given with one of her political masters, Jesse Jackson looking on. Hat tip, Political Teen.)

I no longer feel sorry for this woman. I loathe her. She is despicable. She has allowed herself and her son's memory to be hijacked by the Misery Exploiters (TM); Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other jackals who descend upon troubling circumstances for the sole purpose of pushing their agendas or enhancing their own careers.

Fortunately, some of the commenters on Kos put Sheehan in her place. It's interesting however, to note Sheehan's half-hearted backpedal:

Shame (3.20 / 5)
it is 100 percent rita...even though it is a little wind and a little rain
I'm in Southeast Texas with family on the coast and in Lake Jackson, LA.
I'd like you to tell us it's just a little wind and rain. They've lost their homes, jobs and businesses and gone through fear and panic while you bask in your fan's adulation, party with your celebrity friends and play the star.
Shame on you, you're jealous of media coverage of other's suffering. You've become a caricature and I no longer support you. I'm ashamed I ever did.
by hibsnet on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 18:19:40 PDT[ Parent ]

i am sorry (2.75 / 4)
when i was watching cnn this morning, that's what it was...i know it was much worse earlier and it was devastating, i didn't make myself clear and i apologize.
i also know that the media will cover anything else besides the war.
by CindySheehan on Sat Sep 24th, 2005 at 20:08:28 PDT[ Parent ]

Before today I would have just believed you, but.. (3.00 / 7)
Cindy, these posts have time stamps.
when i was watching cnn this morning, that's what it was
Four hours before your post, the eye hit just east of Port Arthur and west of Lake Charles. Between then and two hours after your post, hurricane force winds were tearing through Beaumont and Orange, TX and all through Vermillion Parrish, LA. Imagine, if you can, what was happening to those poor people while you were watching tv and getting upset about them covering "a little wind and a little rain" rather than your special day.
it was devastating earlier
And during. And after.

You might also realize that the people in a hurricane's wake don't suddenly get happy and whole an hour after the eye passes over. It's still not a little wind and a little rain to them. Do you know they are still very afraid down there - right now, Cindy, trying to find 1,000 people lost in Vermillion as I type..
You can find the story now on CNN's website. I'm very sorry, it's slightly above the story about you - that's just so unfair too isn't it.
i also know that the media will cover anything else besides the war.
Well Joan Baez sang for you today, and you got your smiling-happy picture taken with Jesse Jackson today, and your story is still front page on CNN.com today. So it was a very good day. Yes it was a beautiful day for Cindy wasn't it?
Except for a little wind and a little rain earlier.
by hibsnet on Sun Sep 25th, 2005 at 01:24:13 PDT[ Parent ]

Nice.

Feeling the effects of Rita

I keep hearing how Rita wasn't as catastrohphic as Katrina. I suppose this is true, because Rita didn't hit major population centers like Katrina did. But the power of the storm cannot be denied. Check out this image of Grand Chenier, LA from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's website.

Or this picture of beachfront resort town, Holly Beach, TX.

If you haven't done so yet, please give generously to help our friends on the Gulf Coast recover their lives.

This guy is clueless.

Did any of you happen to catch George W.'s call for sacrifice on the part of the American public yesterday? Can't blame you if you missed it. His call was so weak-kneed and half-hearted that it seems unlikely that any network would include it in a sound-bite package.

So after not calling for sacrifice in the wake of 9/11 or in the run-up to the Iraq War or its ensuing, mushrooming insurgency, what finally motivated our fearless leader to appeal to our sense of patriotism? Surging oil prices resulting from the recent hurricanes. After a visit to the Department of Energy to survey their impacts on refineries and oil rigs in the Gulf, Bush urged all Americans to er, um, sorta try to maybe think about thinking about restricting unnecessary driving.

"Two other points I want to make is, one, we can all pitch in by using -- by being better conservers of energy. I mean, people just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption and that if they're able to maybe not drive when they -- on a trip that's not essential, that would helpful."

And while this quote seems straightforward enough, hopefully you saw the video of him himming-and-hawing and stumbling over saying it. Not too inspiring really.

One would think that if the conservation message was one that Bush was really sincere about, that he would have said more and said it better to underscore its importance. But then we know that Bush isn't sincere about conservation and isn't prepared to implement such an initiative because there were precious few commitments to conservation in the Energy Bill which kicked around in Congress for four years before passage.

Conservation is something that I feel passionate about. I believe that it is something eminently doable in this country. While we are far more energy efficient these days than we were in the 1970s, say, there is much more that can be done. And it can be done with a little effort, using existing technologies and in ways that are ultimately profitable for business. All it takes is some political will and leadership. Two things in short supply in Washington, D.C. these days.

As the National Energy Strategy first rounded into form, I had no problem with the Bush Administration's desire to augment exploration and refining capacity so long as such efforts were paired with conservation measures. When the Energy Bill was belatedly passed a couple of months ago, I was quite angry to see that precious few conservation elements ended up in the bill. And now, of course, Bush finds himself backpedaling his way into a "conservation strategy" of "Hey, don't drive so much." What's next? a Carter-esque call to turn down our thermostats and wear sweaters? While the short-term impingements on oil supplies will ultimately work themselves out, we still don't seem to have a long-term energy strategy. Evidence of this is Bush's current plan to release supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is really more about keeping prices down for political purposes than it is for anything else. Robbing Peter to pay Paul to minimize downside political risk is neither wise nor evidence of a strategy.

Over the long run, we all recognize that oil supplies are finite. We also recognize that dependence on foreign energy supplies limits the flexibility of our foreign policy. And now in the wake of the hurricanes, we have a greater understanding of how tenuous our supply lines are. These are all good reasons to do more in the way of alternative energy sources. Whether solar, "clean coal," fuel cells, wind, nuclear, geothermal or biomass, there are a number of options available to us. And while I don't share the hysterics' panic over dwindling oil supplies, there is no time like the present to get started in making the shift as part of a comprehensive national energy strategy. We should increase incentives to encourage more R&D and adoption of these technologies. However, in the meantime, we should really get serious about conservation. As I said previously, it can be done with existing technologies and with a mimimum of pain. But it's going to take more leadership than we saw out of President Bush yesterday to make it a reality.

The Muse

She is one of the primary public figures I had in mind when I named this blog. To hear her pontificate on subjects on which, most of the time, her knowledge is limited and her experience even more-so is a truly mind-numbing experience.

While I have no great love for her home-state colleague Ms. Feinstein, I concede that the senior Senator from California is far better at arguing and detailing her positions and commands a far-greater grasp of the issues she advocates. She is a respectable political opponent in that regard.

Babs on the other hand shall we simply say, is not.

Mother Sheehan Arrested!!

*Yawn*

Funny Girl

I try not to get bogged down in this stuff, but I'm only human.

According to Drudge, Barbara Streisand's appearance in a Diane Sawyer interview, resulted in the misguided diva's proclamation that

This summer's back to back superstorms are proof positive we have entered a new period of "global warming emergency," artist/citizen Barbra Streisand warns. Streisand is back on the scene to promote her reunion disc with Barry Gibb. As hellstorm "Rita" churned in the Gulf, Streisand sat down for a promotional interview with ABCNEWS's Diane Sawyer. "We are in a global warming emergency state, and these storms are going to become more frequent, more intense," Streisand urgently declares.

Barry Gibb?

But Drudge nicely points out the following

But Sawyer did not remind Streisand that a Category 5 hurricane struck the Bahamas with 160 mph winds -- when the singer was five years old, in 1947! And when Streisand was 8 years old, a Cat 5 hurricane -- named "Dog" -- packing 185 mph churned-away in the Atlantic. When she was 9, a Cat 5 storm named "Easy" ripped the seas with 160 mph sustained winds. Streisand was 13 years old when "Janet" hit Mexico with 150 mph winds. Streisand was celebrating her sweet sixteen as "Cleo" formed with 140 mph. At 18, Streisand read news about "Donna" AND "Ethel" -- both storms carried 140 mph winds and formed 9 days apart in 1960! One year later, when Streisand was 19, it happened again: Two Category 5 storms scared the world: "Carla" and "Hattie!" "Carla" maxed out at 175 mph winds the year Streisand made her television debut on "The Jack Paar Show." And who could forget Hurricane "Camille" -- which smashed into the United States with 190 mph, just as "Funny Girl" garners eight Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Picture and one for Barbra as Best Actress.

I don't deny global warming. Nor do I deny its importance. But there a number of questions about when, where, what and how much is in store for us. Unfortunately, the impotent and Unhinged Left seizes upon ever single weather event to suggest that its proof of impending doom. For people so concerned about "the truth" they certainly don't miss any opportunity to be disingenuous in pushing an agenda.

Shill Maher

I used to like Bill Maher a lot more than I do these days. He used to beat up on both parties equally so I found him to be rather entertaining. I also felt he had some fairly blunt, objective takes. But over the last couple of years he's begun to strike me more and more like the epitome of the just-enough-data-to-be-dangerous, whining liberal who spends vast amounts of time ruminating over, and advancing the cause of non-fact-based strawmen to -read-just-enough-to-be-dangerous audiences. Perhaps I find his rants a bit more offensive than if they cut the other way, but such is life. Nonetheless, I find it hard to laugh at jokes based upon patently untrue premises. And this seems to be Maher's trajectory with increasing frequency.

So it pains me to pimp his show, Real Time, to a certain extent. But for those mildly interested in Galloway-Hitchens, but not quite interested enough to listen to the download or get up at 5:30AM to watch on C-Span, you should get some of the flavor if you tune in to this week's Real Time. Galloway and Hitchens are Bill's guests, along with BBC lowest-common-denominator Talking Head Kitty Kay and Schwarzenegger Manfriend, Cali Congressman David Dreier. Check the link for details and showtimes in your viewing area.

Livin' in a box

That's been me for most of the last two weeks. Three really; my last week in Phoenix was too hectic for keeping up with news of the world.

My days currently consist of job-hunting and home improvement, leaving me still precious little time to dab at the computer and blog. Today though my wife is busy with her mother on personal business, there is at present no more painting to be done and so here I find myself with a few hours on my hands. Let's crawl out of the box and see what we find...

Chuck Schumer is one of my least favorite members of Congress, in either house. For my money, he is one of the more belligerent lefties in the Senate; not quite in the same league with a Ted Kennedy but Teddy has many more years of practice. Given time, I imagine Chuck will become quite the blowhard himself one day.

His broad-brush anti "right-wing" rhetoric gets my blood-boiling hotter and quicker than just about anybody going. Having said that, I must here acknowledge quickly before proceeding that in the rest of this post you may encounter things that border on, if not pass directly into political hack-territory. I dislike this man and the way he conducts his politics that much.

So imagine my delight when I caught a wiff of this the other night: Federal prosecutors have opened an inquiry into allegations that two Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee employees illegally tapped into Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's credit history.

WBAL-TV 11 News reporter David Collins reported the workers obtained the report in July while executing opposition research on the lieutenant governor.

How perfectly wonderful that both work for the esteemed Senator from New York. Steele's reaction was of course understandable:

Paul D. Ellington, Steele's chief of staff, issued a statement late Wednesday afternoon in reaction to the allegations.

"Lt. Gov. Steele was extremely disturbed to learn about the alleged criminal identity theft of his personal finance records by (a staff member of U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.,) at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "He was notified by the FBI that a federal criminal investigation is under way and has been asked not to comment on the specifics of the case.

"He intends to honor this request and expects that those responsible for these actions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

So at the end of day one, we have two staffers for a prominent Senator illegally obtaining and using personal credit information as part of an opposition research operation. Sounds almost Nixonian, don't it?

Moving forward to day two (9/22), we see new information surfacing as bloggers begin taking an interest in the story.

A day later, we also see a mainstream response in the form of a WaPo punt, er--editorial:

As political dirty tricks go, snooping for financial dirt on Mr. Steele by illegal means strikes us as roughly on a par with eavesdropping on a rival party's private telephone conversations, as Virginia Republican officials did several years ago. Both acts display a disregard for fair play and the spirit of the law; both are indicative of the current state of partisan enmity. Voters might like to punish all the scoundrels -- if only they could tell one party's scoundrels from the other's.

Hugh is right to call such a not-serious response to the situation: Don't be fooled into thinking that The Washington Post is being tough with the scandal by running this editorial. The editorial treats the data theft as a stand alone, one-time event --and there is zero reason to believe that it is, or that a senior Schumer staffer acted on her own in deciding to break the law. It is way too soon to start writing "end of the case" editorials.

All the Post did was bury the issue beneath a veneer of bi-partisan disgust and indignation. Meanwhile, the story begs numerous questions, and as Hugh points out, somebody interested in asking them.

Why the usual-and-hardly-unexpected slow response from big media? Well, ask yourself the same question that Michelle's reader asks:

Why did the Times ignore the story about N.Y. Sen. Schumer's aid[e]s illegally obtaining Maryland Lt. Gov (and 2008 probable Senate candidate) Michael Steele's credit report?

Why is it that every other paper in town covered the story, while the Times ignored it completely?

What if a Republican senator's aid[e]s had illegally obtained Sen. Clinton's credit report? Do you honestly think that the Times would have been quiet?

I'm not generally one who sits around screaming about media bias; but some times some things just stand out. I can't help but think that were Chuck's (D) an 'R', there'd be no calling off the dogs here.

In the meantime, somebody connected to a powerful and influential Senator has apparently committed a crime. The details need and deserve finding out.

Resurrection

Many apologies to the loyal fan-base. After a strong couple of weeks of picking up the slack during Paul's move, I simply wasn't up to the task this week. I have some big changes going on and have some other priorities at the moment. So apologies all around. For what its worth, I tried to throw the crowd a bone on Thursady, but my internet access went down for some reason.

But, I've got some time this weekend to post on a number of subjects, including big stories surrounding North Korea, Germany and Iraq. And as I'm sitting here watching all the media clowns in their rain slickers telling us how heavy the winds and rain are, it's clear that Hurricane Rita is about to pound the Port Arthur-Sabine Pass-Lake Charles region. Prayers go out to our friends down there.

Who'd-a-thunk!?

Juicy stuff in the Roberts'-SC saga: Senator Pat Leahy(D) of Vermont will be voting 'Yea' on the Roberts nomination, in direct opposition to his party's Senate leader, Harry Reid of Nevada.

It's a 13-5 vote in committee, and looks to pass easily in the Senate at large. Divide and conquer.

Many of us on the right have been proclaiming for weeks that there's nothing to get this guy with, and we were right.

Painting day (Yet more from Tales of the Great Unpacking

Before we're done putting our stamp on this house, we'll be painting in all three bedrooms. My wife's ambitious plan in the first-stage of the move was to have all of it done before I arrived in town at all.

Did not happen. For a number of reasons, not the least of which her desire to think bigger than we can manage.

In the back-up plan, we were finishing all three before moving and placing everything into the house, hopefully co-inciding with the laying of new carpet and wood flooring. That, like plan A was a bust.

So here we are...in the house a full week and so far only one room done, and that not even completely. Two of the rooms require a coat of primer thanks to the previous paint job.

Half an afternoon, but no arguments later (we measure home improvement projects not in terms of man-hours but by the number of arguments required to finish the project), bedroom #2 has a coat of primer on the walls and is ready for the application of the colored coat. But only slightly more than I am wearing on hands, legs and even in my hair.

I spent a summer painting during college and enjoyed the work. Recent efforts have gone nothing like I remember the 'good 'old days'...I've gotten too old, too slow and too lazy to crank out finished walls like I used to.

Thank God I don't have to work for a living, I guess!

More of this please.

Yes, more of this. Much, much, much more.

Courtesy of Radio Blogger, we get a nice glimpse at Lt. Gen. Russell Honore pinch-hitting for New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and putting the media in its rightful place at a press conference related to preparations for hurricane Rita. I enthusiastically look forward to the day when the press no longer presumes expertise it doesn't possess.

Honore: And Mr. Mayor, let's go back, because I can see right now, we're setting this up as he said, he said, we said. All right? We are not going to go, by order of the mayor and the governor, and open the convention center for people to come in. There are buses there. Is that clear to you? Buses parked. There are 4,000 troops there. People come, they get on a bus, they get on a truck, they move on. Is that clear? Is that clear to the public?

Female reporter: Where do they move on...

Honore: That's not your business.

Male reporter: But General, that didn't work the first time...

Honore: Wait a minute. It didn't work the first time. This ain't the first time. Okay? If...we don't control Rita, you understand? So there are a lot of pieces of it that's going to be worked out. You got good public servants working through it. Let's get a little trust here, because you're starting to act like this is your problem. You are carrying the message, okay? What we're going to do is have the buses staged. The initial place is at the convention center. We're not going to announce other places at this time, until we get a plan set, and we'll let people know where those locations are, through the government, and through public announcements. Right now, to handle the number of people that want to leave, we've got the capacity. You will come to the convention center. There are soldiers there from the 82nd Airborne, and from the Louisiana National Guard. People will be told to get on the bus, and we will take care of them. And where they go will be dependent on the capacity in this state. We've got our communications up. And we'll tell them where to go. And when they get there, they'll be able to get a chance, an opportunity to get registered, and so they can let their families know where they are. But don't start panic here. Okay? We've got a location. It is in the front of the convention center, and that's where we will use to migrate people from it, into the system.

Male reporter: General Honore, we were told that Berman Stadium on the west bank would be another staging area...

Honore: Not to my knowledge. Again, the current place, I just told you one time, is the convention center. Once we complete the plan with the mayor, and is approved by the governor, then we'll start that in the next 12-24 hours. And we understand that there's a problem in getting communications out. That's where we need your help. But let's not confuse the questions with the answers. Buses at the convention center will move our citizens, for whom we have sworn that we will support and defend...and we'll move them on. Let's not get stuck on the last storm. You're asking last storm questions for people who are concerned about the future storm. Don't get stuck on stupid, reporters. We are moving forward. And don't confuse the people please. You are part of the public message. So help us get the message straight. And if you don't understand, maybe you'll confuse it to the people. That's why we like follow-up questions. But right now, it's the convention center, and move on.

Male reporter: General, a little bit more about why that's happening this time, though, and did not have that last time...

Honore: You are stuck on stupid. I'm not going to answer that question. We are going to deal with Rita. This is public information that people are depending on the government to put out. This is the way we've got to do it. So please. I apologize to you, but let's talk about the future. Rita is happening. And right now, we need to get good, clean information out to the people that they can use. And we can have a conversation on the side about the past, in a couple of months.

Love this guy.

'C' for 'Can't catch a break!'

As reported by Smartmoney with a hat tip to Michelle:

Oil companies began pulling workers back out of the Gulf of Mexico on Monday, as Tropical Storm Rita threatened the Gulf Coast production and refining assets spared by Hurricane Katrina just three weeks ago.

Chevron Corp. (CVX) decided to evacuate the staff needed to keep oil and natural gas production platforms running, while Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSB.LN) and BP PLC (BP) began pulling nonessential staff. The Chevron evacuations also affect production facilities previously owned by Unocal Corp., which Chevron bought in August.

The U.S. National Hurricane Center expects Rita to grow into a major hurricane covering a wide area in the Gulf of Mexico before making landfall this weekend. The center has shifted its forecast path for Rita northward and now shows the storm targeting Houston and running near producing areas in the western Gulf, heightening concerns in the U.S. and global energy markets.

"You add any supply problems on top of anything we have now, we'll likely see prices spike, at least until the infrastructure gets back to where it is, which is still not back to normal," Doug MacIntyre, an analyst at the federal Energy Information Administration, said in an interview.

Talk about getting kicked when you're down, the energy industry looks to take it in the teeth this week when Rita moves into the Gulf and makes landfall. If projections hold, the storm will impact energy-producing areas from Houston-Galveston to Louisiana.

Just what the doctor ordered; more questions about supply. In response to the approaching storm, oil prices jumped $4-a-barrel on Monday but have dropped some today.

Small consolation however when you consider that oil prices are 45% higher than they were a year ago with no long-term answers in sight. High oil prices of course contribute to higher prices at the pump, however it is not the only concern.

Frankly, this is where I begin to lose my patience; it's the refining capacity folks! Oil supply is tight but adequate enough for our needs. There is not enough refining capacity to produce enough of the numerous fuels required in every part of the country in sufficient quantities to keep gas prices down.

I understand that many want to see this produce the long-awaited jump to 'alternate' fuels. Frankly, that's fine with me; it's the future of energy and eventually the markets will get us there. In the meantime however, I'm driven to the brink of madness by refusals to even entertain an increase in refining capacity to deal with the shorter- and medium-run difficulties in managing the gasoline supply.