That really is the big news and like rebuilding the levees correctly and making the insurance system work for New Orleans and the Gulf, it’s one of the key points (maybe Nagin picked up on it from reading the Wall Street Journal.)

After 9/11 and Huricane Andrew, New York City and Florida got streamlined, mostly red-tape-free aid because the Stafford Act (an act designed specifically to slow down the movement of aid money) was waived.

Bush did not waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans and the Gulf. He should have given that the need in the region is exponentially greater than what NYC and Florida faced.

Extraordinary measures are called for in N.O. Seriously, if they just gave every man, woman, and child affected by Katrina a lump sum that they could do whatever they wanted with it, this whole thing would go faster, cheaper, and better than whatever clusterfarg they’re doing now. But our current system of govt is based on the model that the citizens should NOT be allowed to self-govern, that we are incapable of making our own decisions and therefore the kindly govt should step in.

Please move the positioning away from liberalism vs. conservatism to populism vs. nationalism. I tend to be radical middle (centrist), registered Independent, but that’s mainly because of the perversion of the rhetoric over the past half a century. We’ve got to start engaging people’s thinking again, to get beyond the Rovian dianetics. Elite nationalism is where the state is the creator of the nation, not a result thereof.

If it’s mere electability you’re worried about (and I caution you with a nod to Kerry on that), consider that it behooves Republicans to continue wartime politicking just to enable swiftboating of the “Democrat” left standing. The best countermeasure to that is the China shop policy: “you broke it, you fix it”. That not only applies to New Orleans with its “broken” levees and oil-ravaged wetlands, but also to building permanent mega-bases in a land whose culture advocates against foreigners’ military occupation of it.

Detroit was, in some ways, the worker’s paradise. Unionisation was almost universal. Millions of people could afford to own a home. Millions could afford to send their children to colleges and universities. Their was a large, well organized, and well educated Black middle class that was poised to take on a leading role in the city.

Nowadays, sixty percent of the city have left. Those who remain are overwhelmingly Black and very poor.

I know that the comparison isn’t perfect. New Orleans was hit by a “natural” disaster, while Detroit was deliberately economically sabotaged. On the other hand, I was told, in advance of Katrina, that a disaster like Katrina was likely to take place in NO unless something was done. In that sense, NO seems to have been deliberately sabotaged by neglect.

I hate to sound pessimistic, but a great American city has already been abandoned in our life time. The problems you are describing sound like the problems I saw in Detroit. I’ll admit that Detroit didn’t have the charm or the deep traditions that New Orleans has. However, I only lived there for a couple of years, more than thirty years ago, and I still draw on my experiences there. It was a city with a huge heart.

I miss the talking Mynah bird in the downtown Woolworth’s.

We increasingly live in the sort of dire circustances that make people welcome military dictatorships and other extreme responses, and our political classes either applaud that turn of events or are too timid to do anything about it.

This week was Obama’s photo op, and Lieberman came down just to prove he’s not a jerk for dropping the investigation. And yes I’m sure Hillary can’t be far behind.

Obama’s wishywashy? He’s not strident or dogmatic, which is kind of nice, isn’t it? He’s reality-based even if he does go to church and talk that church talk. He’s articulate and intelligent and aims for political pragmatism despite being quite a lefty. I don’t see the point of drawing lines in the sand between his feet and being angry when he crosses them. I don’t like some of his stands on ethanol and coal, for example, but I also think these stands are reasonable in the context of his larger aims in terms of environmental policy.

Being from Illinois and a political junkie loser, I started following his senatorial campaign well before his convention speech. The way that guy was able to connect with downstate farmers and Caterpillar workers and Chicago suburbanites and well, pretty much everyone in the state of Illinois (which, incidentally, is a fair representation of the country at large) blew me away. Nobody has ever done that in Illinois before. Paul Simon came close, but of course he wasn’t big in the charisma department. He’s a natural.

So here we have a viable candidate that is more liberal than any other Democrat who has ever been nominated before, yet I keep hearing leftists whine about how he’s only been in the Senate a couple years (hmmm, I don’t recall Mr. Nader holding elective office) or he doesn’t pass one litmus test or another.

From my point of view Obama seems to “get it,” probably better than I do. I’m fine with John Edwards, too, and maybe a couple others, but please spare me Hillary. I’d vote for her, don’t get me wrong, but #1 I’m not anxious for a return to Clintonion triangulation and #2 Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton just deeply offends my class warfare sensibilities.

My point ultimately is we need to be practical. We don’t need a perfect candidate, we need a smart liberal who’s not a blowhard gaffe machine (see Joe Biden) can win to give us a fucking fighting chance to turn this city and country around. I have no doubt we stand no chance–zero!–with another Republican administration.

Tell Milo to watch out for the rats…

I will believe that these people are actually effective when I actually SEE something happening.