Why didn’t the federal government help Louisiana out earlier, in anticipation of Katrina? We now know (with a hat tip to Captain’s Quarters), that it’s partly because Louisiana told them to stay away.

A ranking Louisiana health official turned down federal offers to help move or evacuate patients as Hurricane Katrina bore down on New Orleans, a newly released document shows.

But the state’s top medical officer said Louisiana coordinated with the federal Health and Human Services Department in evacuating hospitals and nursing homes after Katrina hit.

Two days before the Aug. 29 storm, HHS was told by the state’s health emergency preparedness director that the help was not needed, according to an e-mail released Monday by a Senate panel investigating the government’s response to Katrina.

The state official, identified in the Aug. 27 e-mail as Dr. Roseanne Pratts, “responded no, that they do not require anything at this time and they would be in touch if and when they needed assistance,” wrote HHS senior policy analyst Erin Fowler.

The more evidence that comes out, the more it becomes clear that the state abrogated many of its responsibilities, and then proceeded to blame others. Yet we still hear from the media and the liberal pundits about problems with the federal response, as if that is the only place any failures occurred. To be sure, they could have done a lot better, but when the feds deferred to the state, that was their proper role. Would folks that are all up in arms about the feds listening in on Americans talking to terrorists, contrarily, yawn over the military barging in and taking over whenever the feds thought they knew better? If not, then more notice needs to be taken of Blanco’s and Nagin’s failure in responding. But you can bet that, in the future, the media will continue to try to Blame Bush(tm).

(Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.)

A private (for-profit) tutor did for a South Carolina high school senior that the public schools couldn’t do in 12 years. John Stossel has the details.

Just added the Fair Tax Fans blogroll in the left column. If you think the IRS is broken (and, really, who doesn’t) give some thought to a real alternative.

Since the Hamas majority victory in the Palestinian elections, it’s been interesting to see how the EU has had to upend it’s policies. It shouldn’t have caused so much turmoil for them, since one set of terrorists were simply replaced with another, but the EU’s (and the UN’s) refusal to see what was so obvious has caused it. When the Fatah guys were siphoning off all the aid they were getting, and undoubtedly sending some to their Hamas buddies, these august world bodies could use the excuse the Hamas was just an extremist organization and didn’t represent the view of the Palestinian people. The vote, however, put them in a difficult situation.

Some flip-flops, however, aren’t as strange as they look. The recent election of German Chancellor Angela Merkel moved Germany to the right, and their policy change is consistent with conservatives elsewhere; treat terrorists like terrorists.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has threatened to cut vital European Union aid to the Palestinians, said on Monday President Mahmoud Abbas should urge Hamas to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

“The Palestinian president has a huge responsibility and I will tell him this when I meet him today,” Merkel said after talks in Jerusalem with Israeli President Moshe Katsav.

“As a president, he should urge Hamas to respect certain principles,” she said, citing recognition of Israel, which the Islamist militant group has sworn to destroy, and abandoning violence.

Merkel, who was to meet Abbas in the West Bank city of Ramallah, is the first EU leader to visit the area since Hamas swept to victory over the moderate leader’s long-dominant Fatah faction in a parliamentary election on Wednesday.

The first step in “negotiating with terrorists” is getting them to renounce terrorism. Then you can negotiate peace. This needs to be the free world’s policy regarding Hamas. And I’m not just talking about a press conference; I’d want to see the Hamas charter–which is now essentially a political platform–rewritten to respect the existence of the state of Israel. Without that change, there can be no negotiations regarding the Palestinian situation. You can’t negotiate a peaceful settlement between two parties if the charter of one insists on the destruction of the other. Treating terrorists like terrorists means, as a first step, getting Hamas to renounce its terroristic goals.

This actually puts conservatives in a good situation with regards to the Palestinian situation. If Hamas refuses to denounce terrorism, it demonstrates to the UN, the EU and other liberal organizations that their denouncements and blaming of Israel while ignoring Palestinian atrocities has been as misguided as conservatives have said all along. Israel has not been as pure as the driven snow, to be sure, but you might assume the Palestinians, who have specifically targeted civilians, were indeed supremely innocent if you only looked at UN resolutions. Thus, if Hamas won’t officially renounce the terror of their ways, they are exposed for those yet willing to see.

If, however, they do officially denounce terrorism, they become, so some extent, defanged. Even if such a denouncement is simply a facade, they demoralize and anger their base among the Palestinians in Gaza. Their majority could very well be in jeopardy following that.

So now that Hamas is the official face of the Palestinian people, it puts them in a difficult situation, one in which they could have avoided by staying in the minority. While the election results may have been surprising to most (possibly even to Hamas itself), the ultimate diplomatic position it creates can, at least in the short term, help Israel and the Middle East. It’s disheartening to see how much of Gaza buys into the idea of the destruction of Israel, but now that Hamas has been pushed to the fore, their awkward situation can be used against them as another blow to terrorism.

(Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out, Blogger News Network and Redstate. Comments welcome.)

If you’ve ever said that it’s not the Palestinian people that hate Israel, just their government…

…if you’ve ever said that the Palestinians just want to live in peace with the Jewish state…

… if you’ve ever had any illusions about what it would take to get peace between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East…

…this is your wake-up call.

The Islamic militant Hamas won a landslide victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections, winning 76 seats in the 132-member legislature, election officials said Thursday. The rival Fatah Party, which controlled Palestinian politics for four decades, won 43 seats.

Hamas, classified by the US, the EU, Canada and (obviously) Israel as a terrorist organization, has a one-party majority in the Palestinian parliament. What they say, goes. As a reminder, here are some selected quotes from the Hamas Charter (courtesy Wikipedia):

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.”

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”

Any group who’s charter is founded on paranoia arising from a hoax like the “Protocols” is not a stable group. And any country that votes them in as a clear majority of their government, given Hamas’ view on the existence of Israel, cannot be simply said to be a people misrepresented by their government. It’s not just the fanatics and the nut cases affirming the mission of Hamas, it’s a majority of the people.

There are arguments to be made on both sides of the issue regarding whether Sharon should have evicted Jews from Gaza. But one good thing that came out of it was the opportunity to put a magnifying glass onto the actions of the Palestinians and their real motives.

The world has been put on notice. Is anyone listening?

Not surprisingly, Iran is thrilled.

(Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.)

Today’s Odd “Considerettes” Search Phrase – a picture of a guy getting shocked by an outlet [#1! on Yahoo! Search]

The Georgia legislature has signed off on the final version of a bill to require photo IDs at polling places. Next stop: the governor’s desk, and he says he’ll sign it.

This was tried last year, but a judge struck it down, considering it tantamount to a poll tax. Since I believe it said that people without a driver’s licence could get a state-issued ID but would have to pay for it, I can understand that ruling. This version makes it free.

Predictably, the Democrats don’t like this anti-voter-fraud idea.

State Rep. DuBose Porter of Dublin, the Democratic leader in the House, denounced passage of the bill as unnecessary and an attempt by the GOP “to rig this November’s elections.”.

He said the GOP has not been able to document a single case of fraud involving election-day voting.

“Aren’t we just speaking about a problem that doesn’t exist?” Porter said.

Well, if you don’t check ID at the polls, how can you substantiate claims of voter fraud? Wonderful catch-22.

Just as predictably, the ACLU is ready to challenge this common-sense measure. Must protect the civil liberties of those ballot stuffers, dontcha’ know?

(Cross posted at Stones Cry Out, Blogger News Network, and Redstate. Comments welcome.)

The motto of the Google folks is “Don’t be evil”, and they certainly set a high bar in their Code of Conduct. But does capitulating to a communist government that doesn’t want inconvenient facts to be known by its citizens fit in that code?

Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country’s free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet’s fastest growing market.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company planned to roll out a new version of its search engine bearing China’s Web suffix “.cn,” on Wednesday. A Chinese-language version of Google’s search engine has previously been available through the company’s dot-com address in the United States.

By creating a unique address for China, Google hopes to make its search engine more widely available and easier to use in the world’s most populous country.

Because of government barriers set up to suppress information, Google’s China users previously have been blocked from using the search engine or encountered lengthy delays in response time.

The service troubles have frustrated many Chinese users, hobbling Google’s efforts to expand its market share in a country that expected to emerge as an Internet gold mine over the next decade.

Now, this isn’t a First Amendment issue (which only applies to the US federal government) and Google is free to conduct its business any way it sees fit. I have no issue with that. I’m just noticing the apparent disconnect between its motto and its actions.

Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted “don’t be evil” as a motto. But management believes it’s a worthwhile sacrifice.

“We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China,” said Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s senior policy counsel.

Google’s decision rankled Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog group that has sharply criticized Internet companies including Yahoo and Microsoft Corp.’s MSN.com for submitting to China’s censorship regime.

“This is a real shame,” said Julien Pain, head of Reporters Without Borders’ Internet desk. “When a search engine collaborates with the government like this, it makes it much easier for the Chinese government to control what is being said on the Internet.”

Does filtering search results rise to the level of being truly “evil”. No, not really. But it does make it complicit in doing a disservice to Chinese users who want to learn about what freedom really means. It may not be “evil”, but I don’t know how “good” it is. Google does filter things in other countries, like some Nazi references in Germany and France, but I think this is a bit different.

(Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out and Blogger News Network. Comments welcome.)

Joshua Sharf at “Oh, That Liberal Media” maps out the path of a story on the pages of the Washington Post. As the news gets worse, the farther forward it comes, all the way to page 1. As the news gets better (i.e. more bad guys die), way back it goes.

Consider the following sentences:

• 5 years probation for pleading guilty to homosexual rape of a 15-year-old.
• 3 years probation for pleading no contest (but admitting to) homosexual rape of a 16-year-old.
• 60 days in jail for repeatedly raping a girl during the 4 years she was age 7-10.

All these sentences were handed down in a 2-week period, January 6-19, in Massachusetts and Vermont.

In the debate on punishment vs. rehabilitation, certainly there should be some combination of the two. And at least have the former if the latter is deemed unlikely (think repeat offenders, as in the second and third examples above) if for no other reason that societal self-defense. These are children we’re talking about, after all.

UPDATE: The 60-day sentence has been extended to 3-10 years. The judge’s statement:

“The court agrees a punitive response – punishment – is a valuable and necessary component of society’s response to criminal conduct,” he said. “It is a tool that the court has routinely used for the past 24 years on the trial bench. As stated during the sentencing hearing, however, punishment is not enough of a response in some cases.

“This is one of those cases,” he said.

But to me, the original sentence didn’t have much of any punitive response. Nonetheless, I’m glad this was done.

(Cross-posted at Stones Cry Out. Comments welcome.)