To avoid being acused of mis-quoting, I will copy-paste the entire post here, and ask you, my readers, to post your comments and reactions to this. What do you think this blogger is trying to say? What does this sound like to you? Is my headline all wrong?
[from Bradblog.com ] Guest blogged by Joseph Cannon
I'm not going to post the piece I started to write.
My original reaction to the Katrina catastrophe was going to be: "NOT ONE DIME."
For an hour or so, I contemplated the idea of turning it into a crusade: No-one in the blue states (where the money is) should give one dime of aid to the victims of this hurricane, which devastated Bush-friendly regions.
Why did I flirt with such a callous attitude?
Because it should be obvious to all that this tragedy was not just an act of God. Dubya and his diety conspired to transform mere disaster into an unprecedented mega-catastrophe.
Scientists warn us to expect more Katrinas. Global warming -- the existence of which W would prefer to rationalize away -- caused the temperature of the sea's surface to rise in the Gulf of Mexico, thereby transforming what should have been a manageable hurricane into a monster.
The National Guard was off in Iraq stealing oil -- and everything else in that nation -- all to benefit Haliburton and the oil companies. They could have been in N.O. earlier, building levies, overseeing evacuation.
Bush financially eviscerated the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The money went to his Iraq debacle.
Bush cut funding for hurricane relief and the prevention of disaster in New Orleans.
The federal governmen has, in short, demonstrated an utter lack of foresight. Bush was giving specious pro-war speeches and dodging Cindy Sheehan when he should have been helping local governments prepare.
The governors of Louisiana and other affected states were reduced to begging the federal government for aid. Under Clinton, they wouldn't have had to ask: Such aid would have been understood as inevitable.
Even Bush the elder immediately sent 25,000 troops to clean up after Hurrican Andrew. Bush the younger won't be able to spare half that amount of manpower.
So why was I thinking of starting a movement against giving aid to the stricken areas?
Because these are red states. They voted for Bush. These ninnies obviously wanted these policies, and they deserve to live with the consequences of their votes.
A large part of me still believes that many of these W-worshipping numbskulls deserve to suffer and to die. They brought it on themselves. Let them look to Jayzuss for aid: It's time they stopped leeching off the more productive blue staters.
(Californians stupidly give much more to the federal government than we receive from it; the money flows in a very different direction in the red states.)
So, at least, I started to write. But then (to paraphrase the old song) I thought I'd better think it out again.
Many of the victims, the ones who have suffered the most, are poor. The hardest hit were the blue state folk living among the red state maniacs. New Orleans, we should note, went heavily for Kerry.
And that's why we must help. Although it was very tempting to say otherwise.
But let us make one thing clear: We WILL politicize this issue.
The Republicans did not shirk from making political use of 9/11, and we should not shirk from reminding the country that Bush turned what should have been a mere problem into Ragnarok.
Conservatives may accuse us of lacking taste if we use this sad occasion to point out sadder facts of political life. Cable news pundits will try to pretend that now is not the time for partisan politics.
If they say that, screw 'em.
If the Bush-voters want Californians and New Yorkers and other blue staters to fork over dough, then they damn well had better take our words as well. Republican policies caused this catastrophe. Force them to hear that message -- again and again. That message is the price of the charity they now demand.
Comments