I can't believe our fe'ral [sic] government is using the head of FEMA as their fall guy. I could understand the President doing that, because he won't take blame for anything, but Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Minority Leader? Puh-lease. FEMA has been relegated to some perfunctory organization headed by the Department of Vaterland Security, and its budget has been perpetually cut. What's the head of FEMA to do when his hands are tied both in responsibility and in budget? The fact of the matter is that we've known for years and years that N.O. was going to go under water, and that it was only a matter of time, but regardless of the "please" [or pleas] from LA politicians and engineers, the fer'al government ignored the threat (sound familiar?). And it wasn't ignored by FEMA. The federal budget (created by the president and approved by congress) has never had "room" to deal with protecting the Big Easy from the inevitable. You know who deserves blame? The President and Congress - NOT FEMA.

This is why I am so reluctant to donate money. I give money to the federal government every year, and had it been up to me, I would have started allocating money for the N.O. project years ago when I first learned that it was going to go under. But my government decided rather to spend the money on corporate tax breaks and a floundering war in Iraq. If I give money, it will only perpetuate the habits of our government. Bush's "wave of compassion" is what he depends on. Why should he lobby for funding schools and FEMA when he knows that such things will tug on the heart strings of America in such a way that people will open their coffers, and he won't have to worry about raising taxes. You see? The education crisis is manufactured. We have money to fix schools, but our government chooses not to. It would be much easier to allocate money for things the public does not support (like the War), and then allow the remaining vacuum in the budget to be filled by the "compassion" of others donating their bake sales as an "incidental tax" that never becomes formal. Similarly, why should government officials have spent money on protecting N.O. if they knew that people would voluntarily excise an "incidental tax" to Red Cross if such a disaster hit.

So, in the big picture of things, are we really helping by donating money to Red Cross? I personally think everyone who is donating money to Red Cross should put that money into a campaign to reconstitute our government with people who will actually heed the warnings of those who know best. Every time we pick up the tab that our government refuses to pay, they have an excuse to do it again. and again. and again.

Our (my wife and I) home is open to university faculty looking to relocate, we've volunteerd to foster a dog that has been rescued from N.O., but we're not sending any money. I sent money last year in my tax statement. But those on capital hill aren't giving it to the Red Cross as I would have it. I don't want to donate money now; I want the government to do what's right with the money I donated last year.

Well done:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/gras.html