Okay, so I quit Xanga and I have deleted all my old posts except for a few that I had trouble deleting.  I thought they were too good or too important to delete.  I'll either leave them on here for others to read or I'll put them on my computer somewhere for posterity.  There's only 11 of them and I went through and titled them so it would be easier to search through.  They are as follows:

Farhenheit 911 - My first significant rant immediately after I watched the movie.
Chris Versus Scott Part 1 - A short post that ignited several back and forth discussion between Scott and myself.
Chris Versus Scott Part 2 - My response to Scott's comments.
Chris Versus Scott Part 3 - My response to Scott's response to my response.  I also made a final response as a comment on this post.
Stereotypes and Generalizations Are Not Always Bad - A discussion about the validity of some race and gender generaliztions.
CNN Versus FOXNEWS - Examining the philosophies behind the major news networks.
It Is Well - A discussion of why I believe in Christ and the experiences that brought me to where I am.
Liberalism and Communism Share Christian Ideas - A discussion about liberalism/communism and how they share a lot of ideas with hardcore Christianity.
National Tragedy, Katrina, Worsened By Selfishness - My thoughts on Katrina and my anger with selfish media, thugs, hobos, and politicians.
Terrorists and Some Politicans Want Another Vietnam - A discussion about the ludicrous charges that Bush lied and the attempts to erode public support from the ongoing war effort.
The Worst Game Ever: OU @ TT - An in depth analysis of all the bad calls that made this game the worst officiated game I have ever seen.

I'll still comment on other people's posts, but there will be no more posts from me.

THE WORST GAME EVER: OU @ TT

I have never seen a football game with more erroneous calls in my life.  This changed the outcome of the game on more than just one bad call.  Texas Tech should not be credited with a win against OU.  But unfortunately, due to several bad calls on at least two drives, Texas Tech was able to go down the field and then they were given a touchdown to win the game.  I'm not one of those fans who gets angry and blames the refs anytime a call goes against my team.  I'm not afraid to admit some calls were good ones.  But there were far too many that were unbelievably bad.  Let me go through some of the bad calls for you:

1st Quarter:
13:31: Henderson ran for 30 yards, and an intentional facemask penalty was called on the OU defender as he stepped out of bounds.  It's not disputable that the defender did touch the facemask.  But it was clearly just an incidental brush as he was trying to tackle him.  He didn't pull the facemask, and the guy's head didn't jerk due to the touching of it.  That should have been a 5 yard penalty, not 15.  But not a huge deal... I could understand someone making the mistake of giving that a 15 yard penalty, bad calls like that happen every game.  And it was a first down anyway, so the only difference due to the call was yardage.

3rd Quarter:

2:05:  Here's where it started getting bad.  Hodges (the quarterback) rushed for 9 yards, but a flag was thrown: late hit out of bounds on Rufus Alexander.  The problem is Hodges was IN BOUNDS when Rufus hit him.  He ran towards the sideline, and kept going tiptoeing down the sideline for more yardage when Rufus hit him.  The force of the blow took both of them well out of bounds, but the hit was layed while they were both still in bounds.  One of the TV announcers agreed that it was a questionable penalty, and the other said Rufus shouldn't have risked it, saying Hodges was on his way out of bounds and Rufus should have let him run out on his own.  The problem with that philosophy is that if Rufus didn't hit him, Hodges would have kept tiptoeing down the sideline for more yardage and a first down.  It ought to be a flagrant late hit for there to be a flag thrown in any circumstance.  But this wasn't even one of those plays where the defender leaps through the air to tackle the guy, and then in midair the guy runs out of bounds and a penalty flag is thrown.  This one actually occurred in bounds, making it completely erroneous.  Okay, another clearly bad call.  But bad calls do happen, you have to live with it.

4th Quarter:

about 14:25: Same drive as before.  It's 3rd down and 8 at the Oklahoma 28 yard line.  It's important to stop them here to prevent them from scoring.  A penalty was called as Rufus Alexander tackled Cody Hodges (the quarterback) as he threw it: roughing the passer.  The pass went incomplete, so it should be 4th and 8, but the penalty makes a first down.  Now the TV people really did a bad job on this play.  I was actually watching Rufus hit the quarterback as the cameraman turned to follow the ball and my comment was, "wow, that was a good hit on the quarterback."  It wasn't clearly seen as it was happening in the corner of the screen as the cameraman moved.  But just from that real-time shot of it it appeared to me like Rufus had a good hit on the quarterback.  Yeah, Hodges got the ball off right before Alexander got there, but there was no way Alexander could have stopped.  But the TV people didn't bother to show a replay to highlight the penalty.  They didn't even show the referee's explanation of the penalty.  Most likely it was another one of those stupid calls that the refs make when a guy is flying through the air on the way to sacking the quarterback and the quarterback gets the ball off at the last second.  But the defender that is in midair has no way to stop himself, he just has to finish the play.  And as a defender, you can't always tell whether the ball was released yet or not.  So any time the refs call a penalty for a play like that no matter what team is playing I get livid.  It makes absolutely no sense.  The only way that this call could have been legitimate is if Rufus had hit helmets with the quarterback, because apparently hitting helmets with the quarterback is considered roughing the passer no matter what.  But from the short view I had of the play (since, as I said they didn't bother to show a replay) Rufus made a clean hit on the quarterback.  A play most defensive coaches would encourage.

After these two penalties (30 yards), Texas Tech goes down the field (with the help of a pass interference call which I can't argue with) and scores a touchdown to make the score 17-7.  But really Texas Tech should have had to punt when Hodges's pass fell incomplete.  But the bogus penalties not only gave them yardage, but maintained their possession long enough to score.  So the real score at this point should be 10-7 still.

1:23: After Oklahoma comes back and scores two touchdowns to make the score 21-17, Texas Tech tries to make one last drive for the win.  They make it all the way to the Oklahoma 26 yard line and are forced to go for it on 4th and 3.  Hodges throws the ball out of the pocket, but it's tipped at the line of scrimage.  There's a fight over the ball as an Oklahoma player grabs the ball and pulls it into his chest, with a Texas Tech receiver trying to grab it as well.  The call on the field is that the Texas Tech receiver caught the ball for a first down.  But it was clear the Oklahoma guy had the ball more so than the Tech guy did.  But EVEN IF the Tech guy had caught the ball, he was a FULL YARD short of the first down marker.  And I'm not just judging by where the yellow line is on TV.  I judged by the first down marker on the sideline, too.  Regardless of who it was ruled actually caught the ball, it was caught at the 24 yard line, a full yard short of the first down.  So it should be Oklahoma's possession now and we should have been able to run out the clock.  But they actually do review this call and confirmed the reception.  The only thing I can think of is that they just reviewed whether OU or TT had caught the ball, and they decided that there was not indisputable evidence to overrule the call on the field that TT had caught it.  But I guess they didn't bother to take a look at where the spot was because to anyone who was actually looking at the play, it was clear that it happened a full yard before the first down marker and not where the refs on the field had placed it.  This is unbelievable that the refs can make a call like this that will change the result of the game, and the people in the booth upstairs actually review it and forget to look at where the ball should be spotted.  Yeah, there's nothing I can do about it, but I think everyone who saw it should be outraged and anyone who looks at our two teams to decide rankings or bowl games they should take into account that Oklahoma won that football game until the officials gave it away.

Okay, so Texas Tech has less than 30 seconds left.  They throw it and get it complete to the Oklahoma 5 yard line.  They throw the ball in the corner of the end zone and it's ruled a touchdown.  But the problem is it was clear the guy was not only bobbling the ball, but he even dropped it.  Thankfully, though, they reviewed the play and took the touchdown away.  But it was another horrendous call that would have decided the game.  The next play there is a pass interference call.  That was a legitimate call, the OU defender didn't think he could catch the TT receiver so he grabbed him.  Legitimate call, and even a good play by the defender to take the penalty over the touchdown.  So that moves the ball to the 2 yard line.  6 seconds left.  They throw it again but it falls incomplete.  4 seconds, they decide to run with Henderson, and as he falls down at the goal line he stretches the ball across for a touchdown after the clock expired.  The refs give it to him.  They review the call upstairs and confirm it.  From what I saw on the replay it was clear to me that he was lying on his side when he began to stretch the ball across the goal line, which means the ball would have been spotted where the ball was when he first fell down.  One of the announcers said that it looked like he had fallen down on top of one of his other players, so he technically was not on the ground.  From my view I would disagree and say his knee was down even though part of his body was on his teammate.  The call was reviewed and confirmed, giving Texas Tech a 23-21 win that should never go in the books as a win.

So let's review.  The refs gave Texas Tech 30 yards in illegitimate penalties (15 additional yards that were probably legit) on a drive at the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 4th quarter that resulted in a touchdown (including 15 yards of penalties on 3rd and 8 which should have forced a punt).  Then on the final drive they completely mishandle the 4th and 3 play where the OU defender intercepted the ball.  Even if TT had gotten the ball, it was at least a yard short of the first down, giving OU the ball on downs.  Then Texas Tech goes on to score on an at least very controversial play where Henderson extended his arm across the goal line after he was down to give them the win.  Now, I don't think the officials were trying to get Texas Tech to win, although they may have been influenced by the screaming of the fans.  I did become suspicious, though, when they tried to give TT a touchdown on the dropped pass when it was obvious it was incomplete.  But the result of their negligence and inability to make decent calls (including the guys reviewing them) gave the win to the wrong team.  But that final drive wouldn't have even mattered if it hadn't been for the touchdown they got off of all those bogus penalties at the beginning of the 4th quarter.  Everyone who sees the result of this game should also see the calls that gave the game to the wrong team.  There should be an asterick in the record books on this game that says the victor was really not the winner.  I've never made a statement this extreme before.  I've never said that a game was decided on bad calls before.  And even if it was decided on one bad call, I would have a little bit of understanding knowing that bad calls happen on both sides and we have to live with them.  But when there are SO MANY bad calls in a game on two crucial drives that result in touchdowns, then it's clear that the officials were the deciding factor in the game.  And that should NEVER happen.

OU is familiar with bad calls this season that could easily influence the outcome of a game.  But this is the first time that 1) there have been so many bogus calls on crucial drives, and 2) that the bad calls actually gave us a loss when we should have had a win.  In the UCLA game, we started a comeback at the end of the 3rd quarter and brought the game to within 3 points.  UCLA got the ball again, and an OU defender intercepted the ball, bringing it all the way back to the UCLA 25 yard line.  But a flag was thrown for pass interference (it was clearly a bad call, even the announcers and Bob Stoops after seeing the film agreed it was a bad call), bringing UCLA 15 yards closer to scoring their next touchdown and ending OU's chances of coming back.  But bad calls happen occasionally, and OU had time to come back again and rely on their defense and we still lost.  So even though it was a bad call that could have influenced the game, we probably would have lost anyway.  There were two interceptions in the Texas game that were called back due to penalties as well, though they weren't as flagrant as the UCLA one.  But that game wasn't really winnable either.  Then during the Baylor game, as Baylor went for the two point conversion to force an overtime, the quarterback ran the ball towards the end zone but was a stupid retard and decided to dive toward the end zone even though he wasn't touched.  They gave him the two point conversion anyway, even though even the TV announcers agreed that his knees hit the ground before he got to the end zone because of his unnecessary dive.  Then during overtime when Hartley had to try for the 39 yard field goal to force a second OT, the refs inexplicably blew the wistles to call a time out even though Baylor had already used their time out.  So basically the refs tried to ice the kicker since Baylor didn't have a timeout to do it themselves.  The announcers were just as livid as I was about that.  So I'm not crazy.  But we were able to pull that game out dispite the bad call on the 2 point conversion and the attempt by the officials to ice the kicker.

So there have been bad calls in lots of games this season that have gone against the Sooners.  But no group of officials have been as bad as the ones we had to deal with down in Lubbock.  I can understand making occasional bad calls because no one is perfect.  But that game was full of bad calls on crucial drives.  Not just one call, but multiple calls.  Two of Texas Tech's three touchdowns were a direct result of incompetent officiating.  Their second touchdown was after 45 yards of penalties on the drive, and their last one was a result of an interception ruled a completion and a blatantly horrendous spot, as well as a touchdown that occurred after the running back was on the ground.  There should be an uproar over this game.  There really should.  This was unbelievable.  But unfortunately not many people will even realize that there were at least 5 (by my count) bad calls on two crucial TT drives that resulted in touchdowns.  They won't know because no one on TV will talk about it.  Most people on TV don't want OU back in the top 25.  They'd rather hype Big 10 games, SEC rivalries, and USC domination than consider how good Oklahoma has become this season.  After we beat Nebraska in Lincoln for the first time since the 1980s, I didn't see any coverage of it on TV.  OU vs Nebraska is one of the biggest and oldest rivalries out there.  It's true that neither of us were ranked at the time, but when will either of us get ranked if no one talks about us?  After this loss, we may not be ranked until after our bowl game (assuming we win it).  Even though the combined record of all the teams we've lost to is 38-4.  Texas and UCLA are both really good teams that were both undefeated not long ago and Texas still is.  TCU has risen in the rankings despite an embarassing loss to SMU, and if OU had played TCU later in the season we would have beaten them.  Instead, we played them our first game when almost all of our players still had no experience.  Now we have a loss to Texas Tech... a team that although in my opinion they are overrated, they have a 9-2 record and pass for more yardage than any other team in the nation.  And we shouldn't have been given a loss to them, so we should be ranked.

Sorry to ramble so long.  I'm really livid about this.  I've never seen something this outrageous in my life.  Like I keep saying, I understand bad calls happen, but they should never happen this frequently in crucial drives that changed the outcome of the game like they did today.

**UPDATE** During the halftime show of the USC game, the FSN analysts were reviewing the plays of the day and showed the final play of this TT/OU game.  They said, "And the official rules it a touchdown, but clearly he was down before he got the ball across."  I'm glad they made note of that, and I hope there is more outrage.  **

** UPDATE AGAIN** It's also worth noting that the human polls still don't have Oklahoma in the top 25, but the BCS has had us #25 twice.  The only thing putting us up there is the computers... which actually look at all the teams regardless of media coverage.  5 of the 6 computers have us ranked as follows: 19, 18, 18, 16, and 13.  I don't know if I'd put us that high yet, but it just shows the positive effect the computers have on the way the system works. **

** FINAL UPDATE** One more thing.  When Henderson was ruled down by the officials, there were still 2 seconds left on the clock.  One official ruled him down, the other ruled touchdown.  The touchdown stood, so the clock should have stopped with 2 seconds left.  I didn't notice that in the game.  I saw it on replay on Sports Center.  Yet another bad decision that went against us.**

TERRORISTS AND SOME POLITICIANS WANT ANOTHER VIETNAM

I realize I haven't posted in a while, but I just commented on Scott's Xanga and realized it was long enough to be a post itself.  Here's most of my comment on his post.  I REALLY, REALLY would appreciate getting several insightful comments in response.

The Democrats didn't accomplish anything by calling this surprise classified closed-door session.  It was just a stunt.  There is already a Senate committee looking into the issue of pre-war intelligence.  They've already released one report and are in the process of writing another report to go over the issues the first report was unable to address.  All this was was a stunt by the Democrats to attract the media's (which is always eager to report anything anti-Bush) attention and make it appear that there is some kind of cover up that the Democrats are trying to uncover.  Even many of the Democrats admit that it was a stunt.

The intelligence agencies of the whole world thought Saddam had WMDs, and many of them still think he had them.  We got most of our intelligence from other countries like Britain, France, Germany, and Russia because the Democrats back in the 1970s stopped us from having human intelligence networks.  We have to rely on other countries for that.  So how can anyone say that Bush manipulated intelligence that every country in the world had come to agreement on?  There was no disagreement at the UN as to whether Saddam had the weapons he was forbidden to have.  The only disagreement was whether or not to take him out (and the only countries that didn't want to take him out were the countries that had the most money to lose if he were no longer in power: France, Germany, Russia).  And this report that this Wilson guy gave about uranium in Nigeria only confirmed what Bush had said in his State of the Union speech (though you'd hardly hear that on the news).  Bush had said "British intelligence says Saddam has tried to buy uranium in Africa."  Wilson's report agreed with that.  Saddam did try to buy uranium from Niger, but he didn't actually get any.  That did nothing to discredit the widely held belief that Saddam intended to get nuclear weapons, it only meant that this one attempt had failed.

The Democrats just wish that they could make a controversy because they hate Bush so much.  They want us to lose in Iraq so they can regain power in Washington.  I realize that's a bold statement, but it's plainly clear that it's true.  Ted Kennedy and others were labelling Iraq a "quagmire" and Bush a "failure" in May 2003 while the initial operations were still going on!  If they had waited until now to label it that, I'd at least give them some credibility.  But they labelled it that from the beginning because that's what they want it to be.  They want it to be another Vietnam (and so do the terrorists... I hope and pray that is only an unfortunate coincidence) and they will do and say anything to convince people that it is.  But it has been almost 3 years now and 2,000 soldiers have died.  60,000 died in Vietnam.  Those numbers hardly compare.  It sucks every time we lose a soldier, but just because there are casualties doesn't mean the battle is lost or wasn't worth it.  And those who are serving in Iraq were not drafted, they all volunteered.  We're also not fighting a foreign army that has any reasonable chance of winning.  We're fighting a bunch of terrorist thugs who hide in the civilian population until they blow themselves up.  They're not fighting for a country, they're fighting for the sake of blowing up the infidels.  The best comparison that can be made between the two wars is the erosion of public support.  That loss of public support is THE reason we lost in Vietnam (and all who died there died for a lost cause), and it is the ONLY way we could possibly lose in Iraq.  Unfortunately in this war, it has taken far fewer casualties and far less time for the American people to give up and allow our brave soldiers to die in vain.  We can't just agree to go to war and then back out when someone gets killed.  That's what our recent history has been, though, and that's what the terrorists honestly expect us to do.  Unfortunately half the country now wants the same thing that the terrorists there want.  If, God forbid, we get into another long, intense war like WWII and the outcome really isn't certain, I don't think our country will last long and everyone will give up until they see the invading armies in our streets, blowing up our men, raping our women, and defecating on the once great democracy that this nation has spent more than 200 years perfecting.

Comments anyone?  Please?  PLEASE????

NATIONAL TRAGEDY, KATRINA, WORSENED BY SELFISHNESS

This whole hurricane thing makes me so upset.  First, I feel very much for the people down there, and if I didn't have commitments with school here and I thought it would do any good, I would have gone down there to help out.  It will probably go down as the most significant natural disaster of our time.

Second, I was once again horrified at what I saw from reporters on TV.  When mandatory evacuations are issued, everyone should get out of the area.  Instead, over the past several years we have witnessed again and again reporters going to the projected landfall location and we see live shots of the reporters standing out in the wind and rain while they tell everyone else to evacuate.  11 people were killed in Florida when this hit, and many of them were pedestrians.  11 people is far more than you would expect from a minimal category 1 hurricane.  I suspect that at least some of the pedestrians that died when hit by flying debris and falling trees is because they saw the reporters standing out there and thought they could do it too.  And when the warning was issued that New Orleans would likely flood and everyone would be in serious danger if they stayed, the reporters flocked to the city to ride it out there.  After the storm, we saw lots of arial footage of the flooded city.  My problem with that is those helicopters were doing no good.  They flew over and took pictures while people were on their roof waving desperately for help.  They should have either rescued the people themselves, or given their helicopters over to people that could use them for a good purpose.  I also saw footage from a boat as people were being taken out of their houses and floated to safety.  And if it hadn't been for the cameraman in the boat, too, then there would be room for at least one more person per trip and more people could be rescued and more lives saved.  I even saw one reporter reporting in front of a large group of angry people who he said didn't know that they were going to be bussed to Houston and he had the nerve to say that the authorities were slack in getting the word out.  I say, if you know that they are going to Houston and the people around you are not aware of that and are mad because they don't know about it, then you should take it upon yourself to spread the word.  Overall, the media in this situation is to blame for a lot of deaths and should be ashamed of themselves for getting in the way and not helping out.

Third, it amazes me how people can take a bad situation and make it worse just because they think they can get away with things they normally wouldn't.  In the first days after the storm, as the officials tried to begin the process of rescuing those that were trapped, we began seeing images of rampant looting all through the town.  Now it's one thing to steal some bottled water or some food so you can survive until help arrives.  It's an entirely different thing to clear out an entire Walmart and take TVs, video games, and clothing home with you just because you can.  And the people that were doing it had the biggest smiles on their faces.  These people are the scum of the Earth.  This caused the police that were still in the city to have to spend their time combating all these thugs rather than rescuing people that were trapped.  I heard that as much as 50% of the police in the city deserted and the rest were left to rescue people and fight criminals.  And it's not like the police could arrest anyone because all their jails were under water.  It wasn't an easy situation and these thugs made things a lot worse.  And unfortunately it doesn't appear like it was just a small number of people who resorted to this type of uncivilized activity, it was a large number.

Fourth, violence and selfishness cost a lot more people their lives.  As rescue helicopters try to rescue people off their roof, people start shooting at the helicopter.  The copter is forced to fly away and abandon the rescue.  Rescuers in boats try to take some injured patients to safety, but they come under fire as well and have to abandon the mission.  Even a helicopter that was trying to unload food and water to the people gathered on the ground came under fire and was forced to drop the supplies from the air and fly away.  And we see on television large crowds of angry people chanting "HELP" and then hear how some of these groups of people have surrounded a hospital and prevented the ambulances from picking up the patients.  They demanded that the ambulances be used to evacuate these protesting refugees first before they evacuated the people that were in the hospital dieing because the ventilators and other equipment had no power.  If I were in charge of evacuating the patients from that hospital, I would have announced that anyone attempting to prevent us from assisting these people would be shot.  And if they continued to block the entrances, several of them would be killed until they got out of the way.  It seems to me that it is better for a couple of selfish idiots to die in order to save the lives of those who are in most dire need of immediate assistance.  The attitude of a lot of the people in New Orleans made the post-storm evacuation a lot slower than it had to be.  I realize that in a survival situation people tend to react impulsively and fight for their lives.  But when someone is trying to help, you should get out of the way and let them help.  It makes sense that people who will only live a few more hours or days without evacuating should be the first to leave, while those who can survive longer should wait for the next boat/helicopter/ambulance/bus out.  A lot of people died in attics, rooftops, and hospitals not because rescuers were unprepared to get them, but because other selfish citizens prevented or delayed their rescue.

Fifth, I think it's bad that some people have convinced themselves that we couldn't help people in New Orleans because our money and our troops were in Iraq.  First, we had all the personelle we needed to get the people out.  The Red Cross, FEMA, and the National Gaurd were getting ready to respond before the storm even hit.  The post-storm problem was not that we didn't have resources available in our country.  The crux of why we couldn't get supplies and rescuers in as quickly as would be ideal was because most of the bridges were washed away (and the one that was still standing had to be inspected first).  Then you had the problem that the whole city was under water.  You can't just drive through a lake, you have to find boats to use for transportation.  Then the relief efforts were slowed down by looters and then thugs shooting at rescuers.  Thousands of National Guard and regular troops were either in place or en route and the governor of Louisianna said that all the National Guard troops she had requested were being deployed.  There was no shortage of troops.  And money is not an issue in a situation like this because we will do whatever we have to do to get people out regardless of how much money we have spent either in Iraq or on other controversial "pork" spending here in our own country.  So Iraq is irrelevant.  But even if it were relevant, even if the troops we needed were over there, it would take weeks to get them to New Orleans from Bagdad and therefore is not a viable option for immediate relief for those people.  But alas, some people won't agree with you on anything even when it shouldn't be controversial.

My last point is about all the blame that is going around about the government didn't do this or that in time.  As I said in some of the previous points, the government had the resources but faced several unanticipated challenges in coordinating a quick response.  The first problem was initial reports after the storm.  I remember as the eye had just moved NE of New Orleans (it hadn't yet made landfall in Mississippi), Shephard Smith from Fox News was reporting from New Orleans and he said it appeared the worst had bypassed the city once again.  He said that the storm weakened as it moved in, just as they all do, and that it moved East of the city just like they all do and that the city avoided the "Armagedon" that forecasters had predicted.  I remember thinking at the time that he was only seeing things from the window of his hotel in Downtown, and also that the eye wall actually moved across the eastern portions of the city.  The center of the storm didn't move over the Superdome, but it was close enough that the strongest winds in the eye wall affected parts of the city itself.  My point in that is to say that all day Monday we heard how the storm wasn't as bad as it was predicted to be, and Shephard Smith even said that there would be parties on Bourbon Street again by the end of the week.  It took until Tuesday for us to realize that things were a lot worse.  One levee had failed, and it took time for this levee failure to impact the rest of the city and cause the other two levee failures.  Then they had trouble getting supplies and rescuers into the city because of the bridge collapses, then the looting, then the shooting at police and rescuers themselves.  Given the situation and particularly the complications involved with the thugs shooting at rescuers, I completely understand why the people in the city weren't evacuated out of the city until Wednesday or later.  Is that a bad thing?  Yes, obviously many people died waiting to be helped.  But a mandatory evacuation was issued, and by definition that means that anyone who stays is forfitting access to medical, fire, and even police services.  Those who elected to stay take the risk of dieing while they wait for rescuers to come and pull them off the roof of the home they should have evacuated several days earlier.

It's a shame that so many people are getting themselves worked up to blame one person or another for a situation that was not only unstoppable (and inevitable), but larger than anything we've had to deal with ever before.  A lot of people blame the federal government, particularly FEMA or President Bush, for not getting supplies to the stranded people in time.  But really a situation like this is the responsability of the local governments first, then the states, and then the federal government as more help is needed.  I heard Bill O'Reilly criticize the mayor of New Orleans (Ray Nagin) on Friday for not taking control of the situation like Mayor Giuliani did in NYC after 9/11.  I took exception to his criticism because the situations were much different.  Giuliani was able to communicate to his citizens through television during and after the event and was able to calm people that way and establish order.  But Nagin had his entire city underwater and no way to communicate to his citizens because all power and communications were out.  Nagin is a black Democrat, so don't anyone accuse me of just sticking up for Republicans or people I agree with.  There are a few things he should have done, though.  He didn't issue a mandatory evacuation until Sunday morning, less than 24 hours before the storm hit, and he was only persuaded to do it then because he and the governor got a call from President Bush urging him to do so.  Now it's inevitable that some people won't be able to get out because they don't have a car, and others will refuse to leave no matter what.  But the more than 300 city buses should have been used to take the carless people out of the city to an area that was above sea level at least.

Bush declared the entire area a disaster area on Saturday, 2 days before the storm hit.  From all that I have heard that has never happened before.  He did that so that federal resources would be available immediately after the storm passed rather than the 48 hours that it usually takes.  Those resources (like the National Gaurd) are given to the state and the governor gives them their orders.  Yet still the polls say that 45% of the country think Bush is to blame for the people dieing in New Orleans.  I'm thankful that more people (55%) think he's not, but I submit to you that those 45% will hate Bush no matter what he says or does or what he doesn't say or doesn't do.  It's dispicable that a natural disaster and national tragedy like this is so easily turned into a political event.  Some Democrats on the floor of Congress today went so far as to say this was "criminal negligence" by the Bush administration, and Jesse Jackson has been saying for days now that the people in New Orleans weren't helped because they were black.  All of this is ridiculous and hurtful not only to the situation but to the good nature of our whole country.  There's no reason that our nation has to be divided politically because of a natural disaster like this.

Bottom line, I don't blame anyone for a slow response to the disaster.  So many people are trying to say that people lost their lives because of the incompetence of someone else.  I see it as so many people's lives were saved because of advanced warning not only of the hurricane's approach but of the destruction it would cause to the levee system and the city.  Anyone who stayed behind in the city and survived is simply bonus (because frankly they were expected to die in the floodwaters) and there should be nothing but praise for those who worked to get them out.  I understand that some things most likely could have been done better.  Every situation is like that.  And in hindsight, we should make better plans and provisions so that we will be better prepared to respond to a disaster of this massive scale, beginning with getting EVERYONE out ahead of time.  But I'm not the type of person who sees that something could have been done better and therefore think that whoever was in charge should be fired.  I think everyone involved gave an honest effort to help.  Mistakes are always made, but they should be learned from.  No one's head should roll when this is over (except maybe the media I mentioned in point number 2) because this disaster was far bigger than anything we've seen before.  I would only fire someone if it is clear that they made chronic mistakes or were unable to follow directions.  This whole situation was horrible, but it shouldn't cause such bickering among ourselves and we shouldn't blame anyone.

LIBERALISM AND COMMUNISM SHARE CHRISTIAN IDEAS

The basic idea of both liberalism and communism is that we should do everything we can to help those who are less fortunate.  And Christianity agrees with that.  Christians are to give to those who are needy because nothing we "own" is really our own anyway.  It belongs to God because we gave it back to Him, and so we don't mind sacrificing our time, belongings, and money to share God's love with others.  The difference, as Dustin mentioned, is that God intended for man to have free will.  Christians are supposed to give, but it is done voluntarily.  Liberalism and communism seek to force everyone to give everything whether they want to or not.  And when noncommitted people see that they dont' benefit from their hard work, they don't put forth their best efforts anymore.

Having said that, I don't think communism will ever work unless it is in a small group of people (probably less than one thousand), and everyone in that group is entirely committed to the idea of communism.  Because unlike our Declaration of Independence says, not all men are created equal.  They are given the same basic rights, but not everyone is gifted enough to contribute to society equally.  So some people will be pulling more than their share of the load while others can only contribute a little.

I think this kind of economy that everyone contributes as much as they can and everyone benefits equally could work in a church.  Becuase the people in that church could be committed to the idea that everything they have is given to God (and given to the church's coffers), and God gives them what they need to live on (what the church distributes evenly back to its members and to those in the community that need it).  But I don't think that has existed since the churches of Biblical times.  And although it has existed within certain cult groups particularly back in the 70s, they ended up all committing suicide and so we can't really judge whether that system would have lasted through several generations.

I think the culture of our free market society has gotten churches and Christians to think that they should take what they think they need and then give the left overs to the church or to charity.  But that makes it too easy for us to keep more than we need for ourselves.  If all of us gave everything we had and lived on what we got in return to sustain us, then we would truly be putting our entire faith in God and devoting all of our money, all of our energy, all of the things we work for in this life to the cause of Christ.  But I wouldn't recommend anyone sell everything they have and give it to a local church.  Because I don't know of any church that would be prepared to provide you with food and shelter in return for your donation simply because no churches operate under that total giving and total reliance philosophy anymore.

Well, that was a lot longer than I thought it would be.  I would have typed more and maybe tried to make it sound better, but I should be packing.  My main point is that I actually agree with the main idea of communism and liberalism.  I just think people should be given the freedom to choose what to do with their own money and that our government should consist of three basic principles: national security (military), domestic security (police, and local lawmaking), and infrastructure (roads, bridges, and to some extent schools).  That's what makes me a conservative economically... and probably more conservative than anyone that will ever read this post.