The Pendragon's Hall

There was a really good article in US News & World Report this past week. John Leo wrote a column entitled "The Race Canard" in which he argued that the supposed discrimination on the basis of race that took place in New Orleans was a lie fabricated by the media. He quoted an editor from The Oregonian who wrote, "In a time of national crisis, another media-driven race war is the last thing this country needs." I'll agree with that. Leo wrote, "The hard-hit mostly white parishes around New Orleans waited just as long as the poorest wards of the city did for help." He jeered at black leaders who claimed the supposed "neglect" of black people in New Orleans was comparable to the lynchings or slavery in infamy. Leo asks a burning question, one that deserves a straight answer: Why has mainstream "white" America donated well over $750 million to mostly black victims if this country is as racist as it was when it was lynching freed blacks? That is an excellent question, one the Left has never answered. Another writer, Heather McDonald of City Journal, wrote, "The givers are refusing the bigot's reaction of impugning an entire race by the loathsome behavior of a few." This is also a good point. If white America was racist and the stories of poor blacks turning sniper fabricated to justify why the military didn't intervene to save more lives in the black areas then why are donations not being withheld on the basis that all blacks are dirty snipers who deserve what they get? Because, at the end of the day. white America is not racist. Certain white Americans may be, but those who accuse our entire race of being racist on the basis of a handful are doing exactly what they accuse us of doing.

This underlines a further point. Why are the "victims" never wrong? Is it any less racist for Maya Angelou to say white people weren't even human to her than for a Klan member to burn a cross? Is it any less snobby when a blind girl sneers that people who don't eat lunch with her are "too good" for her? But no, in new politically-correct media land, it's all about victimization and there's nothing these victims shouldn't have done for them.

Well, the news and its interpretations make me furious but sometimes I like to take a break from politics and focus on one of my other passions: football, particularly New York Giants football. I must say I am very impressed by the effort the team is putting forth this year, going 2-0 with two very convincing margins of victory. Now granted, the Cardinals and the Saints are not the league's best teams by any means and the pathetic showing last year ensures that the Giants have a mostly soft schedule. But I am impressed because normally the Giants edge out the really powerful teams and lose to the easy ones. Now that they are beating the easy ones and I predict a good showing against an 0-2 San Diego on Sunday, I have hope that their record will be better and they will be so used to winning, they may even be able to top teams like the Falcons and Rams later on in the year. Go, Giants!

And now, completely unqualified, my predictions for Week 3 of the NFL:
Falcons @ Bills: Falcons by 10. The Bills are good but the Falcons are probably the best team in the NFC right now.
Panthers @ Dolphins: Panthers by 3. Miami just isn't cutting it this season.
Bengals @ Bears: Bears by 1. I'm going with the hometeam although the Bengals have had a superb start.
Browns @ Colts: Colts by at least 7. This one's a no-brainer.
Jaguars @ Jets: Jaguars by 2. Jets are choking. I hope I'm wrong.
Saints @ Vikings: Saints by 7. The Vikings really are struggling.
Raiders @ Eagles: Eagles by 21. Another no-brainer.
Buccaneers @ Packers: Bucs by 7.
Titans @ Rams: I'll go with the Titans by 1.
Cardinals @ Seahawks: Cardinals stink. Seahawks by 7.
Cowboys @ 49ers: 49ers by 3. The first time ever I'll be cheering for San Fran.
Patriots @ Steelers: Pittsburgh will be this year's AFC champion I think. Steelers by 6.
Giants @ Chargers: Close game but I call the Giants by at least 3.
Chiefs @ Broncos: Kansas City is the only AFC team that will challenge Pittsburgh's superiority this season. Chiefs by 14.

The John Roberts hearings continue apace. Most Senate Democrats are admitting they can find nothing in him worthy of death...or rejection. But that doesn't mean they're not trying. Senator Schumer remarked, according to yesterday's edition of "The Buffalo News", "It's important to determine not just the quality of your mind, but the fullness of your heart." Make me sick. I'd settle for knowing he's not an ignorant cretin, I don't particularly care whether he harbors love in his heart for all mankind. I wonder too how the good Senator plans to demonstrate what the fullness of anyone's heart is. Ask any historian: motivations are hard to determine. Even RINO Lindsey Graham (SC) remarked, "If we go down this road of putting people's hearts in play, and the only way you can have a good heart is, 'Adopt my value systems,' we are doing a great disservice to the judiciary." You can knock me over with a feather but she is right. A person's "heart" really isn't all that important to whether he or she will be a good judge. What matters is their views on law--whether they intend to legislate or simply interpret, whether or not they view the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This is what I want to know about Roberts and any other nominee Bush sends down the line. You can keep his heart.

President Bush did well tonight. His speech was measured and serious and laid out a plan of action that is both well thought out and doable. It wasn't his most inspirational speech but we don't always need speeches like that. It's the very thing that sets apart Bush from Democratic presidents we have had recently. Whenever a disaster struck, the first thing Clinton wanted to do was leap on the nearest TV station and start orating about how he felt everyone's pain. The first thing that Bush does is go to the area or get in touch with someone already there and find out what the situation is. He then gets with his advisors and discusses what to do about it. In a few days, he knows the situation and what he is planning to do and he can then make a clear case to the American public. This is what our Presidents are supposed to do. Clinton can cry with the families but Bush will rebuild New Orleans. Clinton can orate for hours on the dirty terrorists but Bush will make them pay. While I distrust getting the Federal government more involved in all these disaster-related things, I realize he is doing what he has to do. I can only hope certain officials from the other side can stop playing blame games long enough to rally behind him and actually make a difference in the people's lives in the Gulf region. It can't hurt.

In my Civil War readings for this semester I stumbled upon a jewel of a letter from a Union soldier to the folks back home about "morale" at the front lines. I wish I could publish the whole thing but it's kind of late now and the letter is fairly wordy. So I'll just run through the most profound parts and hopefully maybe find a webpage later with the whole thing. It was written in the spring of 1863, following crushing Union defeats at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville and yet somehow this soldier still could say some of the following things:

"There are but very few men in this regiment that desire peace on any terms short of entire submission on the part of the enemy."

"(War-Protesters) are not the rule, they are exceptions, and there is hardly enough of them to make a decent exception."

"They would consider that (peace at any price) tarnished their honor and robbed them of the praise and glory that would justly belong to them...."

"If our friends at home joins hands with the citizen rebels here and advocate their cause, they will expect to receive the same regard from the soldiers that we give these; and that is just what we are obliged to give them and no more."

"Defeats are not the only way to demoralize our army. Preach to them the justice of the rebel course, dwell largely on their grievances, speak of the injustice and corruption of our own government, and if soldiers will believe you, you have done more to demoralize the army than the enemy could by a thorough victory of their arms."

"Whatever tends to weaken the faith (in the justice of the Union cause) cannot be born of patriotism."

excerpted from "Major Problems in the Civil War and Reconstruction (2nd ed.), edited by Michael Perman, pps. 130-131.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

How far will they go? Cindy Sheehan, the NYT, and the German government are gloating over the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and saying (surprise!) that it's all Bush's fault. They often accuse Conservatives of thinking of Bush as our messiah and now they have just elevated him to Godlike status and given him charge of the weather. I have news for these people: Bush is not responsible for the weather, nor is he responsible for disaster relief efforts in Louisiana. If you want to blame someone, blame the state government for not being prepared. It was their job to keep their state safe and they blew it. Now, as usual, they expect the federal government to bail them out and if it doesn't do so up to their expectations then it must be to blame for the disaster and the failure to follow it up. Anything but admit responsibility. Does it really matter who is to blame? It was a disaster. Millions of people are being displaced and all the state government of Louisiana can do is moan about what the federal government should have done. And if Senator Landrieu wants to punch me, I just might punch her back.

Just when you think you've seen it all! Following the deadliest hurricane in my memory to ever come ashore here, when half or better of New Orleans is underwater and five hundred thousand Americans are now homeless, human nature is again displaying its worst side. In the sweaty Metrodome, armed gangs are targeting helpless civilians. In the mainstream media, the press is targeting President Bush. The two are, I think, not dissimilar.

What are the gangs doing? They are using people's tragic circumstances to advance their own agenda. When people are homeless and hurting and helpless, these homegrown terrorists are stalking and harming them. Their agenda is to advance their own power and position and to hurt innocent people into the mix.

What is the press doing? They are politicizing a great tragedy, the greatest natural disaster I have ever known, in order to blame it on a President they hate. American Morning host Miles O'Brien tried to nail the blame for the devastation on President Bush, demanding of Mississippi governor Haley Barbour whether or not the administration had "dropped the ball" in reporting on the hurricane and whether the army was to blame for not "doing more" to evacuate people. The governor quite correctly replied that Katrina was a category 1 hurricane when it came ashore in Florida and nobody could predict the level of devastation it would wreak in New Orleans. The federal government had done quite well, he insisted. But O'Brien continued his harangue, relentlessly pushing his theory that somehow, someway, Bush must be to blame for this tragedy. I'm surprised he didn't bring up global warming.

Connections, anyone?