The White Peril 白禍

LDP Secretary General Hiroyuki Hosoda has offered Japan's best wishes to the states damaged by Hurricane Katrina and says that the government will investigate ways to help out.

Japan has a typhoon season, too, and Number 13, one of the first big ones of the year, is heading toward Okinawa. As always, no one can predict where the storm may veer off to as it changes course. If it keeps along the same path, it could dump 200 millimeters of rain on some islands in the area within 24 hours.

If this year is like last year, which we all hope it's not, this is just the beginning. One small thing to be thankful for (besides the fact that Atsushi's in a big population center with good building codes) is the way the news media here cover disasters. Well, that and the way people react to them--you don't catch Japanese people bellyaching that a storm was "overhyped" when all hell fails to break loose and deaths and damage are minimized.

Additionally, for all their flaws in other respects, NHK and the rest know how to cover the aftermath of a disaster without making themselves the center of it. Yesterday, I was watching the ever-repellant Aaron Brown interview Jeanne Meserve on CNN. Meserve had covered the storm from a parking garage above the Superdome and was relating how some of her camera and tech guys had gone along on search-and-rescue boats after the rains stopped. Though her voice sometimes broke as she described some of the things they'd seen, she was clearly steeling herself to give the facts to the extent that she knew them. Her self-discipline and reserve made what she was reporting that much more moving.

Then Brown had to go and spoil it by doing this oily routine: "You know, people often say that journalists are thrill-seekers, but you can tell by how Jeanne here is practically on the verge of sobbing that that's not the case. See? She's about to cry. Journalists are compassionate people. Get it? Oh, and Jeanne and I have known each other for years--why, I just called her 'Jeannie.' That's a diminutive. It means we're buddies. We're part of the same selfless humanitarian club, don't you know." To her credit, Meserve responded, "Well, sometimes we are thrill-seekers," and seemed to be trying to remind Brown tactfully that whatever stout-heartedness she was displaying might not be the real story. I don't know whether she was able to penetrate his force field of smugness, because I had to change the channel at that point.

Michele has had an idea that's uplifting rather than just smug: she's now collecting encouraging stories from the aftermath of the hurricane. No civilization can outwit Mother Nature all the time, and Katrina did plenty of horrifying things that we're going to be finding out over the next several weeks; but the ability of our society to deal with catastrophic blows in such a way as to address and minimize damage is really inspiring.

Hi, this is Rob Marciano, your CNN On-the-Spot Idiot. I'm under this here cinderblock lean-to as winds whip debris and rain through the air around me--and, hey, we're not even close to being slammed by the eyewall yet! Uh, was that an anvil that just went by? Or maybe a big ol' rock? My baseball cap is totally gone, dude. This lady in the hotel where we are? She tried to open her door, and it slammed shut--like, from the wind--and whacked off half her finger, and the nurses are trying to give her first aid. But yup, here I am.

For Pete's sake, I wonder where people get the idea that maybe they don't actually need to evacuate when they're told to because they'll be able to brazen it out no matter how bad the storm is. I especially like the way Daryn Kagan solemnly warned everyone immediately after Rob's report that they shouldn't go outdoors until it was safe. (BTW, Daryn? What's with the hair? Do we think we're the Joan Jett of journalism? Is that who we think we are? Maybe Siouxsie Sioux? Sheesh.) And here's Jeanne Meserve (outdoors) to tell us about more of the Superdome roof skin flying off. One of her crew seems to have blown away--they cut back to Atlanta.

On the bright side, the proverbial ten pounds the camera adds are very flattering to Rob there, who looks kind of excessively lean and blow-dried in his CNN bio pic.

Added at 23:52: Okay, Anderson Cooper is acting seriously scared--and do you wonder? He's also bitching to Daryn about the lack of common sense on the part of other people who are walking around outside. They're not super-cool reporters, so they could get hurt.

Michele Catalano is collecting stupid over-hype coverage at her place.

The tendency of typhoons in Japan to change direction and not strike where expected has made me hope that New Orleans may not get the royal screwing from Hurricane Katrina that everyone's been expecting. It's not looking good, though, and my thoughts are with everyone potentially in its path. I know what it's like to live in a beloved city that's under constant threat of natural disaster (not to mention at least partially below sea level), but the knowledge that Mother Nature is coming to get you right now must be very different from the vague sense that the ground could heave at any second.

Isolated tornadoes are also possible Sunday across southern portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Florida Panhandle, forecasters said.

...

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield said: "There's certainly a chance it can weaken a bit before it gets to the coast, but unfortunately this is so large and so powerful that it's a little bit like the difference between being run over by an 18-wheeler or a freight train. Neither prospect is good."

Maybe not, but at least the 18-wheeler is shorter. Catastrophic flooding (Tokyo has a lot of reclaimed land, too, so we hear about this often) has a lot of consequences in large population centers:

In New Orleans, which lies below sea level, gas and diesel tanks are all located above ground for the same reason that bodies are buried above ground. In the event of a flood, "those tanks will start to float, shear their couplings, and we'll have the release of these rather volatile compounds," van Heerden added.

Because gasoline floats on water, "we could end up with some pretty severe and large — area-wise — fires."

"So, we're looking at a bowl full of highly contaminated water with contaminated air flowing around and, literally, very few places for anybody to go where they'll be safe."

He went further.

"So, imagine you're the poor person who decides not to evacuate: Your house will disintegrate around you. The best you'll be able to do is hang on to a light pole, and while you're hanging on, the fire ants from all the mounds — of which there is two per yard on average — will clamber up that same pole. And, eventually, the fire ants will win."

And that's just the local impact; New Orleans processes a lot of petroleum and is a major port. For everyone's sake, let's hope for the best.

Added at 16:54: Instapundit has a post full of links and reader reports, naturally. His final observation is this:

I have to say, though, that from what I've seen New Orleans hasn't been on the ball. The evacuation was too late, there don't seem to have been many efforts to get people out of the city or to shelter, and whenever I see city officials on TV I get an unpleasant vibe, like in the first half-hour of a disaster flick. I hope that I'm wrong about this, and that everything goes as well as possible, which I'm afraid will still mean "not that well, really."

I've only been seeing those who are on CNN, but I do get the same feeling. Those in charge of planning fire/rescue and reconstruction projects have no choice but to learn from disasters as they happen, but that's no excuse for not being prepared to evacuate people effectively. The people to worry most about are those who have no choice but to take their chances:

The doctors and nurses who were on duty when their hospitals declared an emergency would not have been allowed to leave at the end of their shift, at least not without losing their jobs and risking their careers. But they took an oath to care for their patients, and that's what they'll do, even though it means they can’t be with their own families or help them to evacuate. And now they'll work around the clock, without relief. Pray for them.

Romeo Mike has two great posts up this week. The more general one is about how movements for tolerance mutated into political correctness. I'm going to zero in on the gay content--go figure--but there's a lot more to it:

I never wanted anything more out of my gay rights than to not be arrested for it. I was perfectly aware that my dynamics were different from the mainstream, so why should a tail wag the dog. Yet now society itself is being dismantled to accommodate a few hundred people who demand to have the same everything, even when so much of it has to be artificially constructed, and risks affecting essential social fabric.

Well, societies do evolve. The decriminalization of homosexual conduct has itself certainly been a change in the social fabric, after all--however innocuous those of us with the most to gain by it may find it. And entitlement-mindedness did not originate with gays; it's the way politics works nowadays. Furthermore, just about everyone who espouses "traditional values" is picking and choosing customs from the past that he deems worth reviving or updating, and human institutions are by definition artificial constructs. Even so, none of that vitiates the point that fecklessly restructuring long-standing institutions to serve political ends that only emerged a decade or two ago is ill-advised. Not even all gay activists can agree on why gay marriage, as opposed to the other potential ways gay unions might be recognized, is the only way to go. The reasons most frequently and loudly offered appear to center on "respect" and "dignity," which it's dangerous for free people to expect the government to confer on them.

About feminism, RM (I hope he doesn't mind my calling him that; I am certainly not going to refer to him as "Romeo") says,

Though males had to work to support their families, feminists co-opted work as an equality issue. Now, child-rearing is disdained by many women who identify their life purpose by labouring for their employer. For many, children aren't part of the equation anymore, even though they still mate. Yet the subsequent rise in mean income forced up the cost of living so now women have no choice but to work, child or not. Surely, on their death beds their last words will be,"I can rest now knowing my life's purpose was to make profits for my boss."

Again, I'm with RM overall. Encouraging people to think of their career as their primary source of fulfillment (or even intellectual stimulation) works against their instincts and the good of their children--no argument here. At the same time, let's not lose sight of a couple of things. For one, while Australia has a different tax system and welfare state from the US, my understanding from Australian friends is pretty much that the two countries are not much different in this respect: families with children can make it with one income if they're willing to forgo the frills of full-on bourgeois living.

For another, not everyone is cut out for child-rearing. We are a complex civilization with many important artifacts to maintain and develop for future generations, and there's no shame in devoting yourself full-time to such tasks. The problem is that everyone--including the vast majority who will eventually become parents--has been encouraged to develop in a way that's at odds with good parenting, not that women who aren't the mothering type are now free to pursue careers.

The big problem is mouthing abstract bromides about "diversity" while taking concrete steps to shoehorn people into politically-approved personality and behavioral types. RM tackles that in the other post, coming up with a useful neologism:

mis.het.eur.andry; from misandry, hatred of men + het, heterosexual + eur, euro

"denigration of straight white male/s under the guise of promoting anti-patriarchal ideology."

The whole mentality of seeing different ways of life as some kind of rebuke directed at your own is something I've never understood. If you have to defang people's personalities in order to be able to deal with them comfortably, there's something wrong with your spine. Liberal societies nurture strong, combative personalities and will always have their share of friction. Feminists and gay activists who expect us to make lasting gains that are woven into society instead of being appliqueed onto it need to see the advantage there. Opposition doesn't just tear you down, it also shows you where your own arguments have flaws so you can improve them.

The NYT has the proposed Iraqi constitution posted. Michael has it, I think, in perspective:

It’s not perfect, but unlike some people, I didn’t expect it to be. A lot needs to be worked out. I’m not happy with laws being based on Islam, but I am happy with Article 151: No less than 25 percent of Council of Deputies seats go to women. That would make it more representative than Parliament in Canada. And, if women are treated unequally, then they, as a majority vote in Iraq, have the right to force change in the law.

I'm not really fond of Article 151--just removing barriers to women's political participation strikes me as sufficient in that sphere. I don't usually go for nationalized industries, either, though in this period of transition holding off on privatization may be a wise initial move. Iraq has several competing ethnicities and a population shellshocked by decades of brutal dictatorship followed by invasion followed by slow reconstruction. Anyone who's acting all bowled over at the fact that people have clung to tradition (in this case Islamic) to help stabilize things is either disingenuous or stupid.

In a comment to this post, John of Toilet Paper with Page Numbers directed me to a post of his from a few weeks ago. At first glance, it seems only tangentially related to the topic of political affiliation. In reality, though, it gets to the heart of what I was talking about. John reproduces a letter he wanted to posts for his chemistry students when he was a TA, and this is part of it:

Do you realize why you are in this class in the first place? I'll give you a hint. It's because the peckerwoods in the admissions office are too spineless to use your transcripts and SATs to tell you straight up that you are not qualified (now hold on, I didn't say too stupid...yet) to enter college, much less a pre-med program. This is a weed-out course. And I have a big Black and Decker logo on my red pen. No, I'm not being judgmental. I'm telling you the cold, hard truth no one has bothered to rub your nose in yet. Believe me, I'm kinder than your first boss will be.

Concealing people's ignorance from them--indeed, going so far as to keep them ignorant by pretending to teach them math and science without actually doing so--is fine if you think it perfectly natural that they'll grow up to have their lives run by caretakers anyway. If, however, you think adults should be independent, then it follows that children need to be equipped to take care of their own business without interference. That involves a basic, systematically-presented, stringently-tested foundation in the usual liberal arts subjects. It means a frank recognition--without namby-pamby self-esteem-building bromides--that we all have our own individual mix of talents and that not everyone is equally capable in all fields. And, conversely, it means a frank recognition that the donnish kind of intelligence is not the only one that matters.

Or I could slide to the right for a while

You'd think I'd be sick of this subject. Actually, I am sick of it, but it's an important subject. When I first clicked through and started reading, I was like, Wow, this guy's parodies are a laugh riot. I wonder how closely he's hewing to what people actually said when he's making up those fake quotations. Think I'll look at the original WaPo article and see. [snarfs Pimms and ginger] SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH, THAT'S WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY SAID ARE THEY OUT OF THEIR MINDS HAVE THEY ALL BEEN SMOKING CRACK OHMAHGAWD OHMAHGAWD?!

Of course, I shouldn't have been so surprised--a few months ago, I finally gave in and changed my party registration because I was so sick of looking at the latest repellant Democrat gasbag on television and thinking, There are no words to express how happy I am that I've found a way to live on the OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE GLOBE from YOU. I've always voted more Republican than Democrat and been on the right-ish libertarian side of most arguments, but I liked being able to vote in Democratic primaries and figured that voting GOP without being registered or contributing at least allowed me to send a small, individual signal that it didn't have my unqualified support (especially when it came to wasteful spending). Not that I was expecting this to give Haley Barbour insomnia, or anything--it just struck me as the right balance.

But eventually, enough is enough. My beliefs haven't changed one bit, and I don't plan to become a party hack, but at least the Republican leadership is usually broadcasting from the same planet as the rest of us.

Michael Reynolds of The Mighty Middle is to the left of me, and he's clearly not about to bolt from the Dems, but he very clearly sees what I think is the major strategic problem with the DNC leadership. I'm quoting at length because, although the message he delivers is not new, he delivers it with clarity and point:

The moral center of the GOP is in big business, small business and churches. The moral core of the Democratic Party is in academia, unions and the groups - the NARALS et al. The unions are disintegrating, the academy is the very definition of "out of touch," and the groups are hermetically sealed parallel universes inhabited by lawyers, flacks and giant, bloated Senators.

If you want to talk to people — people who do not already agree with everything you have to say, professor — you have to actually know some people. Some of those people you need to know will drive SUV's. Some will own jet skis. Many will attend churches where people sing a lot. They will not necessarily dine on a small green salad with lo-fat dressing on the side. They will not know or care who Noam Chomsky is. And here is what is vitally important for Democrats to understand: although these people will not necessarily be part of your all-Angelou book club, they will be at least as smart as you are.

To communicate with people, understand people. To understand people, listen to people. Fire the consultants. Fire the gurus. Fire the pollsters. Fire the lawyers. Get back into the real world. Send forth your minions, Democrats, scatter them to the winds with instructions to go forth into the McDonalds and the Wal-Marts and the churches, to boldly engage fat women in spandex, and skinny guys in pick-up trucks, to speak without sneering to the local businessman, to talk on equal terms with the minister and the insurance salesman and the cook and the fisherman and the clerk. Watch TV. (No, not PBS. Not HBO, either.) Read bestsellers. Shoot a gun. Ride a speedboat. Drive a big old gas hog across west Texas at ninety miles an hour. (It's fun. Even more fun than composing briefs or conducting a focus group.) Smile at other people's kids. Talk to teachers - not their union reps. And by the way, when I say "talk to" I mean, "shut the f**k up and listen."

I'm not always happy with the Republican politicians and talking heads, but I will say this: even when they're driving me nuts with their hyper-spending and their footdragging on border and air security and their selective opposition to entitlement programs and their preachy allegiance to the War on Drugs, they at least are rarely guilty of talking about Americans en masse as if we were as dumb as a box of rocks and depended on them to run our lives properly.

After all, every Red State town has doctors, lawyers, accountants, and real estate agents, just like places in the big coastal population belts. Additionally--you know, my father was graduated from high school on shop courses, and my mother dropped out of ninth grade, then went back in her 40s for her GED and a certificate in data entry. Most adult friends of our family had similar backgrounds. None of them was an idiot. Most of them read the newspaper and a handful of news magazines, and even those who were otherwise unlettered read the Bible daily. My own interest in politics was nurtured by listening to them discuss the Iran hostage crisis; why they hated Carter; why they loved Reagan; the Grenada invasion; Yasser Arafat; and Gloria Steinem. I'm a passionate supporter of education with stringently-enforced standards, but it simply is not the case that being undercertified dooms you to ignorance.

What does doom you to ignorance is going into every discussion assuming that you have lots to teach people and little to learn from them. That attitude really isn't such a problem with everyday people who happen to be registered Democrats. At least, in my experience, it isn't. It is a huge, huge, huge problem among those who set the priorities and public image for the DNC. Reynolds's message is the one they need, but given the statements that he's responding to, it's hard to imagine they'd know what to do with it.

(Via Joanne Jacobs)