¶ 9:36 AM 0 comments
In his speech, Bichlbaum said the department's mission was to ensure affordable housing is available for those who need it.
"This year, in New Orleans, I'm ashamed to say we have failed," he said.
To change that, HUD would reverse its plans to demolish 5,000 units "of perfectly good public housing," with housing in the city in tight supply, he said.
Former occupants have been "begging to move back in," he said. "We're going to help them to do that."
The government's practice had been to tear down public housing where it could, because such projects were thought to cause crime and unemployment, he said.
But crime rates in the city are at a record high and there is no evidence that people in the projects are more likely to be unemployed, he said.
The man added that it also would be essential to create conditions for prosperity.
Toward that end, he said, Wal-Mart would withdraw its stores from near low-income housing and "help nurture local businesses to replace them."
Wal-Mart was unmoved. "As evidenced by the fact that we recently reopened two stores in the New Orleans metropolitan area, there is absolutely no truth to these statements," said spokeswoman Marisa Bluestone.
In a comment that elicited applause from the contractors and builders, Bichlbaum said, "With your help, the prospects of New Orleanians will no longer depend on their birthplace, and the cycle of poverty will come to an end."
Finally, to ensure another hurricane does not inundate the city, Exxon and Shell have promised to spend $8.6 billion "to finance wetlands rebuilding from $60 billion in profits this year," he said.
¶ 9:31 AM 0 comments
¶ 9:49 AM 0 comments"Did you have trouble at the airport this week? I had to throw away all my make-up. They said it's because of this terrorist plot they foiled over in England. I believe it's an elaborate ruse perpetrated by the big cosmetics industry. Maybe it's not terrorism. Maybe it's Maybelline."
"According to reports, Fidel Castro is alert and being briefed. And I'm thinking, why didn't we get a president like that?"
---Jimmy Kimmel
-
---Letterman
¶ 11:38 PM 1 comments
President Bush's startling assertion yesterday -- that at the end of 33 days of warfare between Israel and the Hezbollah militia, Hezbollah had been defeated -- once again raises questions about his ability to acknowledge reality when things don't turn out the way he intended.Here, from the transcript of his appearance at the State Department, are his exact words: "Hezbollah started the crisis, and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis. And the reason why is, is that first, there is a new -- there's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon, and that's going to be a Lebanese force with a robust international force to help them seize control of the country, that part of the country."
My first question: Did he really mean to say that?
Unfortunately, this is another case of simply the threat of an attack creating terror among the populace. In that sense, even if Al Qaeda never successfully executes another terrorist attack inside the United States, they will be able to terrorize us for years to come. It is well known that the true target of Al Qaeda's strikes are Western economies: whether an attack is successful or not is of secondary importance. Yes, on one level these men are serial killers set out to spill American blood. But on another level, it is about perception: creating the perceived threat, making us live our lives in fear, shaking the global markets to their core and changing the ways we live our lives for the worse. This administration likes to talk about freedom; undoubtedly, we have lost significant amounts of individual freedom since 9/11, and there has been no element of "The War on Terror" that has caused us to regain any of that freedom. In fact, the political dynamic in our country right now is further inhibiting our democratic process: general dissatisfaction with Washington is at its highest level since 1994, and the party that controls the trifecta (White House, Congress, Supreme Court) has its back against the wall. In this Age of Terror, they have come to know only one way to respond: perpetuating the worst fears of the populace they govern.
> It should also be noted that this Al Qaeda attack plan was foiled by the British, who are doing a spectacular job of global intelligence gathering and who are certainly leading the way. Perhaps their days as empire upon which the sun never set are over, but the global community owes the British a hearty thank you for their steadfast maintenance of global security. They worked closely with the Pakistani government, who helped tremendously. Pakistan is, of course, led by a military dictator who came to power in a coup. If an open, free election were held in Pakistan today, Pervez Musharraf would not win, would not even be close. Most probably, Isalmic fundamentalists would. And to this point, Fred Kaplan raises an important question:
There's a broader lesson here, and it speaks to the Bush administration's present jam throughout the Middle East and in other danger zones. If the British had adopted the same policy toward dealing with Pakistan that Bush has adopted toward dealing with, say, Syria or Iran (namely, it's an evil regime, and we don't speak with evil regimes), then a lot of passenger planes would have shattered and spilled into the ocean, hundreds or thousands of people would have died, and the world would have suddenly been plunged into very scary territory.
It is time to ask: Which is the more "moral" course—to shun odious regimes as a matter of principle or to take unpleasant steps that might prevent mass terror?
Do we prize our own freedom more than that of Pakistanis? I think the answer is most certainly, yes. But that creates a complex moral dilemma that has far-reaching consequences for our foreign policy, and further clouds our ability to see the world in black and white, as we are so apt to do.
It is also worth considering: how much longer can George Bush continue to expect Americans to not question the fact that, while the most grievous threat to our homeland since 9/11 was brewing among Britain's working-class mosques, we were busy pouring thousands of lives and billions of dollars into an Iraqi Civil War. I would hope also that more Americans begin to ask: Mr President, what is the difference between the secular dictator Saddam Hussein, who came to power with American support in a military coup, and who had a sworn-enemy in Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and Pervez Musharraf, who came to power with American support in a military coup, and who has a sworn-enemy in Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I am sure the President has a nonsensical, fantasyland response to that question. But it is getting quite a bit harder for him to continue to evade the Reality that is now nipping at his heels.
¶ 11:53 AM 0 comments
"In one corner, you had a bunch of unpaid volunteers, Internet rabble-rousers, and an inexperienced politician whose highest post had been County Selectman.
"In the other, you had the three-time Senator, former vice-presidential candidate, visible party statesman, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, the other popular CT senator Dodd, most of Organized Labor, the women's groups and the environmental groups, most of traditional Democratic party support, paid lobbyist support, paid armies of GOTV staff, the slick ad money, the top DLC consultants, and a 3 to 1 budget gap.
"I'm sorry. That's not David vs. Goliath. This isn't even the NBA champions versus a rec league team.That's more like an ant vs. my shoe."
-- thereisnospoon, Daily Kos diarist
¶ 10:25 AM 0 comments
Join with Ned:
It's been a spirited campaign, but today we are all Democrats. Here in Connecticut we've still got a fight on our hands this November -- and in Washington when we get there.Wow, what an amazing result. I have to admit, even going into the final day, I really though Lieberman would somehow pull this out, with his old machine politics and big-time DC Lobbyists. He still thinks he can go on, but in the next few days, the entire Democratic establishment is going to fall on top of him.
This is only the first chapter in what will be a long story of bringing government back to the people. It's been an uphill battle from the beginning, and we've still got a long way to go.
Declare your support and spread the word to your friends, family and neighbors: I want change -- in Iraq and here at home. I'm with Ned Lamont.
More than anything else, I'm just really proud of the brilliant campaign waged by Ned Lamont. Finally, there is some accountability for this terrible war.
More thoughts later. For now, just bask in the sweet smell of victory. ¶ 7:19 AM 0 comments
"Of course I'm not saying that our political system should not sometimes be shaken up through the election of a new kind of leader, like Jesse Ventura in our time, or that it should not be open to the fresh perspective of someone from a entirely different profession, a person who has been successful, say, in business..."
-- Joe Lieberman, In Praise of Public Life, page 21
¶ 10:05 PM 0 comments
Ned Lamont (D) leads Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) 54% to 41% among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.
This compares to a 51% to 47% Lamont lead in the last poll two weeks ago.
Even Colbert, The Most Important Man in News, can't get through to Lieberman:
In Tuesday night's broadcast of Comedy Central's "Colbert Report," host Stephen Colbert enticed U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman to visit his show with a package of the senator's favorite things: a bowl of Cocoa Puffs, a CD of Andrea Bocelli, a copy of the movie "Mystic River" and a trip to south Florida.I would be happy to pay for Lieberman's trip to Florida myself. Only condition would be that the ticket would have to be one way.
"All of this could be yours if you've got enough Joe-mentum to get to my studio before the primary day next Tuesday," Colbert said.
Lieberman, once again, declined.
¶ 9:43 AM 0 comments
¶ 4:39 PM 0 comments
How refreshing is it to see a politician, in the final days of a campaign, have the stones to go on the Colbert Report? I doubt Lieberman would even go on Oprah. ¶ 8:06 AM 0 comments
