I had a busy weekend; the President, apparently, caused Hurricane Katrina because he's a racist and Democrats don't know a KKK member when he literally guides their party.

I sent the following to the Boston Globe on September 3:

Editor,

People believe what they want to believe.

Those criticizing the massive, coordinated relief effort by the Federal government, the National Guard, many others, and now, the Boston Police Department (Boston to send 50 officers to aid police efforts in La., September 3, A9), for the victims of Hurricane Katrina would criticize the relief effort no matter how successful the effort is. Regarding the Boston Police Department, the Boston Globe reported that "officials have spent two days working out the logistical details of sending a police contingent." I wasn't sure if the mention of the "two days" was to be critical of how long it has taken the Boston Police Department to move 50 officers 2,000 miles or if it was intended to show how hard people trying to help were working. I believe it's the latter, but people will believe what they want.

It is outrageous that Mr. Oliver Thomas, president of the New Orleans city council, is allowed to cherry-pick factual instances of a less than perfect relief in order to criticize the President and then completely ignore the factual evidence that some New Orleans residents are looting and participating in wanton violence (National Guard troops pouring in with aid, September 3, A12; I didn't write this headline, the Boston Globe chose it; I assume it's accurate). "The violence is overexaggerated," he says. The Boston Globe reports, "The officers have been shot at every night . . . by criminals who entered the teeming convention center to rob, assault and rape the hurricane victims (Waiting for help, officers keep a lonely vigil, September 3, A15)." Am I to trust the Boston Globe reporting or Bush-critic, Mr. Thomas?

I'm not sure how to interpret the Boston Globe's reporting, "Several women said they were afraid for their lives, afraid of being raped," in light of Mr. Thomas's observation (For days, many felt forgotten and frightened, September 3, A15). Are these women's claims of being "forgotten" true according to Mr. Thomas because he can politicize the observation and tarnish President Bush but these same women's claims that they fear they will be raped are "overexaggerated"? Later in the last article cited, the Boston Globe reports that evacuees are claiming "armed thugs" are coming out at night "to terrorize them". Oh, really?

I was raised that if I saw hundreds and thousands of people trying to help me, I'd start by saying, "thank you." People criticizing somebody that is obviously trying to help tells me an awful lot about the critic. But, as we know, people believe what they want to believe; I am no different. On behalf of the victims of Hurricane Katrina, I want to say "thank you" to President Bush, FEMA, the National Guard, the Boston Police Department and everyone else that is trying to help.

I sent the following to the Ombudsman to the Boston Globe after he whined in an article that covering the hurricane was extremely difficult:

Mr. Chacon,

Today you wrote, "Planning news coverage of a disaster like a major hurricane is tricky . . . it is impossible to predict where a storm will ultimately hit or how hard its impact will be . . . there was no hint that this would be one of the greatest natural disasters in this Country's history . . . "
Thank God the Boston Globe is only responsible for getting us news coverage and not saving people in the ravaged area.

The things that the Boston Globe encountered were the same exact things, but with much more at stake, that the President, Mr. Chertoff, FEMA, the National Guard, the Coast Guard and the many, many others that are working so hard to provide relief had to encounter.

The September 3 edition of the Boston Globe was a disgrace. The over-presented criticism of those providing help was outrageous.

There will be time to ask thoughtful, intelligent questions about disaster relief and how it can be improved; last week was not the time to exploit the disaster for political gain. That the Boston Globe enabled such scoundrels is something the Globe should be ashamed of.

I sent this to Ms. Ellen Goodman on September 4 after she suggested Judge Roberts will only be derailed for a Supreme Court position if he's caught pictured wearing a hood:

Ms. Goodman,

Sen. Robert C. Byrd will be pictured in a KKK robe, not Judge John G. Roberts.

Recall, Democrats refer to the former Klan member as the "Conscience of the Senate". (End of letter.)


The Goodman email was particulary fun for me because on September 3, I sent the following to the Boston Globe:

Editor,

Understandably missing from the Boston Globe article reporting that Sen. Robert Byrd (D, West Virginia) is set to announce that he is running for an unprecedented ninth term in the United States Senate and that contained effusive praise from Mr. Ned Rose, chairman of the organization Friends of Robert C. Byrd, were the facts that Sen. Byrd is the only ex-Ku Klux Klan member in the Senate and Sen. Byrd is the only U.S. Senator to vote against liberal, African-American, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall and conservative, African-American, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Sen. Byrd expected to announce run for 9th term, September 3, A2). Democrats must be so proud of the man they call the "Conscience of the Senate". (End of letter.)

Stay tuned; I can only imagine how apoplectic the Left is going to get with the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist; the outrageousness is only just beginning.