...as usual.

More, more.

Sure is one helluva seamstress that Laura Bush. And how delightful to have the vainglorious, Hal the Ham, vivisected with the sure hand and literary finesse of a master. All that remains is to wise up the marks.

excellent bit of reporting. Although it was interesting, after reading the Salon coverage of Mardi Gras, to see the contrast with the mainline reporting.

A minor point, Sidney - it's "breech".

I took the use of that spelling to be a play on words.

I'm looking at my copy of Henry V right now. It's "breach." Act III, scene I, line 1.

Absolutely wonderful. I'm writing my (undergraduate) thesis on the second tetralogy (Richard II, Henry IV parts I and II, and Henry V) and it's astonishing to think of Michael Brown as a kind of Falstaff in that the administration was all too willing to make him a scapegoat, purging him as a way of atoning for Bush's misdeeds. Imagine how different Henry V would be if, intead of dying, Falstaff returns to court and attemps to undo Hal's betrayal and destabilize his rule!

Of course, the Bush/Hal comparison is utterly laughable. Go read the St. Crispian's day speech, before the battle of Agincourt (IV.iii.18-67) and tell me, with a straight face, that Bush is even remotely capable of that level of eloquence and honor. No, Bush is much more like the French Dauphin - who mocks his enemy, earning his wrath, and vastly underestimates his ability to wage war. He also overestimates his own ability and importance, eager for battle yet incompetent at it (see III.vii).

Well, now that I've written something of no interest to anyone who hasn't read Henry V, I'm off to go, you know, actually work on that thesis... wonderful article, though.

Would have an entirely different meaning, as in, into the end or tail. Once again, Hal says, "into the breach," while we take one in the breeches.

Perhaps Prince Hal belongs in the breach, used as fill for the breach in the levee.

Never trust a man who stops drinking, Falstaff.

Blumental captures Bush perfectly as the deaf, dumb and blind stooge pretending to run a country. It doesn't matter which Shakespearean character one uses for comparison they are all more articulate and eloquent than the incurious and shallow boy-king. To his detractors none of this is new.

Katrina served up the quintessential Bush: unprepared, uncaring, incurious, uninterested. Obviously his coaches weren't around him in Crawford, without whom he can't get the script right. After 9/11 you would think he learned something about symbolism, if not substance, but he obviously hasn't. "We are prepared." Indeed. The man is drunk on his sense of entitlement, if not just plain drunk.

Bush has a flat learning curve. How many of his supporters are brain dead as well?

Let's face it - NOLA is toast. Read this week's (or last week's) New Yorker - we could rebuild the city now, but it'll be washed away again shortly.

There's no good reason to waste my tax dollars on this folly. People want to live there? Buy flood insurance, there's no reason the rest of the country should be forced to subsidize their bad choices.

I'd say about 59,054,087 of them are brain dead...perhaps we should market jock straps as "Bush Supporters"?

look at that body language; squinty eyes cast up so as not to look at the devastation around him, arms crossed in front of him so as to block any approach of feeling or information that might lead to feeling or any human being that might lead to information leading to feeling. It is the very essence of "I'm not looking. Don't speak to me."

Yep, we have an I'm-not-looking-don't-speak-to-me president. I could weep.

what do i care about new orleans. if they want to live in an area that invites periodic destruction then prepeare to absorb the cost on your own or move somewhere else.

JustaGuy has it about right, almost. Taking pot shots at Mr. Bush is fun (who can resist?), but meanwhile the problems continue without solution.

If New Orleans is going to be "saved," it must be done with some planning. The current solutions being offered are insufficient, but progressives should spend more time offering suggestions which are well thought out than so much time and energy (and it's easy time and energy) finding fault with this President. I mean, where's the challenge?

Well Cornelius T told me that GW did pick up a hammer, and he might even have bent a few nails before giving up. Did anyone actually see him hammer anthing besides the empty rhetoric he has been spewing since this disaster struck?

I want so much to say, "But Seriously, folks," that my teeth are shaking. I can't every time I think of the TOTAL ALL OUT INCOMPETENCE OF THIS MAN, I get a funny bone attack.

He has admitted to being hoodwinked by the people who told him they had no firm evidence of WMD, saying instead that it was a Slam Dunk. Someone should have told him the US goal was at the other end of the court. You know, here at home, where New Orleans is. AND THE SLAM DUNK GAVE A COUPLE OF POINTS TO THE OPPOSITION. He Did a Double reverse on the gridiron, and only completed one reversal. He should known that is wy his own folks are trying to tackle, hog tie and horsewhip him into getting off the field.

We should send him a Bicycle for Spring Break, and pad the package with pretzels. But, he would think we loved him if we did. Better to just moon him when you get the opportunity, or wave..with just one finger.

There was a picture published last fall of W. using a hammer, I think it was a Habitat for Humanity photo-op; he is holding it about half way up the shaft. Obviously the man doesn't even know how to properly use a hammer.

Referring to JustAGuy's letter: um, it's not just your tax dollars. It's their tax dollars too. They people of NOLA worked, paid taxes, and have every right to expect help in a time of disaster for the money they've paid in.

Flood insurance is a great idea. But when the flood insurance company says, no, the wind did it, and your regular insurance says, no the water did it -- and therefore, neither pays -- well, what then?

Should they live in a "disaster-prone" area? There isn't a zone in the United States that isn't prey to one disaster or another. Hurricanes. Floods. Fires. Earthquakes. Tornados. If there is some section of the US that is free from any threat of natural disaster, is everyone in the US supposed to squeeze into it?

But what's really scary here, is the underlying idea - "my" tax dollars versus "theirs". Is this still the "United" States, or are we headed for something else entirely?