Wang

A Letter from China:

Wang Jisi is a classic figure from the Chinese landscape: a scholar with influence at the court. He is, in fact, dean of the school of International Studies at an important Chinese university (which in Chinese is DaShui, lit. "Big School"). But more important than that is his position at the Central Party School of the Chinese Communist Party.

Dr. Wang has produced a paper for the journal of the Central Party School, which was revised and expanded for publication in English. It appears in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, and can be read here. It is an interesting document in several respects.

The first thing that is interesting about it is its circumstances. The paper, in its earlier Chinese form, will have been read and debated at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party. That they desired to see it "revised" and then issued in English is notable. It purports to be a piece of analysis from a respected scholar; it is in fact a letter from China's rulers as a whole. Dr. Wang is just far enough from the halls of power to let them speak without making formal promises; yet he is so close to those halls that we cannot doubt that they gave their blessing to his words.

Wang begins:

The United States is currently the only country with the capacity and the ambition to exercise global primacy, and it will remain so for a long time to come. This means that the United States is the country that can exert the greatest strategic pressure on China. Although in recent years Beijing has refrained from identifying Washington as an adversary or criticizing its "hegemonism" -- a pejorative Chinese code word for U.S. dominance -- many Chinese still view the United States as a major threat to their nation's security and domestic stability.

He is telling us that China has been trying to be friendly. But he also is giving us the formula, so we will understand what follows. Throughout the piece, Wang writes according to this formula: without formal reference to "hegemony," in friendly terms that play up the need for cooperation rather than competition, but explaining why China might reasonably view the United States as a threat.

That formula is followed precisely. When he speaks of US policy, it isn't "hegemony," but a "global security policy." He explains his understanding of US interests, so we will know that he is sympathetic:

Further bolstering U.S. primacy is the fact that many of the country's potential competitors, such as the European Union, Russia, and Japan, face internal problems that will make it difficult for them to overtake the United States anytime soon. For a long time to come, the United States is likely to remain dominant, with sufficient hard power to back up aggressive diplomatic and military policies.

From a Chinese perspective, the United States' geopolitical superiority was strengthened in 2001 by Washington's victory in the Afghan war. The United States has now established political, military, and economic footholds in Central Asia and strengthened its military presence in Southeast Asia, in the Persian Gulf, and on the Arabian Peninsula. These moves have been part of a global security strategy that can be understood as having one center, two emphases. Fighting terrorism is the center. And the two emphases are securing the Middle East and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The greater Middle East, a region stretching from Kashmir to Morocco and from the Red Sea to the Caucasus, is vital to U.S. interests. Rich in oil and natural gas, the region is also beset by ethnic and religious conflicts and is a base for rampant international terrorism. None of the countries in the area is politically stable, and chaos there can affect the United States directly, as the country learned on September 11.

On the nonproliferation front, the United States' main concerns are Iran and North Korea, two states that are striving to develop nuclear technology and have long been antagonistic toward Washington. In 2004, the United States carried out the largest redeployment of its overseas forces since World War II in order to meet these challenges.

Note particularly the list of 'potential US competitors': "European Union, Russia, and Japan." The absence of China from that list is not an accident, but a statement -- even an invitation.

We all know that China is grieved, and concerned, with the US military bases in central and southeast Asia. Wang brings them up early in his list of places where the US is exerting power, and recognizes the strength of the position. But he defuses it from being an issue between us and them: "These moves have been part of a global security strategy that can be understood as having one center, two emphases. Fighting terrorism is the center. And the two emphases are securing the Middle East and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

This is part of the mindset of classical China, which influenced much of Asia in the days when they were ascendant. Social harmony requires "a beautiful mask" to cover "the ugly truth." Politeness, a central duty of everyone, means upholding that mask to prevent the webs of social harmony from being disturbed. It is not that anyone actually believes it -- it is that everyone adheres to it, that harmony can be maintained in spite of everything.

Here we are given that mask as a gift. China's Communists are making us an offer. They are willing to pretend to see our actions in that context, if we will pretend that that is the only context for them.

The rest of the piece is much the same. It is a fascinating read because it lays out how China is prepared to meet us halfway on the great issues of the day. Iraq, Asia, economics: from first to last, with one exception, we are being offered an understanding for mutual benefit. That one exception of course is Taiwan -- it is the condition on which all this is laid.

History has already proved that the United States is not China's permanent enemy. Nor does China want the United States to see it as a foe. Deng Xiaoping's prediction that "things will be all right when Sino-U.S. relations eventually improve" was a cool judgment based on China's long-term interests. To be sure, aspirations cannot replace reality. The improvement of Chinese-U.S. relations will be slow, tortuous, limited, and conditional, and could even be reversed in the case of certain provocations (such as a Taiwanese declaration of independence). It is precisely for this reason that the thorny problems in the bilateral relationship must be handled delicately, and a stable new framework established to prevent troubles from disrupting an international environment favorable for building prosperous societies. China's leadership is set on achieving such prosperity by the middle of the twenty-first century; with Washington's cooperation, there is little to stand in its way.

Should we accept the deal that has been placed on the table? Much depends on how much we trust the Communists to keep their word. Yet the offer is backed, not merely with promises, but with reason. The explanations for why the United States and China have aligned interests are compelling. Having lived in China, too, I sense that they will adhere to the mask once they don it -- so long as we do also. If we accept what is offered, it will become in their mind a matter of honor to uphold the masks that protect the greater harmony.

The deal is much starker when it is viewed the way Americans like to view things. We prefer the ugly truth, and here it is: Taiwan for peace. If we will do that, speak more kindly of them, pretend that our interests are what they have described them to be -- they don't care if we change our policies a whit, just how we talk about them -- then we can have peace, and all the benefits that are laid out before us in the document. Yet it contains, plainly but softly, the threat of war if we do not accept.

It is a kingly document, courtly and well-spoken. Every word of it is structured and considered, and every word -- in its fashion -- is meant. We must think carefully what answer to make, and where our interests lie.

Vikings

Viking Ships:

When I got home last night from the feasts, although it was after nine o' clock, I discovered the the grandparents whom we are visiting down here in Georgia had not put the boy to bed. Three-year-old Beowulf was sitting up watching television with them.

When I came through the door, he lept up happily and came racing over to me, dancing with every step. "Wow!" I thought to myself. "He's never been this happy to see me. I guess having me and his mother gone all day has made him extra glad to see us, and..."

So much for that train of thought. It turned out that the grandparents had bought him a present that afternoon, but told him he couldn't have it until Daddy came home.

He went racing off into their bedroom, and then came out with this huge blue box under his arm. The thing was so big that "under his arm" could be accomplished only with great difficulty, and he was dragging the thing along the floor rather than carrying it. "You gotta open this!" he said.

I picked it up to look at it. It was a fine gift indeed.

"Get your knife out!" Beowulf shouted, dancing in place with anticipation.

So I did. What a happy boy.

RN F

Evenings in Ellijay:

Ellijay is the seat of Gilmer County, Georgia, the apple-growing capital of... well, the world, as far as I know, but they claim only to be the Apple Capital of Georgia. Apples were the crop they settled on to avoid the destruction of the boll weevil, when it destroyed the major part of the economy of Georgia in the 1920s. Georgia had an economy based on what social scientists call "monoculture farming," which is to say that the whole economy is based around a single crop -- like coffee or sugar in some places today.

In Georgia, it was cotton, until the boll weevil. The people then had to figure out something else to grow, and start from scratch. Meanwhile the financial machine made things worse: all the banks crashed because they weren't getting payments on their agricultural loans; everybody lost their lands when the banks seized it and tried to sell it to cover the loans; and so on. It took about ten years to get it sorted out, which was just in time for the Great Depression to smash everyone equally. That means that, for Georgia, it was really a twenty-year depression.

Nevertheless, people got by. First they grew subsistence crops on the land, and eventually they managed to develop new forms of agriculture. These days, pine trees are the major crop up in the north of the state -- short needle pines, which are easily made into pulp that can be used to make paper. There are also the apples, and peaches, soybeans somewhat further south, and many other things as well. And, of course, these days we can grow cotton again too.

After yesterday's meal at the Pueblo Grill, I encountered a flyer for a local festival. I transcribe it below. I promise that I have typed it in accurately; or, as Dave Barry says, I am not making this up.

1st Annual
"REDNECK FESTIVAL"
Think we're kidding? Just be there!
Ellijay Music Park
September 9 & 10, 2005

Friday
7:00pm Karaoke Contest
With Southern Entertainment
BIGGEST BEER BELLY CONTEST

Saturday
10:00am REDNECK PARADE
...
11:00am Hot wings cookoff
3:00pm RIDING LAWN MOWER RACE
...

Saturday Special Events:
Flea Market (Call to Reserve Space)
"Redneck Truck Show"
Redneck Horseshoes with Toilet Seats
Tobacco Ring Jeans Contest

For the Kids:
Remote Control Hunt
Mudpit Belly Flop
Water Balloon Fight

So, out of tragedy and hardship came a people with what appears to be a very good sense of humor. They don't mind if America laughs at them by calling them Rednecks and assigning all these stereotypes to them. They just want to laugh along.

MM

Many Meetings:

Today Grim pulled his great viking ship up on two high shores, and held feasts among the wrack. It was a very pleasant day, the best I've had in quite a while. I'd like to thank everyone who came out.

The first feast was held with the crew of Del's FreeSpeech, an Atlanta area blog. Del's a libertarian blogger, whose editorial philosophy has always been to give out guest accounts to anyone who felt like they had something to say. It's an interesting place to drop by.

We met at the Pueblo Grill, which is surely the finest Mexican restaurant in the mountains of North Georgia. A good time was had by all, I think I can report.

Later in the evening, we held a second feast at the Applebee's in Buford, Georgia, whose location proved to be more difficult to triangulate than anyone expected. Nevertheless, it ended well. JarHeadDad and his gracious and lovely bride came out to dine with us, and we ate well of the best that the house had to offer. Those of you who have been worried about him lately can stop worrying: he seems to have recovered nicely from the knock he took from Thor's hammer.

It was a pleasure to meet a number of readers, and to eat and drink and hold council. Thank you, everyone who came out. I am glad to have known you all.

You can just feel the frustration.

Over at Countercolumn, Jason van Steenwyk is ripping Bob Herbert and the NY Times a new one.

Not that I think they're going to notice.

But I'm hopeful others will. I see that Instapundit noticed too.

Right

A Challenge From the Right:

There have been two pieces recently charging that the American Right, and particularly the Republican party, is splitting. The first of these was Jonathan Rauch's, "America's Anti-Reagan isn't Hillary Clinton, It's Rick Santorum." The second is in today's Opinion Journal, where Cass Sunstein has a piece called "John Roberts, Minimalist."

Now, I'm a Southern Democrat, which is to say that I have no obvious home in the politics of modern America. I'm a Classical Liberal rather than a conservative, and a Democrat of a very old type rather than a Republican of the modern strain. Still, most people would locate me on the Right, and I suppose that qualifies me to consider the topic.

Rauch posits a divide between conservatives who believe in the modern concept of Freedom, versus those who believe in the original American concept of Liberty. As he writes:

In Santorum's view, freedom is not the same as liberty. Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no-fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts.

Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue -- not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be," or "the freedom to be left alone," but "the freedom to attend to one's duties -- duties to God, to family, and to neighbors."

The Sunstein piece suggests that there is a similar divide between the judicial/legal thinkers on the right:

Minimalist conservatives insist that social change should occur through the democratic process, not through the judiciary. They do not want to extend the liberal Supreme Court decisions of the 1950s and '60s. On principle, they prefer narrow decisions and small steps, nudges not earthquakes. When confronted by contentious issues, minimalists focus on details and particulars, and are prepared to rule in ways that run contrary to their politics.

Fundamentalist conservatives do not believe in small steps. They think that in the last 50 years, constitutional law has gone badly, even wildly, wrong. They want to reorient it in major ways. They oppose Roe v. Wade, of course. But they also reject the right of privacy itself, arguing it lacks roots in the Constitution. They do not hesitate to use judicial power to strike down affirmative action and to protect property rights. They are entirely prepared to restrict the authority of Congress by invalidating laws protecting the environment, campaign finance reforms or gun control restrictions. They also have an expansive view of presidential power.

In many areas, then, fundamentalists welcome a highly activist role for the federal courts. Consider a remarkable fact: Since 1995, the Rehnquist Court has struck down over 30 acts of Congress, including parts of the Violence Against Women Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Fundamentalist conservatives generally approve of these decisions, and would like to see more of the same.

I've been thinking about these splits and/or divisions, and the truth is, I don't think they'll turn out to be very serious. The simple reason I feel that way is this: I can't see any path that works except the road between them.

In the case of the first split: Sure. Liberty is meant to be put in the service of virtue. And it's very important to make that argument. Aristotle pointed to happiness as the point of ethics; but he defined happiness as "Rational activity in accord with excellence or virtue." That's an ancient, correct understanding for how life ought to be lived.

On the other hand, there's no way to have a free society in which you dictate what excellence or virtue means. People who aren't free to decide that aren't free at all.

So, there's no way forward except persuasion. Santorum's crowd is right this far: you have to be making the argument that people should use their liberty in pursuit of duty and virtue. You shouldn't leave that unsaid. But they are wrong to any degree that they think that it can be dictated or legislated. If it isn't freely chosen, it isn't free; and Americans in general will rebel against anything you try to shove down their throats.

You end up having to take both sides, which is to say that you choose the road between. You have to argue for virtue and also you have to argue for your particular conception of virtue. You can't use the government to enforce either.

As for the judicial philosophy, it looks the same to me. Should you take the path of moderation, respecting the decisions of the democratic branches? Yes, of course -- as long as they can point to the part of the Constitution where they get the authority to do what they are doing. If they can do that, the courts should stand aside. The attempt to find judicial solutions for problems yields the necessity of finding judicial solutions to every problem, which is more weight than the courts can bear.

On the other hand, if a decision or a law is plainly unconstitutional, you should always overturn it. Otherwise, what's the point of the Constitution? It's not a book of suggestions.

So, am I in favor of liberty or freedom? Yes.

Am I in favor of minimalism? Yes. Of fundamentalism? Yes.

And I guess I'm opposed to them all, too.

Asian news

Asian News:

Reading newspapers is rather like developing a taste for a regional cuisine. You have the British newspapers, which are so brash and over the top. You have the French newspapers, which are outrageously leftist in their every thought. You have the American newspapers, which pretend to an objectivity they neither desire nor feel. And then you have the Asian newspapers, which... well, see for yourself.

From The Independent of Bangladesh:

Maulana Fariduddin Masud, a former director of Islamic Foundation, who was arrested from Zia International Airport on August 22 for his suspected links to August 17 bombings across country, is now undergoing treatment at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Suhrawardi Hospital after he reportedly fell sick during interrogation.

Ah, yes, that will happen. Poor fellow -- sick enough to need visit the ICU for six days, as the article goes on to explain.

He must have been terribly ill when he got on that plane. Lucky he got arrested, so he could get the care he needed at the state's expense.

Ga.stories

More Georgia Stories:

It's now halftime for the season's opening game of the Georgia Bulldogs. It's been too long since I had a chance to sit down and watch the Bulldogs play. And what a game! Six turnovers, 24-0 Bulldogs going into the second half. And that against a team, Boise State, that was the single most top-scoring college football team over the last ten years.

During the game, the press was talking to the father of one of the BSU players, who had flown in from Iraq to see the game. He has been over there training the Iraqi police. Apparently, Georgia fans had taken up a collection to buy his ticket, even though he was related to a BSU and not a Bulldog player. Apparently, the NCAA made him refuse the money for some reason, but he got here anyway.

They took a moment to interview him about the game and how glad he was to be home to see it. Then, the lady doing the interview said, "Since you are just back from Iraq, can I ask you how it's going there?"

You could tell he was taken aback by the question, and it took a minute for him to sort out what she'd asked -- he was obviously focused on the football. But what he said when he had thought about it was this:

"As long as America's sons and daughters are there, we'll be fine. They're doing a great job."

That was all there was time for, because the play clock was running out.

Well, its a problem now, isn't it?

After reading the 'guest author' over at Winds of Change, I can't say that I'm really impressed. It reminds me of one of those late night Art Bell radio show tirades about the end of the world.

The Belmont Club, as usual, is more measured, but there's a lot of turmoil in the comments. People seem to think that a magic wand can be waved and it will all be better. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

Jason van Steenwyk at his 'Countercolumn' blog has a number of excellent posts on the logistics involved.

Another note: East-West travel across the Gulf coast has been disrupted heavily. Most relief is going to have to come North-South due to so many bridges and roads being wrecked.

The Anchoress, (via American Digest) has an excellent post "100 hours after Stormfall" on what has happened and what is being done. The picture she links to of the drowned school bus motor pool says more about the administration of New Orleans, and its emergency planning, than any 1000 words could. In fact, if the news report that this "Powerline" post points to is correct, then the only reason New Orleans even began to evacuate was because the President begged the Mayor and Governor to order it.

But I suppose dwelling on that would be doing what has Dennis the Peasant mightily annoyed.

He may have a point.

Katrina

Katrina Analysis:

The best I've seen lies behind these two links:

Winds of Change has this reading on the final scale of the disaster. Minimum projection: forty thousand dead, nine cities lost. If you think that's too high, read up.

The Belmont Club has an analysis of preventative measures taken for the hurricane. They were designed to stop a Cat. 3 hurricane. They were not designed for a Cat. 4 or 5, because the technology needed to save New Orleans from one won't exist for decades.

Both blogs have other impressive pieces on topic. But those two should be required reading.

Contact

Contact Info:

Greyhawk sends. Distribute to anyone who might need it.

Official DOD page on contact information for military families displaced by Katrina.

Site for Guard families impacted by Katrina.

Information for getting Guardsmen in touch with lost family members who may have been displaced by the hurricane.

Gifts

Gifts:

While helping my father clean out a room in the old family house, I noticed a ribboned medal atop one of the pieces of furniture we were moving. When we had shifted it to its new room, I picked the thing up to look at it.

"What's this?" I asked.

He glanced at it, and said, "I'm glad you saw that! I've had these things here for you for years. Your uncle sent them to you."

My uncle, his brother, was the elder of my grandfather's two sons. Unfortunately his own son is a tragic case, and so he has sometimes sent me things that he had intended to give his son when my cousin was old enough to get them.

The ribbon proved to be a World War II Victory Medal. It's interesting in that, on the reverse side, it is engraved with the famous "Four Freedoms," which were so capably illustrated by Norman Rockwell.

There were a few other items.

He had come across several General Officer stars, I couldn't guess where. There have certainly never been any Generals in my immediate family -- although Patton is a distant relative of ours, it is quite a distance. He had also an old Nazi mess-kit utensil. I'm no collector of Nazi things, but I recognized the crest on the back of it.

There was also a pin. It was black, engraved on the back with the number D-22; and on the front it bore a pair of crossed arrows and a dagger, and this motto:

"De Oppresso Liber."

My uncle was in Korea with the Air Force Security Police, who at that time were a very impressive bunch. This was when the Security Police was the last-ditch force for preventing the world's only nuclear weapons from falling into enemy hands, should a base be overrun or infiltrated. These were the early days of the Cold War, when the stakes were high and nowhere on earth seemed safe from covert action. The Security Police were trained in all manner of deadly combat, and understood that they were to die in place if called to do so. I gather from the occasional adventure onto an Air Force Base that the standards have changed since then, but the Security Police of the 1950s were a brave and dangerous band.

I don't know where he got this pin -- the insignia has existed since 1960, so it's possible that it was traded to him by someone he knew in Korea. It's been many years since I've spoken to him, but I'll have to write to ask where he got it.

Lawless

Lawless:

I warn you that what follows is not pleasant, and you may wish to skip this entry entirely if you do not wish to consider unpleasant thoughts at this time. I will hardly hold it against you, for this is a deeply unhappy time, and we have all had enough misery. Still, it is important to think things through plainly.

Probably what has been shocking people most about the hurricane damage is the chaos in New Orleans. We must remember the state of New Orleans before the disaster: a background crime rate that was one of the highest in the country; police forces, and indeed a political structure, that were notoriously corrupt. It is of no surprise that, having failed on every normal day to achieve their basic tasks, the city's government failed to achieve what would have been a heroic undertaking even for the most disciplined and efficient of governments.

There is another reason, though, that the chaos has been as bad as it has been. Reuters found someone from Sri Lanka to articulate it:

Not a single tourist caught in the tsunami was mugged. Now with all this happening in the U.S. we can easily see where the civilized part of the world's population is.

Well, properly, one can see where it is not. It is not in New Orleans.

The same argument was voiced in a dire prediction from the ground, which was carried by InstaPundit. Law Professor Bill Quigley wrote:

[T]he problem for New Orleans is that everybody who had their health, had money and had a car, they left. Okay, so we have probably 100,000 people trapped in the city right now, maybe 50,000 or 60,000 people in the Superdome who are there without electricity, without flushing toilets, without food, without water. And they are people who had to walk over there or take a bus, because they didn't have a car to get out.

There are people in nursing homes, there's people in these little hospitals all over the place.... So who's left behind in New Orleans right now, you are talking about tens of thousands of people who are left behind, and those are the sickest, the oldest, poorest, the youngest, the people with disabilities and the like, and the plan was that everybody should leave.

That is to say that only two kinds of people remain in New Orleans in any numbers: the underclass, among whom the predatory criminal population is vastly higher than among any other class of people; and those too frail or poor to move, which is to say, those who are naturally easy prey. All the elements of society that normally restrain violence and chaos have been stripped away by the evacuation.

This was not the case in the tsunami, because it fell instantly upon the people. Everyone was there -- militants in their jungles, tourists in their hotels, the poor and the rich and the people of every class. If this had been an earthquake instead of a hurricane, the chaos would be far lower in New Orleans. But we have left the worst predators, in a city where they are already accustomed to running rampant, alone with the most vulnerable possible prey. It is natural, and unavoidable, that hideous things should follow.

Our society does not rely for its order on our police forces, our National Guard, or indeed very much on the government at all. We are not a security state, like China, with uniformed servants of the state posted everywhere to enforce order. By and large, order is kept in America by middle-class Americans. In those parts of the inner cities where poverty is rampant and there is no middle class to speak of, there is always serious disorder -- the background murder rate for New Orleans, say, or the rate in much of Washington, D.C.

But we must institute such a security state in New Orleans for the duration, because American society is no longer there to restrain its criminals. Everyone with a stake in American society and also the power to help enforce its norms has been removed from the city. There will now be no order except by main force.

That would be a tremendous task even if those people given over to instituting that force did not have to deal with flooding, and the engineering challenges that go with it. Yet they do have to deal with it, which means that the application of force must be that much more stern.

That is the only way to protect any of the vulnerable peoples left in the area. The predators have been turned loose, by the evacuation as much as by the disaster. Civilization was packed up and removed from what was once a city, but which is now a jungle as dark and perilous as any in imagination.

Trip down

Down Georgia Way:

I flew down today, passing up my airline's invitation to become a Federal felon. When I went to check in my firearm, I declared it and presented it to security, unloaded and sealed in a locking case. "You want to check this firearm?" the officer of the airline asked me. Misunderstanding her intention, I said politely that yes, I did, and that the regulations for doing so were posted on a large sign right behind her.

"But you don't have to check it," she said. "You can carry it on the plane."

"Um, what?" I asked.

"Yes, we carry on firearms now. If you want to do that, that will be fine."

I insisted on checking it as baggage, because I knew that was legal. It turns out, I realized at the end of the conversation (after the firearm case was already on its way through the TSA scanners, properly declared and sealed) that she had been under the misapprehension that I was a law enforcement officer of some description. Well, I was traveling through Dulles, so it's perfectly sensible she might have thought so. I imagine they come through all the time.

I got to Atlanta in the early afternoon, and found the city unusually quiet. I took MARTA through town. The parking garages at the terminal ends of the line were packed to capacity, which is apparently highly unusual. The gas panic seems to have produced real expectations of shortages here, with the result that there actually were several gas stations that had sold out their tanks to local consumers.

It will be interesting to see whether I can get home, too.

Everywhere I've been, television screens are constantly focused on the hurricane. Even on MARTA -- unlike the D.C. Metro, they've now got televisions on MARTA trains. Great, just what I wanted. Another place where there's a constant TV presence.

Katrina has gotten people's attention in a big way. There's been quite a bit of talk today about how this may change behavior in the long term. We'll see if it plays out, of course. The big question is the refineries, as I see it; we can buy extra oil if we need it, but the refineries are the choke point. We can't make more gas than we can make, and we can make less now with the gulf refineries offline.

Still, it honestly wouldn't take much belt-tightening to overcome the shortage, if it is widespread. I saw that Bush had suggested to all Americans that they should not buy gas if they didn't need to do so. It certainly appears to be the case that the folks in Atlanta are buying all the gas they can get, but also trying to cut down on use of gasoline. Even a small savings in terms of personal use, if it is adopted by millions, will probably ease the shortage enough that it will be just a memory in a little while.

If so, the dire projections I've been hearing and reading about today probably won't ever come to pass. But, at least for the moment, there are people thinking seriously about questions of how far they really want to commute to work; how big a car they need; and how many cars. The sudden spike in gas prices has caused people to reflect on their personal budgets.

This is not to say that the talk today has shown a basic selfishness, or self-interest. People are emotionally involved in the tragedy, of course. But there is nothing that the emotional involvement can accomplish; other than mourning it, and giving to their favored charity, there honestly isn't much to be done. There really does come a point where everything to be said about the tragedy has been said; and then you think of other things, and right now, these other things also weigh heavily on peoples' minds.

I have a few more stories, but it's almost one AM and I've been up since five AM, so they'll have to wait.

Travel

Traveler:

I'll be traveling for a week or so, down to Georgia and back. Should make for some good stories. I'll share the best ones with you.