Andrew Hagen

An unspeakable nightmare has befallen New Orleans and nearby areas in Missisippi and Alabama on the southern Gulf Coast. Hurricane Katrina left in its wake sheer devastation.

Eighty percent of the City of New Orleans is under water. The famous French Quarter is on higher ground and is so far dry.

Since the hurricane has passed, the water has risen in many parts of the city. Fox News has just repoted that an effort to repair the 17th Street Levee has failed. (*)

In an interview a few minutes ago on MSNBC, Tucker Carlson spoke to a woman in the French Quarter. She described it as “bone dry.” She said that the authorities had given up on an effort to repair “the levee.” She expected the water to hit her area. She was not asked to elaborate. Perhaps there is a rumor on the ground. Perhaps she knows something.

Rescuers are going past the dead to try to reach survivors who need help.

The Red Cross is doing all they can to help. They need donations. (†)

Widespread looting has once again proved that civilization is a thin veneer over base human nature.

The water that floods the city is contaminated, disease-ridden, and toxic.

The situation in New Orleans reminds me of that of Grand Forks in 1997. (‡)

New Orleans is under mandatory evacuation.

Previous projections suggested that pumping the water out of the city could take months.

The domestic oil economy on the US relies heavily on the southern Louisiana area for shipping, refining, and pumping oil. The industry in that area will be shut down for some time.

At a time like this, what is needed more than anything is strong and wise leadership. President Bush has just now cut short the last leg of his Herculean vacation.

There are many concerns and needs. Above all else are the following needs:

1. repair the levees;
2. once the key levees are repaired, pump the water out;
3. get the people in New Orleans and the surrounding area out; and
4. give aid to survivors and those who fled the area ahead of the storm.

To meet the needs, military assets are needed. Many Navy vessels are already moving into position.

New Orleans will never be the same again. The city and the surrounding areas will never be built again as they were.

We live in a time of change. We have to reassess things and get ahead of the curve. We need to wake our slumbering civilization to all of the emerging threats, natural, environmental, geopolitical, cultural, and martial.

We ought to take New Orleans as a warning of things to come. We ought to improve our preparations and safeguard through hard choices what is most important.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has breaking coverage. (§)

As a hurricance of incredible ferocity bears down on the City of New Orleans and the surrounding area, people are fleeing and emergency workers are wondering what they will be called to do. (*)

The now well-known prediction is that New Orleans will be inundanted with water for a long time.

The worst flood disaster in US history was the Jonestown flood, killing 2,200. (†) The worst hurricanes were Camille in 1969 (‡) and Andrew in 1992. (§)

It is all too possible for Hurricane Katrina to dwarf them all.

Miles O’Brien has a hurricane blog. (**)

With the price of gasoline soaring, ways to reduce fuel consumption look more important. The FTC has some tips. (*) CNN gives a financial perspective. (†) The EPA points out how car maintenance can improve efficiency. (‡) The EPA also compares the efficiency of different car models. (§)

Austin Bay thinks that three dollars a gallon could significantly help the emerging Iraqi government. (*) Current US prices are approaching that level.

They could use the money to finance a quicker defeat of the terrorists.

Latino Pundit provides a spark of insight and disagrees with my argument against multiculturalism. (*) My argument was made a while back. (†)

Latino Pundit characterizes my point as “multiculturalism = sludge.” Of course, that overgeneralizes what I said. To be precise, I depicted multiculturalism as a process. The end result of this process I described as negative.

Furthermore, he equates multiculturalism with that which is Hispanic in the USA. To me, the word multiculturalism is not so specific. I view multiculturalism instead as an ideology that is not associated with any particular culture.

There is nothing wrong with maintaining one’s culture or promoting it. It is wrong, however, to promote one culture at the expense of another where the culture that declines is harmless.

America has a culture. Its emblems include baseball, fireworks on the Fourth of July, the nomadic experience, hamburgers, and hot dogs. It is a tradition of free associations and a reverence for justice over any reverence for authority. It is a culture founded upon an interesting combination of English, American Indian, and other cultures.

Those who criticize the United States as an imperialistic aggressor believe this American culture should be scoured off the Earth. One may begin to achieve this goal by portraying American culture as evil and every other culture as good. This is the perspective of multiculturalism as it applies to America.

What is multiculturalism, really? Is it a snide, underhanded reference to one culture in particular that is supposedly disliked? Is it an ideology? On the other hand, is it merely a distraction?

The real argument seems to be which culture is good and which is bad. This real argument can be avoided by hiding under the cloak of multiculturalism, One can claim superior moral authority on a subject by defining one’s enemies as evil because they defend “evil” and attack “good.” In this way, multiculturalism can help an advocate presume the conclusion in such a way that it is difficult for an audience to detect.

All of this comes from the notion that a culture is something so distinct that it must be considered to have a “purity,” as Latino Pundit references. As he forcefully notes, however, cultures tend to have so many interactions with other cultures that it is probably impossible to precisely distinguish between cultures. Insofar as cultures are not monoliths, they cannot be ranked in order of merit.

Yet, the first lesson of politics is that different groups of people are different enough to matter in the course of daily lives. To use an example, an American might sit on a chair, cross his legs, and show the sole of his foot to a person he is talking to, without failing to be polite. In Arab culture, however, that would be impolite.

Latino Pundit is correct that there is no “purity” of any culture that has any value worth protecting. That does not lead to the conclusion, however, that all cultures are the same. A roughly drawn difference is still a difference.

Multiculturalism appears only superficially to argue that all cultures are equal. In practical effect, if all cultures are equal, than any greatly successful culture would scandalize our presumption of relativistic equivalence. To defend the presumption requires a redefining of success or thriving as aggression and imperialism.

Most proponents of multiculturalism are merely confused. They do not deserve harsh criticism. They deserve a chance to see the light. I am not someone who has all the answers. I once was a forceful proponent of multiculturalism myself.

In conclusion, we should not reference multiculturalism because it is a crutch to shepherd along the weak case for destroying whatever is strong because it is strong without regard for whether it is just. If multiculturalism can then be defined as an ideology, we can see how it leads to the process of shredding existing cultures, regardless of whether they have merit. If multiculturalism really would turn American culture into mulch, then it would do the same for any other culture as well.

If we wish to say American culture is good or bad or some other culture is good or bad, we should be as specific with our examples as possible. It is far more useful to say, “American policy as it concerns the environment in Tanzania is bad,” or “American movies promote violence and immorality,” than it is to say, for example, “America is bad.”