“Ineffective?”

Don Surber takes exception to remarks made by NRO FRC Web director Joe Carter about center-right bloggers. (Ed Note: Correction per comment from Don Surber.)

Jim Garaghty at NRO was part of a panel hosted by the Family Research Council and posted about it, linking to remarks by its Web director Joe Carter. On his blog, Carter observed: “The fact that many center-right bloggers care more about getting linked by a radical libertarian than they do in discussing the concerns of their fellow conservatives is one of the primary reasons the Right blogosphere is a failing to have the same impact as the Left.”

What’s with the shot at Instapundit? Let’s go to the board, shall we?

Who stopped the nomination of Harriet Miers?

Who stopped amnesty for illegal aliens?

Who helped get FISA extended this summer?

Who is fighting pork and winning a battle here and there?

Above all, who hung in there — and hangs in there — on the Iraq War?

They call us 29 percenters or whatever Bush’s job approval is. We hang in there because we believe in freedom and the liberation of Iraq. We know our history. We know right from wrong. We hate war, but we know this is a battle that is fought either over there or over here.

What have the lefty blogs done? Ask Sen. Ned Lamont.

Contrary to the routine accusations (more properly: projections) of the left, the right, or center-right, does not - as far as I know - coordinate worth a darn. I get a few emails from a few people with interesting - or not - items. Any of which I may or may not blog about. Maybe I'm not in the loop here, but I personally am not on a bunch of highly coordinated mailing lists from a group of dictatorial authoritarians who decide what story may and may not be blogged about. As are those who travel with Kos and Kompany - Kos having admitted to coordinating messages with big lefty sites.

But we here on the uncoordinated, unaffiliated and "ineffectual" right have managed to fight back against some of the worst excesses. (Both from the left and from the right.) We have had some victories, some defeats and some draws. But we are not out of the game. Maybe the only way to push back against that increasingly authoritarian left is to coordinate messages. But does that work, in the end?

It’s The Geat Pumpkin Tree, Charlie Brown

Somehow, I think Charles Schulz would have gotten a kick out of this story, whether he was or was not a "tortured soul." Because a New Jersey family has discovered a pumpkin tree in their backyard - well, sort of.

What would you get if you combined Joseph Jacobs's "Jack and the Beanstalk" with Charles M. Schulz's "It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown"?

You'd get little Joseph Phillips' "pumpkin tree."

During the spring, after the 5-year-old was told there was no room left in the family garden, he strew some pumpkin seeds near a wooded area of his backyard. His mom planted seeds nearby for squash.

Only one puny butternut squash sprouted.

And when they saw no pumpkins on the ground, Joseph's parents figured those seeds didn't take.

They didn't give it much more thought. Until Saturday — when they did a double-take after seeing a big round orange object hanging more than 4 feet high off a tree, like an orange on steroids.

The vines of the pumpkin somehow attached themselves to a sumac tree and grew up, sprouting a ribbed 10-pound pumpkin that hung from the branch.

"Daddy!" exclaimed the boy, looking up at the pumpkin above his head. "I must have planted pumpkin tree seeds!"

Heh. I'd suggest the Phillips family consider giving Joseph some $100 bills to plant next spring. Hey, it worked once, it's worth a shot.

Backers Ask That Armenian Genocide Bill Be Pulled

The four main sponsors of the so-called Armenian genocide bill pending in the US House of Representatives have asked that Nancy Pelosi pull the bill off the agenda- for now.

Four key sponsors of the bill, censuring the Ottoman Empire for the World War I killings, asked House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi not to hold a debate on the issue.

Despite signs that support for the measure had waned in recent days, its main sponsors, Democrats Adam Schiff, Brad Sherman, Anna Eshoo and Frank Pallone, said it still had significant backing in Congress.

"We believe that a large majority of our colleagues want to support a resolution recognizing the genocide on the House floor, and they will do so, provided the timing is more favorable," they said in a letter to Pelosi.

President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had repeatedly called on the House Democratic leadership to pull the bill, fearing lasting damage with Turkey, a key US military and diplomatic ally.

But Pelosi had resisted pressure to pull the bill from the chamber, and had said she was determined it would go to a vote, buoying Armenian exiles who have pressed for years for the measure.

Democrats argued that by refusing to condemn the Armenian massacres as "genocide" the United States will encourage impunity for current and future crimes against humanity, for example the killings of civilians in Darfur.

Republican House minority leader John Boehner welcomed the move to pull the bill, but said the whole episode reflected badly on the Democratic leadership and "calls their judgment into question."

"Let's be clear: the suffering the Armenian people endured was tragic, there is no doubt about that," he said in a statement.

"But this 90-year-old issue should be settled by historians, not by politicians."

Obviously, I have been against this bill since I heard about it. It is nothing but useless finger-pointing and holier-than-thou tut-tutting. It accomplishes nothing and deters nothing. Instead of trying to point a moralizing finger at an ally, how about working to do something constructive. How about a bill encouraging improvement in Armenian-Turkish relations? Here's a thought: how about offering a relatively small amount of seed money for a cultural exchange program? How about a look forward instead of dwelling on the past.

Oh, hell. This is Congress. Something like that would take work and actual thought rather than mindless pandering. Too hard I guess.

California Arson Update

CNN is reporting that officials have found definite proof that at least two of the fires in southern California were deliberately set.  Apparently, by someone who knew what they were doing.

The Santiago Fire in Orange County was started in two places along a little-traveled road, according to Chief Chip Prather of the county's fire authority.

The fire, which has burned more than 25,000 acres, was started in brush just off Santiago Canyon Road, not close to homes. It spread rapidly, indicating the arsonist had some knowledge of winds and other factors.

"It is a confirmed arson. There was evidence found at the scene. That is the purpose of our early declaration of it being an arson-caused fire," Prather said. He would not describe the evidence.

Prather said officials originally thought the fire had three points of origin instead of two.

The Santiago Fire's points of origin are considered crime scenes, said Jim Amornino, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

The reward for information leading to an arrest has increased to $150,000 — $50,000 each from the governor's office, the U.S. agency of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the FBI, Prather said.

Let's hope they catch whoever did it. A lot of people are suffering - whoever set the fires needs to be dealt with.

Coming Debate

James Pinkerton, writing in Newsday, distorts a few things in a column today. Well, either he did or an editor did. Regardless of who did what, it changes the entire tone of the debate.

More than anyone else, Tancredo has put immigration on the front burner. In the course of tirelessly stumping across the country - most recently as a no-hope presidential candidate - he has riled up citizens on the need for better border security, English only, federal standards for driver's-license documents, and preserving and perpetuating the "American identity." He has been called every name in the book, but he has persevered. Today his ideas are winning, even if he himself has been marginalized.

That's the fate of many polarizing figures, those who carry an issue from the fringe to the mainstream. In that sense, Tancredo resembles Jean-Marie Le Pen, the Frenchman who campaigned against immigration in France for decades - until finally, in the last few years, after the immigrant riots, Le Pen's platform became the conventional wisdom.

Now the new president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, elected on a tough law-and-order platform - he famously referred to the mostly Muslim rioters as "scum" - has sought to implement Le Pen's restrictionist agenda. On Tuesday, for example, the national legislature adopted a bill that would mandate DNA tests to prevent fraudulent "family reunification."

This measure outraged the left, of course. The International Herald Tribune denounced it as "pseudoscientific bigotry." But, as cops know, there's nothing unscientific, or bigoted, about DNA testing.

Meanwhile, here at home, nobody calls Spitzer a racist. He is so politically correct, it kills you - or, more precisely, it will kill him politically. Spitzer has put forth a plan for issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants that is opposed by 72 percent of New Yorkers. Earlier this week, the State Senate, including nearly a third of its Democrats, voted by a ratio of more than 2-1 to reject the Spitzer plan.

But one might ask: How is Spitzer's view different from that of most national Democrats? Answer: It's not.

Notice the slight difference? Tancredo, Pinkerton alleges, is anti-immigrant. Spitzer is pro-illegal immigrant. This is, as far as I know, not Tancredo's beef. His problem is first and foremost the illegals. The rest is a position that ensures that legal immigrants become American.

The left is trying to paint any anti-illegal immigrant beliefs as "racist." While some people who don't like the flood of immigrants are probably racist or biased, that does not describe the vast majority of people who oppose illegal immigration. A high fence with a wide gate and a hearty welcome for legal immigrants is something this country can and should be doing. What we do not need is a permanent underclass of unassimilated people who broke multiple laws to get here. Nor do we need a free pass for people who might not be coming here just for work.

There is a huge majority of legal citizens in this country who want the borders controlled. They do not want a flood of people sneaking in in violation of this nation's sovereignty or of the nation's laws. They do not want a permanent underclass who cannot even speak the language. They do not want children who should not be here in the first place receiving preferential treatment that our own native-born children do not get. They do not want a Federal insurance program that hands taxpayer-funded health insurance to people who are here illegally.

So yeah, the debate going forward into 2008 is going to focus more and more on this issue. But the issue is illegal immigration - straight up. If done properly, this is a boon to all people in this country legally. Including legal immigrants. Because it keeps new, illegal arrivals from jumping ahead of those who played by the rules. High fence, wide gate, hearty welcome for those who choose to be Americans legally.

Its a good platform.

Mother Of All Tax Hikes Introduced

House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel has introduced his "Mother of all reforms" to the tax code. The "reforms" will cause a devastating tax hike.

As expected, Rangel’s proposal would eradicate the alternative minimum tax — a levee expected to hit 24 million middle- and upper-income Americans this year — and cut the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30.5 percent. It would also expand the child tax credit, standard deduction and earned income-tax credit for low-income families.

The costs will be offset by a 4 percent surtax on taxpayers earning more than $150,000 a year — $200,000 for couples — and by closing various corporate tax “loopholes.”

Another $48 billion will be raised by increasing taxes paid by hedge funds, venture capitalists, private equity managers, and other types of partnerships will also increase from 15 percent to 35 percent and limiting the executives’ ability to defer compensation tax-free offshore.

Congressional Republicans and the White House oppose the tax hikes. And House Republicans shot back immediately calling the bill the “mother of a tax hikes” and “one bad mother.”

“This crushing high tax rate will affect approximately 10 million taxpayers directly — including those who report business income, like small business owners and farmers — but the damage will ripple throughout our economy,” said Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee.

This is a $1 trillion dollar tax bill.

Second Chance

Michael Yon has a post up dealing with Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the soldier, and second chances.

Lapses of judgment are bound to happen, and accountability is critical, but that’s not the same thing as pulling out the hanging rope every time a soldier makes a mistake.

Beauchamp is young; under pressure he made a dumb mistake. In fact, he has not always been an ideal soldier. But to his credit, the young soldier decided to stay, and he is serving tonight in a dangerous part of Baghdad. He might well be seriously injured or killed here, and he knows it. He could have quit, but he did not. He faced his peers. I can only imagine the cold shoulders, and worse, he must have gotten. He could have left the unit, but LTC Glaze told me that Beauchamp wanted to stay and make it right. Whatever price he has to pay, he is paying it.

The Army gave Beauchamp the choice to go home or to stay with his unit and finish his tour. His decision was to stay. With that, my respect for him went up a fair amount. My respect for The New Republic, however, has dropped still further. For they are still hiding behind Scott Thomas Beauchamp, the writer.

But I think the second chance indicates he wants to reclaim his place as a soldier. TNR has no such honorable way out.

Things That Work

A pilot project to help stop the spread of wildfires in southern California appears to have proved its worth. A Federal program run by the US Forest Service to trim trees and underbrush created what are called "fuel breaks" that kept at least part of Lake Arrowhead from destruction. The program has been a tough sell up until now, with many residents objecting to it, thinking it is clandestine logging.

LAKE ARROWHEAD — As flames ravage surrounding communities, this resort town high in the San Bernardino Mountains emerged largely unscathed, an island in a sea of destruction.

The credit for that isolated victory, federal officials say, should go to firefighting tactics, shifting winds and favorable terrain — and a sometimes controversial U.S. Forest Service effort to eliminate the tinder that fuels forest fires.

Since 2002, the Forest Service has removed millions of trees, thinned brush and cut low-hanging branches, creating fuel breaks around almost 80% of the community. Fires don't spread quickly or easily through such areas, instead burning lower to the ground and with less intensity.

"The fuel breaks saved Lake Arrowhead," said Randall Clauson, the Forest Service's division chief for the San Bernardino National Forest and incident commander earlier this week on the two biggest wildfires still burning in the mountains.

He said he believes that, without the breaks, "the fire would have run right through Lake Arrowhead and gone to Highway 18, cutting off the evacuation route and probably resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives."

One person the paper interviewed didn't think the fuel breaks deserved the credit. But most of the area survived. Except one place where homeowners let their homes become surrounded by luxurious growth. That area had a different outcome:

And yet there is only so much the Forest Service can do. Lake Arrowhead didn't escape unscathed. In Grass Valley, an upscale part of the town about a mile from Lake Arrowhead, more than 100 homes were destroyed. Many had been surrounded by tall trees and lush vegetation left uncleared by the homeowners.

There were scenes of total devastation — lakeside homes reduced to their foundations, torched cars and, in one house, only a pair of smudged lawn jockeys survived. Power lines littered the ground or hung perilously overhead.

"We can spend $100 million to put fuel breaks around every town up here but if individuals don't take responsibility for their land I can't save them," Clauson said.

Lawhawk over at A Blog for All has more about things that work and a good roundup of other fire-related links.

Democrats = Taxes

The Hill's Pundit Blog has a post about the Democrats and taxes. Frankly, the Democrats just don't get it. Americans don't want higher taxes but the Democrats have already been voting to raise them at the rate of $10 billion in new taxes per month since they have taken control. And they are just getting started.

Earlier this year, The Tax Foundation released a poll about the attitudes that Americans have towards the tax code. It found that a majority of U.S. adults believe the federal tax code is complex, that the federal income taxes they pay are “too high,” and that the federal tax system needs major changes or a complete overhaul. It also found that just one in 10 (10 percent) say they are willing to pay higher taxes to eliminate 2007’s projected $244 billion federal budget deficit.

The American people aren’t necessarily convinced that they need more tax cuts, although they do believe that they pay too much in taxes. But they sure as heck don’t want their taxes increased.

Leading Democrats don’t see it that way. They believe that the American people are desperate to have a tax increase. Democratic proposals abound, some of which have already been voted on. Some leaders want a war tax. Some want to sharply increase the gas tax to curtail energy use. Others have voted to sharply increase the cigarette tax to curtail smoking (and to pay for children’s healthcare). There was an $8 billion tax increase in the energy bill to stop those evil oil companies from profiting from oil exploration. Don’t forget the billion-dollar tax increase that was included in a small-business bill or the nearly $8 billion dollar tax increase in a Farm Nutrition and Bioenergy bill. A helpful list from the House Ways and Means Committee minority staff shows that the Democratic majority has voted to raise taxes by nearly $100 billion in the first 10 months of this session of Congress.

The new taxes on the drawing board will make your head spin. Add in the fact that many of the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010 and you have a recipe for a truly staggering increase in taxation. How bad will it be come 2011? This bad:

The five income tax brackets (10, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent) will be increased by 50%, 12%, 10.7%, 9.1% and 13.1% percent, respectively, to 15, 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent. The child tax credit reverts to $500 from $1,000. The estate tax rate, which falls to zero in 2009, will snap back to a 60 percent maximum, and exemptions that have increased will decrease. The capital gains rate will rise, and the marriage penalty will be revived, as will the double taxation of dividends.

Furthermore, the alternative minimum tax was enacted by Democratic moralists in 1969 because 21 millionaires had legally avoided paying any income tax. The AMT, which allows almost no deductions, had one rate (24 percent) until 1993, when Democrats replaced it with two (26 percent and 28 percent). It has never been indexed for inflation and in the current tax year will hit almost one in five households — 23 million of them.

Interesting, isn't it, that the group seeing the largest tax increase when the "tax cuts for the rich" expire during the next presidential term will be those making the least? And I wonder how many of those low income Americans removed from the tax rolls completely by the Bush "tax cuts for the rich" will find themselves once again required to pay income taxes with the return to Clinton-era tax policies?

Democrat tax policies: the best campaign buddy Republicans have.

“…If You Live In A Snake Pit, You’re Going To Get Bit.”

Those are the words of Tom Wordell who is a wildfire analyst at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. He was describing the situation in Southern California and dismissing media claims that somehow global warming was involved in the fires. Sadly, the description is apt. San Diego and southern California is a very arid climate.

The study, however, found Southern California was different from the rest of the West, with no increase in the frequency of fire as temperatures rose.

"In Southern California, it's hot and dry much of the year," said Anthony Westerling, a climate scientist at UC Merced and the study's lead author. In other words, Southern California was already perfect for fire.

"That is a fire-prone environment regardless of whether we are in a climate-change scenario," said Tom Wordell, a wildfire analyst at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. "I don't want to be callous, because many people are homeless and suffering, but if you live in a snake pit, you're going to get bit."

But eventually global warming could make Southern California's occasional droughts more persistent, exacerbating the fire danger.

Enough with the agenda foolishness. Democrats trying to score points against the Bush administration; media trying to further other agendas. Enough. People's homes are burning, instead of trying to score points, how about making a donation to the Red Cross?

Why The Media Gets Bashed

The blogosphere is going off on a Knight-Ridder reporter named Bobby Calvan who managed to look like a complete jerk in an article he posted. He has since taken it down, but not before a couple hundred people bashed heck out of him in comments. And, unfortunately for his future peace of mind, not before Doc Weasel captured the whole thing.

With nothing to lose I decided to get pushy.

I asked him how he could not possibly know that Knight Ridder was one of the country’s largest newspaper chains. I told him that we’re bigger than the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times.

“I’m from Atlanta. I only know the Journal,” he said.

“I thought you said you also knew the Miami Herald,” I retorted.

“We’re bigger than the Journal,” I replied. “You never heard of Knight Ridder?”

He didn’t want to be embarrassed. He already looked irritated. He asked me if I knew the number of the military’s media office.

“I would if you’d let me switch on my phone,” I snapped. “What’s the use of these media badges if people like you aren’t going to honor them? Is this for nothing? Why don’t you call? That’s your job, isn’t it?” I made it known that I was jotting down his name.

My security man was struggling with a smirk on his face. He knew my plan. I was going to bully my way back into the Green Zone.

And right into the hearts of millions, Bobby old bean. The comments are hysterical:

17. Lou Minatti said:
October 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Robert, I doubt very much that our soldiers are impressed by a prima donna flashing a press badge. Looks like you stepped in it this time, doesn’t it?

18. xxx said:
October 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Wow, what an astonishing level of arrogance. People are getting killed over there every day at checkpoints like this, and you throw a hissy fit when asked for proper identification. They are only trying to keep people like you alive.

Plus, Knight Ridder is a second tier news organization. It is unlikely many people outside of the media business would have heard of it.

19. John G said:
October 24th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
You, my reporter friend, seem to be a horse’s patoot.

How do you think that soldiers at a check-point are supposed to “screen” folks going into and out of a “secure zone” unless the folks can produce decent ID. I hope that you avoid injury while you learn the ropes in a combat zone.

Anyway, Bobby, thanks for the laugh entirely at your expense. I needed one today. You horse's patoot.

Freya, 1996-2007

My daughter took these in better days.

Rest in peace, old girl.

US Imposes Unilateral Sanctions On Iran

The US government has announced a new set of sanctions to be imposed on 20 individuals or entities in Iran that are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The measures are designed to cut these entities off from the American banking system and will have global repercussions.

The sanctions will cut off more than 20 Iranian entities, including individuals and companies owned or controlled by the Revolutionary Guards, from the American financial system and will likely have ripple effects throughout the international banking community.

The Quds Force, a part of the Guard Corps that Washington accuses of provided weapons, including powerful bombmaking materiel blamed for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and other banks will be identified as "specially designated global terrorist" groups for their activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East, the officials said.

Rice said the new sanctions will "provide a powerful deterrent" for companies in the United States and abroad to sever business relationships with Iran.

Paulson said that Iran channels millions of dollars a year to help bankroll terrorist acts.

"It is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business with the IRGC," Paulson said, referring to Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The sanctions also cover three Iran state-owned banks, including Bank Melli.

The actions mean that any assets found in the United States belonging to the designated groups must be frozen. Americans are also forbidden from doing business with them.

Importantly, the designations also put companies outside the United States on notice that doing business with the designated groups could be problematic.

It will be interesting to see if France now follows suit - or any of the European countries, for that matter. For now, this is just about as much pressure as the US can accomplish alone.

Money For Nothing

Steve Chapman has a column up over at Real Clear Politics that points out the high cost - and the outright absurdity - of Federal farm subsidies. The programs are enormously wasteful, cause significant skewing of markets and are generally a bad deal for everyone, except a few lucky farmers who are the recipients of the largess.

Back in the 1930s, when the economy was a wreck, the survival of capitalism was in doubt and Oklahoma was blowing away, you could understand the impulse for Washington to intervene on behalf of farmers. But the days when agriculture meant a lifetime of toil for a meager living are just a memory. Today, farmers monitor soil conditions by computer, drive air-conditioned tractors and have a higher average income than nonfarmers.

Yet many of them continue to enjoy treatment other industries can only dream about. Imagine the government rigging the market to assure high prices to people selling concrete or cameras. Dairy farmers and sugar growers get exactly that, courtesy of the Department of Agriculture. Farmers who plant a host of other crops receive compensation anytime their prices fall below a fixed minimum.

That's not the strangest part. These days, you don't have to grow anything at all to harvest federal crop subsidies. Instead, Washington will send you a check based on the amount of a product you raised in the past, even if you don't feel like growing it anymore.

Homeowners in one Texas subdivision found themselves getting federal money because their land was formerly used to cultivate rice. Some farmers pocket the payments they get for one commodity but plant something else, enabling them to earn two incomes for the price of one crop.

All this is sweet for the lucky few who happen to be holding buckets when the federal cash falls out of the sky. But someone has to foot the bill, and that someone is anyone who 1) eats or 2) pays taxes. Government meddling raises the price of products at the grocery, while burning up billions of dollars in federal revenues. A study by Sallie James and Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute, a free-market think tank, put the total cost of farm programs at $430 billion over the past decade.

That is a lot of tax money. In fact, it is enough money to have funded some really worthwhile programs. But it is a sacred cow of American Politics - even though it is getting us into very serious global problems with the World Trade Organization. It is past time to stop paying these subsidies. Remember, you and I are the ones being milked to hand money to these folks. And every American is paying higher and higher prices as a result while we are also endangering other trade.

“Luck Favors The Well-Prepared”

Arnold Schwarzenegger is getting some high praise from unlikely places these days, according to David Von Drehle in Time Magazine. Some of that praise directly flies in the face of organized Democratic party efforts to wail about the National Guard.

The California governor is drawing praise from across the political spectrum for his leadership as the fire emergency forced the largest evacuation in the state's history. An early critic of the state's fire response, Orange County fire chief Chip Prather, had nothing but accolades for Schwarzenegger on Wednesday. His "personal attention" to firefighters battling the blazes "is inspiring — knowing the guy at the top is there with them," Prather said at a news conference near Los Angeles.

California's National Guard Commander Maj. Gen. William Wade extolled the "coordination and cooperation" in the Schwarzenegger-led effort. L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca said the fires were a reminder that "this state requires the gubernatorial leadership that you provide."

But the most striking testimonial may have been the one delivered by Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of the Senate's most liberal members. She said she had feared that the war in Iraq left the National Guard so depleted that California would be unable to handle the disaster. But "the governor's swift action" in pulling guard members away from a mission to patrol the border assured that sufficient boots were very quickly on the ground, the senator allowed. It's not every day a Republican gets a shout out from Boxer.

The article goes on to detail how the California legislature has failed to address some recommendations made by a blue-ribbon panel formed after the last disastrous fire season. But despite that, Schwarzenegger had contingency plans in place and ready to go in case National Guard units were needed. The responses had been drilled and trained for repeatedly.

But if it's true that the governor was lucky, it's also true that luck favors the well-prepared. Schwarzenegger was able to move those National Guard troops quickly because he had a plan in place to redeploy them in an emergency. The obvious competence of the emergency response — in stark contrast to the debacle of Hurricane Katrina — was the product of years of training, planning and drills.

So when political opportunists try to trade on other people's misery, tell them what Barbara Boxer said. Then ask why the Democrats who control the California legislature haven't funded the new and better equipment they were supposed to.