Rita's comin' to Texas, folks

and she might even be headed down Galveston way. It is of course too early to make definite predictions about where Hurricane Rita is going to make landfall, but there's been a lot more consistency in the predicted tracks all of a sudden.

(scroll to the end of the post for the most recent satellite imagery and track predictions)

It's important in the wake of Katrina that we all take hurricane preparedness seriously. Other Houston-area bloggers of note are Charles and Kevin - I hope that they also keep an eye on this. A hit on our region of the Gulf is very likely and we need to make sure we are ready. Here's the relevant info page from NOAA that we should be bookmarking, especially given that Rita is predicted to gain significant strength as she rounds the Keys and engters the warm open water of the Gulf.

And Houston, not New Orleans, is the real center of gravity for oil production in this nation. And that industry is very vulnerable right now...

As far as Galveston is concerned, the great Hurricane of 1900 was the proverbial hundred year storm. Well, it's been 105 years. I live in Galveston county and I have my exit route planned. My wife is a resident at UTMB however and so it is conceivable that she might be called to duty. If that happens I am staying with her and sending the baby to safety in Katy with my in-laws.

Eric Berger did do a worst-case scenario story a while back in the Chron which put the potential damage from a "perfect" storm at about ten times the cost of Tropical Storm Allison. While wind damage woudl be pretty bad in and of itself, the storm surge along Clear Lake and the Ship Channel are the real concerns:

More devastation would be caused by winds blowing over the Gulf of Mexico and pushing surface water inland -- creating up to a 20-foot storm surge. Such a wall of water would swamp most development near Galveston Bay, including Texas City, Kemah and Johnson Space Center. Varying levels of water would flood much of the area between Sam Houston Parkway and the bay.

On Galveston Island, the seawall could hold back much of the storm surge, but at some point the water would creep onto the island from the bay side. The island's highest point is just 22 feet above sea level.

Much like a river becomes deeper and more turbulent when it narrows, a storm surge also can increase in height and intensity when its source of water narrows. Dodson said this has profound implications for the Port of Houston. Some models ended with a 30-foot wall of water in the Ship Channel near the port's turning basin, he said. "It would be huge," he said. "It could overwhelm chemical storage facilities, water treatment plants and other sensitive areas."

What was wierd about TS Allison was that it essentially parked itself over Houston for a week. The article above mentions that Allison could be considered more properly a 10,000 year event rather than a 100 year event. If thats true, then the flooding from a hurricane strike should drain relatively quickly. However, there's no real way to compare the effect of a hurricane at category 4 or 5 with the TS because of the added factor of the storm surge and winds. So really it is anyone's guess.

UPDATE: Anne has posted at BlogHouston, and so have Charles, Laurence Simon, Tom Kirkendall, and Eric Berger.

UPDATE 2. The mayor of Galveston has called for a voluntary evacuation. Buses will be provided staring at 10am wednesday. By then we should know whether Rita is really going to be knockin' on our door or not.

Here are some graphics from NOAA which should be automatically updated with the latest information. Reloading the URL to this post will give you the most recent version.

5-day cone of probability

Approximate representation of coastal areas under a hurricane warning (red), hurricane watch (pink), tropical storm warning (blue) and tropical storm watch (yellow).



72-hours 75-miles strike probability

Probability, in percent, that the center of the tropical cyclone will pass within 75 statute miles of a location during the next 72 hours.



Satellite imagery (visible spectrum)

Rennaisance, not Reformation

I'm not one to insist that you must be muslim to discuss Islam, but most of the time when non-muslims do discuss Islam the result either provokes anger or amusement in the muslim observer. Which, is really the choice of the muslim observer in question. I've decided it's better for my long-term sanity to adopt the latter.

There are however times when someone makes what I consider an honest attempt at inquiry. One such is by a new jewish blogger, Dafydd ab Hugh, who makes an analogy to "Methodist" Islam. The comments devolved quickly into the usual jafi cesspool, despite a truly noble but ultimately failed attempt at restoring perspective by Dean Esmay.

I intended to leave a short comment, but am not keen on registering with TypeKey, so I'll just post my comment here and send a trackback ping. Basically, in a nutshell, Wahhabbism IS the Reformation of Islam, sort of - and we should be discussing an Islamic Rennaisance, not a Reformation, anyway.

Here are a number of posts from past archives, both here and at other sites, that I think are relevant to the discussion. I think that given how much attention has been paid to the question of an Islamic Reformation in the past by muslim and non-muslim bloggers alike, that reading these past discussions is really basic due diligence for someone honestly interested in the topic today.

Wahabism IS the Reformation?
A dialouge of unprovable assertions
Wahabis/Salafis Again (by Zack)
Reformation this

Note, Bill Allison took some exception to the Reformation/Wahabism analogy. He also has pointed out that the Reformation was NOT a "progressive" vision of faith (contrary to Dafydd's assertion). If anything, Luther sought a return to even stricter orthodoxy!

I also think that the recent Brass Crescent Links Roundup would be useful counterweight to the more hostile commentators at Dafydd's blog. And this little Primer on Islam post has even more linkage.

No I don't really expect the jafis among us to read let alone appreciate the nuances of these previous discussions. However, it may be useful to bring them to the fore, in terms of stimulating more honest inquiry. I hope that Dafydd at the very least takes an interest.

And you know what, as long as I'm plugging old stuff, here's one of my favorite posts: Islam and Freedom. Enjoy.

Note, Tarek Heggy is beginning a series on Islam at Winds Of Change that should at least be noted. I disagree with nearly all of his assumptions and postulates. I don't know if Heggy is mulsim or not and it's not really relevant, but figured I'd just mention it for completeness.

burning any house of worship is obscene

Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And had there not been Allah's repelling some people by others, certainly there would have been pulled down cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah's name is much remembered; and surely Allah will help him who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. (Qur'an 22:40, Shakir translation)

As you may have heard, Palestinians torched synagouges left behind by the retreating Jewish settlers. I am outraged by it^[1].

The situation isn't as black and white as the Israelophiles insist, of course. The decision to leave them standing was a craven act of cowardice by the Jewish authorities. Judith Weiss had a prety good point about this, warning earlier that leaving them standing would be a mistake, and then observing after their destruction:

In the end, though, the Israeli Government decided that desecration by Arabs would be more commensurate with the ethics and morale of the Jewish state than destruction by the IDF’s troops.

Further, the actual sanctity of the buildings themselves was essentially zero, given that all items of religious significance were removed:

As the settlers left their homes last month, they took the Torah scrolls, prayer books and other holy items from the synagogues, symbolizing the end of the use of the buildings as houses of prayer.

(The Jerusalem Post). Really, it's desecration of the sentimental, rather than the sacred, that we are talking about here, as opposed to many tragic examples of actively-in-use synagouge-desecration in the past.

Finally, the Sharon government had anticipated that the structures would be destroyed and left them intact regardless:

Citing fears of desecration, the cabinet originally planned to destroy the 17 synagogues left standing in 21 Gaza settlements that were evacuated and demolished last month.

But the government backtracked on Sunday under pressure from rabbis who said the demolition of houses of worship by Jews would be the greater sin.

(Ha'aretz). Not just Sharon. Minister Mofaz had a convenient change of heart himself:

Speaking publicly for the first time since he flip-flopped on his decision to leave Gaza synagogues intact, Mofaz said he just couldn't bear to lend his hand to the destruction of a Jewish house of worship.

"As a Jew it was hard for me to give orders to IDF soldiers to blow up a synagogue, so I asked that it be reconsidered," Mofaz said. "I believe that there are issues where Israel as a Jewish state considers the decisions of the rabbis," Mofaz said. "We also have to take into account the decisions of rabbis abroad. We knew that the Palestinians would respond to the decision, and the rabbis decided it would be better that the synagogues be destroyed at the hands of Palestinians than at the hands of the IDF."

What a puerile fool. He desecrates these places of worship by using them as pawns, just as much as the mobs torching them.

Still, despite the Israeli and Israelophile melodrama that the act of burning these buildings has generated, it is still inexcusable.

Make no mistake in my position: the synagouges should have been dismantled, and if the Israeli government was too craven to shoot their own dog, then the PA should have stepped up to the plate. The PA had the responsibility to dismantle them in a respectful manner. However expected it may have been by cynics on both sides of the conflict, the final responsibility for the action of burning them down lies however with the Palestinian people of Gaza, and their aspirations will suffer for it as just recompense.

As Haroon wrote a while ago, most muslims want to see Islam as merciful and strong. Not barbaric and reactionary. There's really no other way to describe the burning of these synagouges. And that's why I've become increasingly hard-line in my view towards the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

For the record, though, in response to this question, mosques have hardly been immune to destruction or defilement either. I've even supported the destruction of mosques, when neccessary. It's wrong to burn down any house of worship - or perform any other fundamentally political act upon it. The purpose of these buildings is higher than our petty squabbles.

[1] I have to also agree that there was excessive excuse-making for the Palestinians in the media.

victory is possible in Iraq

The Deuce Four is a Stryker infantry battalion comprised of about 700 soldiers, and has lost 12 men and earned over 150 purple hearts in some of the most intense urban combat of this war. When the battalion arrived in Mosul, the mostly-Sunni city had already devolved into an insurgent stronghold. When the home-base for organized kidnap and beheading squads swelled with the steady stream of fighters fleeing the crackdown in Falluja, the local police simply abandoned their stations. Mortar rounds and rockets fell by the hundreds, scores of car bombs attacked Deuce Four, the ISF, and later crowds of people, and IEDs made the roads literal minefields. In December, a terrorist slipped into the dining facility on FOB Marez and detonated his explosives vest during a crowded meal, killing 22 people.

Kurilla’s aggressive battle plan brought the fight to the enemy. Every new evolution in terrorist tactics was met with a ferocious counter blow that not only destroyed the immediate target, but also signaled frightened civilians that the US Army meant business in Mosul. Equally important civil affairs projects generated electricity virtually around the clock, built schools and parks, and brought top medical care to civilians. Within months, increasingly desperate to maintain control over the population, terrorists began launching attacks straight through groups of children, leaving many horribly burned. Their savagery further alienated civilians who were beginning to see the benefits of change. When top insurgent leaders were killed and captured, largely based on tips from Iraqi citizens, enemy attacks fell precipitously.

As the Deuce Four heads home this week, they leave behind a Mosul that, while not yet in the clear, is much closer to security and prosperity than anyone would have considered possible eight months ago.

Thats from Michael Yon's latest and why I sincerely believe that victory is possible in Iraq. I think that the successes of our military have been largely in spite of, not because of, the Administration's leadership - but the people of Iraq have hearts and minds that can be changed, and they can see the benefit of a future that does not involve someone's iron thumb. I go against the grain of most muslims, who are rightly cynical of Western motivations in this post-colonialist world, and most liberals, who are rightly cynical of this Administration's commitment to anything beyond their immediate political fortunes. The success thus far in Mosul is assuredly temporary if there isn't political will on both sides to see it continue.

Where my cynicism comes into play is whether such political will can be found. If not, then stories like the work and blood sacrifice of Deuce Four will be rarer and rarer still. There is a tipping point, and we are close to it - but we can tip either way.

Coins to cards

bloody brilliant:

Coinstar machines today charge consumers 8.9 percent of their coins for the service of counting it and giving it a receipt for the remaining 91.1 percent of the money.

In Amazon.com's case, though, Coinstar machines will charge nothing for the service as far as consumers are concerned. Amazon is selling Coinstar its gift cards at a sharp volume discount, allowing Coinstar to cover its costs and profit.

In other words, the gigantic vases of pennies I have in my closet can be converted in seconds to Amazon credits. Without any fees. The 9% fee that Coinstar usually charges was enough to never make me want to use their machines before, and the hassle of rolling my own coins was why I never take my accumulated change to the bank. Hence, accumulated coins in closets.

I do typically rotate coins through for sadaka in both our cars of course. This new program however gives me even more options. Especially if we can donate to the Red Cross via Amazon using these certificates. That money does no good - for me or for society - just sitting in those vases in my closet.

reforming the Senate

In many ways, the role of the Senate is the Guardian of the Republic. It's original purpose was to provide to the States what the House of Representatives provided to the citizens: a direct voice and agent for their interests. However, that role has been substantively eroded by the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution, which has essentially given us two Houses. The impact of this has been a complete eradication of the conept of federalism - such that even supposed champions of states' rights, the Republicans, pay only lip service to the concept (witness only the Schiavo case for proof that federalism, like fiscal conservatism, is long since dead in GOP circles).

I've previously written about the corrupting influence the 17th Amendment has had upon our national political discourse. Briefly, it has become an avenue for special interests to dominate the Senate as they do the House. I reject the short-sighted arguments that repeal would lead in the short term to undesirable political outcomes; most conservatives are agnostic about the repeal, but liberals tend to say that repeal would give Republicans an advantage given that most state legislatures are GOP-dominated. But the short-term impact is not my concern. In fact, repeal of the 17th would lead to more independence from the "party above country" mentality that drives modern politics in this modern (and thoroughly Republicanist) age.

Glenn Reynolds just mentioned the idea of repeal, and poses an interesting counter-proposal. His suggestion is to make Senators ineligible for President, thus bluntig most of their aspirations and focusing the Senate on the business of being the Senate rather than a grand stage. However, I think that while it has some merit, it's a symptomatic approach, which would not address the underlying issue of who Senators are beholden to when they assume office. It's the quality, and motives, of the Senators before they arrive at the Capitol, not how they comport themselves after they arrive, which concerns me and why I still favor repeal. If repeal of the 17th were to come about, I think that Glenn's suggestion would be rendered largely moot.

Blogger arrested at 9/11 Freedom Walk

Thomas Nephew is a brave man. His Newsrack blog is one of the oldest blogs on the blogsphere, four years and going strong. He made the brave but foolish decision to protest at the absurdly choreographed "Freedom Walk" 9-11 PR event in Washington DC, reprising his role as Hooded Man from Abu Ghraib. His write-up on his arrest is a must-read, so I won't excerpt it - just go to Newsrack blog and read.