A White-Washed Red Cross? from the mind of Zeke_Wilkins.

A week or so ago, The Washington Post ran an article that the American Red Cross has come under fire by minority groups for being too white. It seems we're damned when we oppress, and damned when we don't!

Among the concerns:

* evacuees felt "herded like cattle"

Okay, I can agree with this one; there is certainly nothing worse than being herded like cattle. Unless of course you include being killed, bled, cut to pieces, cooked and eaten like cattle.

* shelters were set up in white neighborhoods

Nevermind the fact that the largely-black neighborhoods were underwater.

* relief workers wore surgical gloves

I keep trying to tell all you folks that damned "Germ Theory" is just a medical fad. And I'm sure the use of sanitary barriers to prevent disease spreading to relief workers tremendously decreased the Red Cross' capacity to tend to the victims of Katrina.

Sarcasm aside, I have an honest question: how long do minority groups think they can get away with complaining about the humanitarian efforts conducted by charitable organizations in which financial contributors and relief workers of ethnicity are sadly under-represented? How many times can they question the motives and impugn the character of honest, hardworking whites that wish to donate their time or money?

I'd send money to the Red Cross, or even volunteer; if only I weren't white...

Redeploy? from the mind of Unknown.

Lately, the leftists have been making cries that we ought to re-deploy the troops.

Perhaps they're on to something.

Here's my suggestion:

Redeploy a large number of troops that are in Japan to the Korean DMZ to put pressure on our 'friend' Kim to discontinue his nuclear efforts and to grant his people rights and an improved quality of life.

Redeploy a large number of troops stationed in Germany to the Iraq/Iran and Iraq and Syria borders as an extra push to cease the support of terrorist actions and large scale proscribed weapons development.

Redeploy a large number of troops that are currently stationed and training in the US to the Southern US border and to wild areas on the Northern US border in order to give an instant boost to our border patrols. Develop a plan to place troops there until border patrol officers can be trained and deployed, thus reducing the need for the troops to remain. (this redeployment, especially, would offer a unique training opportunity to our troops. As we now see, our military efforts now deal heavily with the human trafficking on illicit people and substances. In the Middle East, it is terrorists and terror supplies such as bomb making materials. On the US border, it is Illegal immigrants and illicit drugs... And possibly bomb making material. It just makes sense. It would be a 'two benefits for the price of one deployment' operation. It just makes sense...)

As for Iraq, I think we ought to leave some troops there. Sure, there are some insurgent actions there that are proving difficult to suppress, but there is also immense progress there. I have a hard time believing that the Dinar in Iraq would be one of the most stable currencies without our troops there. I have a hard time believing that the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, and infrastructure would continue without the US troops offering expertise and planning, let alone some extra sweat. The wise plan is to let the Commander in Chief run the war as he said he would. We should base our troop level in Iraq on the benchmarks and the need for troops there. We ought not base our troop levels on what stories the AP and Al Reuters decide to cover.

I'm not a religious man, so to speak... but THANK GOD that John Kerry isn't our Commander in Cheif. Where would Iraq be today if he were?