Two things noted in passing

1) A USA Today article from last week on how rising oil prices are in some ways hurting US business and foreign policy interests noted some of the ways various countries were using their growing oil wealth, citing examples from Norway financing its retirement programs to construction of luxury hotels along the Persian Gulf. In that list, of one program and one program only was it said "such spending can't continue indefinitely."

And what was that doomed program? Hugo Chavez's use of oil money to support programs for the poor of Venezuela; specifically mentioned was the provision of half-price food through government-run stores.

Now, admittedly, if oil prices drop, as some predict they will (and dramatically), yes, such expenditures will be under pressure. But why is that not equally true of, say, oil-financed luxury hotel construction? Why do we need to be assured that supporting the poor is what "can't continue indefinitely?" Or does the question answer itself?

2) Okay, I know I'm a bug on this but still, there is an implication here I find ominous. This is from an AP article for Tuesday about preparations for Katrina, specifically, about people taking refuge in the Superdome.

Residents lined up for blocks, clutching meager belongings and crying children as National Guardsman searched them for guns, knives and drugs. It was almost 10:30 p.m. before the last person was searched and allowed in. Thornton estimated 8,000 to 9,000 were inside when the doors closed for the 11 p.m. curfew.

"National Guardsman searched them?" What, now you can be required to waive your Fourth Amendment rights in order to be given refuge from a hurricane? What would have happened if someone refused? Would they be denied entry, told to get out and take their chances? In that case, what happens after curfew? Are the refusers arrested? And what did officials imagine was going to happen inside the building? Armed insurrection? Drug-crazed rampages?

If the argument is made that it was for "safety," why can't that same argument be made for any large public gathering? Should you have to be prepared to submit to a search to attend a baseball game? A parade? A park on a busy day?

A demonstration?

What got me about this as much as the search is the way is was reported: It was treated as nothing special, it didn't seem the least extraordinary to the reporter that people were given the choice between turning out their pockets on command or being turned out into the storm. If the searches hadn't caused the lines, I doubt they would have been mentioned at all.

I've maintained for a while that part of the purpose of such searches, undertaken at times and under conditions where people feel constrained by necessity to cooperate, is to make official intrusion into our lives a routine experience, something just passively accepted, as our rights, our privacy, are stripped away layer by layer under the rubric first of emergency, then of necessity, then of safety, and finally of convenience.

Apparently, at least in the case of certain AP reporters, that goal has been achieved.