outstanding. really, bravo.

it's good to know everyone's on the ball. water's been diverted from the thirsty, rescue workers from those in need of rescue--we thought these were acts of new stupidity. but the folks at the top have been steadily herding resources as far away from their true targets as they could get them since, quite possibly, the beginning of time:

Sept. 11 recovery loans loosely managed

By DIRK LAMMERS and FRANK BASS
Associated Press Writers

The government's $5 billion effort to help small businesses recover from the Sept. 11 attacks was so loosely managed that it gave low-interest loans to companies that didn't need terrorism relief - or even know they were getting it, The Associated Press has found.

And while some at New York's Ground Zero couldn't get assistance they desperately sought, companies far removed from the devastation - a South Dakota country radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops - had no problem winning the government-guaranteed loans.

Dentists and chiropractors in numerous cities, as well as an Oregon winery that sold trendy pinot noir to New York City restaurants also got assistance.

"That's scary. Nine-11 had nothing to do with this," said James Munsey, a Virginia entrepreneur who described himself as "beyond shocked" to learn his nearly $1 million loan to buy a special events company in Richmond was drawn from the Sept. 11 program.

italics mine; what dunkin' donuts anywhere deserves government assistance? these things are spreading like a supervirus without anyone's help. i can't believe this crap.

well, yeah, i can. but i wish i couldn't.

update, 8:25 pm, 9/11/05: as a somewhat related aside, kenneth feinberg is on book-tv right now talking about his work with the september 11th victim compensation fund, which he's written a book about. he managed the fund pro bono for 33 months, in and of itself a tremendous act, but listening to him talk about some of the people he met and stories he heard, i'm really quite taken aback, and a bit desperate to wrap him in something fleecy and feed him tiny cupcakes. he seems genuinely confused about why there was no public outcry at the massive compensation offered to these victims when there was no such offering from the federal government for victims of other terrorist actions, such as the oklahoma bombings and the 1993 attack on the world trade center. he also spent a lot of time discussing how incredibly difficult it was to extrapolate the financial value of each lost life (he was not permitted to give everybody the same amount, and had to take the victims' salaries into account as a starting point for compensation), when, in his mind, all lives should be of equal value, and he suggested that in the future, if this sort of thing is ever attempted again, everyone involved should receive a flat sum. (i agree with him, but i do not think that that flat sum should be $2,000; this is most likely irrelevant, since i also agree with him that the odds of congress approving another program like this are slimmer than an olsen twin.) in an interview from july 10 of this year, he had this to say about the surprising amount of support the program received from the american people:

AMB: You did talk about Senator Schumer sidling up to you at one point and saying, can you get me some money from the ‘93 bombing of the World Trade Center? Now what kind of pressures like that did you have and how did you deal with them?

FEINBERG: Not much pressure. As I said earlier, I would have thought going in that the families who lost loved ones in the World Trade Center in ‘93, Oklahoma City, the African embassy bombings, the USS Cole, anthrax, I would have thought all of those people would have been demanding similar generosity on the part of the fund. No.

There were a couple, I would say a handful from Oklahoma City. One from Kenya. One, Senator Schumer, for the ‘93 World Trade Center. I think 9/11 was different. It was certainly different from the perspective of the American people, of that I have no doubt.

But I think most families, for whatever the reason, didn‘t come running to me asking for similar treatment. The public certainly was behind the program.

LAMB: Why shouldn‘t all of those have gotten the same kind of consideration as the 9/11 people?

FEINBERG: From the perspective of the victims, I don‘t see any distinction. If you try and justify my program on the basis of the victims lost, I can‘t convincingly explain why 9/11 yes, ‘93 World Trade Center no.

I think the only way you justify this program as a special carve-out is from the perspective of the nation, a recognition that 9/11 was, along with the American Civil War, Pearl Harbor, maybe the assassination of President Kennedy -- and 9/11, its impact on the American people was such that this was really a response from America to demonstrate the solidarity and cohesiveness of the American people towards these victims. That‘s the only way to explain this program I think convincingly.

the solidarity and cohesiveness of the american people does not, apparently, extend to the financial managers of the small business relief funds, who would ho out their own mothers for six chocolate munchkins.