Disaster

A $60 billion emergency spending bill that would provide federal aid to states still recovering from Hurricane Sandy would guarantee additional money for Maryland and subtly change the way administration officials determine eligibility for disaster relief in the future. The controversial legislation - which the Senate is debating this week - would set aside $17 billion in federal grants to all states affected by the storm, including Maryland. It also would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to give "greater weight" to economic factors when deciding whether to provide certain types of disaster aid in the future.

All those bucolic scenes of gas wells set against a blue sky are fantasies. I know because I have a farm in upstate Pennsylvania in Tioga County. Nearby there are many dirty, polluting gas wells. They spew out carcinogenic chemicals, some radioactive. Tons of methane gas, 20 times worse than carbon dioxide, contribute to greenhouse gas, according to the EPA. Children near gas wells in Texas had three times the rate of asthma as those in other parts of the state. In Pennsylvania more than 1.3 billion gallons of fracking fluid, which was originally clean drinking water, had been sent to wastewater plants, which were not equipped to handle the toxic and radioactive chemicals.

Granting an appeal by Gov. Martin O'Malley, the Obama administration reversed course Friday and approved disaster aid for Somerset County residents who suffered damage from the remnants of Hurricane Sandy. However, the federal government did not alter its Dec. 3 decision to deny help to Western Maryland. "This assistance will provide much-needed and long-awaited relief for hundreds of residents in Somerset County," O'Malley said in a statement released Friday night. "Well, that is grand," said Somerset homeowner Sandy Sturgis after hearing the news.

While some reporters shy away from holiday stories, I cheerfully dive right into those toy drives, festivals, Santa appearances, seasonal parades and concerts. But this year, I have written only two and am retiring before the real quest for all things Christmas, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa reaches a feverish pitch. I leave on a happy note, on the heels of two more published tales that hopefully spread the "goodness" news. Those stories centered on a storm-ravaged small town that served Thanksgiving dinner to hundreds of its own and a man who strung about 50,000 lights, put up dozens of trees and filled his yard with all manner of diverse decorations to raise money for a children's cause.

Titillation over David Petraeus and political posturing over Susan Rice aside, here is the most important unasked question: Why did we foster regime change in Libya and Egypt that gave the Muslim Brotherhood control in the latter and produced a gaggle of Islamic militias in the former? Earlier, we forced elections in Lebanon and Palestine that gave Hezbollah control in Lebanon and Hamas the Gaza Strip. Again, why? Replacing the Mubarak government has left the border between Gaza and Egypt more open for weapons deliveries to Hamas, which produced the latest conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

At some point within the past several weeks we have all stopped and asked, "What in the world has happened to Maryland, New Jersey and along the East Coast?" Although Maryland side-stepped catastrophic damage and is, for the most part, back to "pre-Sandy" conditions, there are still places on the East Coast without power, transportation infrastructure and/or potable water. My prayers are with those who continue to endure these horrid conditions and I can only imagine the thoughts in their heads.

President Barack Obama's re-election will cause problems for Israel and Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It's very unlikely now that Israel can count on Mr. Obama and U.S. support as far as the Palestinians go, or on efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Obama's support and endorsement of the establishment of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders is one of the worst and most dangerous foreign policy decisions his administration has made so far. Mr. Obama has alienated Israel since he entered office in 2009 . Its no secret that he and Mr. Netanyahu have clashed; remember how Mr. Obama snubbed Mr. Netanyahu when he visited the United Nations in September?

There are a few immutable laws of nature: gravity; E = MC2; and "if something can go wrong, it will. " I'd like to propose another: "If you forget to buy Halloween candy, or don't buy enough, a thousand extra trick-or-treaters - in addition to the ghosts, witches, princesses, Batmans and Kardashians already in your neighborhood - will be bussed in from all over; and every single one of them will stop at your front door with their plastic pumpkin-buckets outstretched....

I applaud Thomas F. Schaller's column on President Obama's modest background ("The virtues of a president with humble origins," Oct. 31). The last thing this country needs is another arrogant son of a rich man who lives on a different planet than the rest of us. In my opinion, the election of Mitt Romney as president would be a tragedy for the nation and lead to perilous times. The two existential threats that face our country are income disparity and climate change, and the Republican Party is on the wrong side of both issues.

The Romney/Ryan economic "plan" is like the hair-of-the-dog "cure" for a hangover: Have another drink! After the Bush administration tax cuts led us to the brink of a depression, Mitt Romney is proposing more of the same, with no credible strategy to generate income to offset the resulting deficits - a clear formula for economic disaster. The Republican Party's economic policy is bankrupt, as will be the country if they win on Tuesday. Bruce Krueger, Ellicott City