A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

An Army Captain Speaks

For those who take issue with my long-held belief that regardless of what is done to us, we must hold America to a higher standard than merely being "better than those who attacked up", here is a link you should read.

It makes exactly the case I've been trying to make, but more importantly, it shows the extent to which the rank and file of our armed forces are NOT being instructed in what is legitimate and what is not in terms of treatment of prisoners. Worse, when they specifically ask for clarification, they can't get it.

But, of course, it's really all the fault of the Lynndie Englands of the world, right?

Liam.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Gay Marriage

Over at Huffington Post, someone has written an article debunking some of the New Testament arguments against homosexuality, similar to the article I wrote a while back regarding Leviticus.

Well worth reading.

The bottom line, as always, is that it's selective enforcement in the extreme. I can't take seriously the argument that the absolute word of God is that homosexuality is wrong from people who don't also insist that their wives and daughters remain subservient and silent in church (just one example of a biblical rule from the same section as one of the quotes against homosexuality).

I may not agree with you, but if you honestly do your best to live by the bible 100% in your life, including not touching pig on Sundays, not touching a woman within 7 days of her menstrual period, expecting women to be silent and obedient... If you follow ALL of that, then I respect (while respectfully disagreeing with) your stance on homosexuality.

As long as you're pick and choosing from the Bible, you really haven't got a leg to stand on.

Oh, and one final thought: Has anyone noticed that just about every biblical condemnation of homosexuality refers to men lying with men? So apparently "Girls Gone Wild" are not sinful at all. The Bible is pretty specific there.

Liam.

More Evidence of Abuse

A New York Times article on Saturday documents further abuse purpetrated in Iraq.

The part of this article that makes me sickest is this:

"They wanted intel," said the sergeant, an infantry fire-team leader who served as a guard when no military police soldiers were available. "As long as no PUC's came up dead, it happened." He added, "We kept it to broken arms and legs."

And this is not considered torture by the administration, which made it clear that it only considered an action torture (and thus, prohibited) if it led to death or organ failure.

But as an intellectual exercise, imagine Saddam Hussein had held on longer in the war. Suppose we were still battling his troops, and he was still safely in control in a bunker somewhere.

And suppose reports came out of our soldiers being stripped naked, humiliated, threatened with dogs and having arms and legs broken.

Do you think Americans would be as quick to accept that this wasn't "torture"? Or would this be seen as absolute justification for our war in Iraq and proof that Saddam had to go?

Look at it that way and then perhaps you can start to understand that the so-called insurgency ISN'T (as we're told) made up primarily of foreign soldiers taking this opportunity to strike at America. Tactically, this would be stupid, and our enemies (particularly the still-at-large Osama bin Laden) are a lot of things, but not stupid, or they could never have pulled off something as big as 9/11.

No, the insurgency is made up of people who are watching what we're doing over there and wondering how we, invading foreigners, are any better than Saddam was. Sure, he may have tortured more and using more extreme methods, but on the other hand, at least he was local.

Liam.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Stories such as this one (from the NY Times) show that the latest spin seems to be to use the Federal response to Rita as proof of the Bush administration's effectiveness in times of crisis.

This is ludicrous in the utmost.

Keep in mind, the Presidency is not an acting job. You don't get to rehearse. If you're going to try to claim efficiency and leadership, you have to be effective and lead the FIRST time through.

Just about ANYONE should be able to be on top of the SECOND catastrophe, especially when it is a lesser storm and follows closely on the heals of a "trial run".

The fact is, Hurricane Katrina was a HUGE failure for this administration. Hurricane Rita only shows that they can learn from mistakes (particularly ones that are costly in terms of PR).

Liam.

Thursday, September 22, 2005

News that wasn't news...

For those who like to know what we aren't being told, there's Project Censored, a group which tries to keep track of the news stories which people SHOULD be talking about (or at least aware of) but generally aren't.

Their list for 2006 of the 25 most important stories from 2004 and 2005-til-now that did not receive much coverage is now out, you can see it here.

I will admit, being at work, I've only skimmed through the first three or four, they deserve a lot more of my time and I plan to give them that when I have it. There's some scary stuff in there.

And worse, there's some stuff in there that SHOULD be scary, but we've become so desensitized to it that you have to THINK about the ramifications (or possible ramifications) before you realize what they could mean to our country.

For example the articles on the extent that government operations have become secret, and the frequency with which the Freedom of Information Act has been either curtailed or thwarted... this should scare any American. Where is the freedom, where is the ability to watchdog the government, if we're denied access to the information necessary?

Secret government does not prove corruption, but it certainly makes it more possible, and I find I have to ask myself the question "If there was nothing to hide, why would they be so paranoid about hiding it?"

Will.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Interesting Supreme Court Trivia

It is rare, but not unheard of, for there to be more than one vacancy on the Supreme Court simultaneously. We’re all aware that, with the death of Justice Rehnquist, such a situation has been set up.

It turns out that the last time this happened, Rehnquist was also involved: It happened in 1971, and William Rehnquist was the nominee to fill one of those positions.

I just found that interesting.

Liam.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Voting Irregularities

Think I'm being overly paranoid when I talk about the Diebold voting machines?

Check out this article from bradblog.com.

Worth a read by anyone who cares about honest democracy.

Liam.

Friday, September 16, 2005

Some things I'm tired of hearing

There are a number of things I'm tired of hearing from the Administration and its apologists.

I'm tired of hearing "We shouldn't be playing the blame game, and by the way it's all the local government's fault".

Pick one. Either play the blame game or try to be morally superior. This isn't second grade, you can't punch someone and then immunize yourself by saying "No punchbacks!"

I'm tired of hearing people say that those critical of President Bush's response to Katrina are complaining about his delay in VISITING the site.

You've either uninformedly or intentionally mis-stated what Bush critics have said. They object to the lateness and inadequacy of the entire federal response, the responsibility for which ultimately lies with Bush. The fact that he was busy strumming a guitar (could that be any closer to the symbology of Nero?) and didn't bother to get there PERSONALLY is seen merely as additional evidence that he just didn't care and couldn't be bothered.

If the Federal response had been up to snuf, if FEMA had been as adept and as useful as they were in Oklahoma City or even on 9/11 (we'll get to that in a minute), no one would have held it against Bush. Hell, if he'd simply said "There's too much going on there, I don't want to take resources away from recovery and rescue efforts setting up security for my visit" people would have applauded.

Instead, the federal response at all levels was lackluster, bordering on criminal neglect, and Bush didn't seem to care. When he DID show up, he took away resources not merely for his own security, but had two rescue helicopters and a whole lot of firefighters diverted to the scene of his press release, so that he could look good against a backdrop of emergency response resources... that were not being allowed to respond to the emergency.

The level of caring (or lack thereof) was demonstrated by his mother as well, when she made that comment about how this flood was "working out well" for the poor people who were now homeless and had lost everything they DID have.

Now, as to the federal response (FEMA) to 9/11, several Republicans have pointed to that as a model of what Bush can accomplish... but that wasn't Bush's FEMA, that was Clinton's. The head of the department was still Clinton's guy, no changes had been made to the department. In fact, the wholesale changes to our main emergency preparedness department were undertaken as a RESPONSE to 9/11, not before it.

So in a very real sense, the FEMA response to 9/11 is a Clinton success, and a Bush one only in as much as until that point, he'd been smart enough to leave alone a functioning model of efficiency in government.

I'm tried of hearing how President Clinton got a pass for Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, etc.

First off, get over it. Your guy has been in office for five years now, it's about time to let go of the "it's all Clinton's fault" mantra. Most of us learned at an early age that two wrongs don't make a right, so even if Clinton was the worst President ever, that doesn't mean it's then OK for Bush to screw up without being called on it. Given what you clearly think of Clinton and Democrats in general, if the best response you can come up with to criticism is "Well, Clinton did the same thing" then perhaps you should set your sites higher. Just because someone else didn't do something right isn't an excuse to not do something right yourself. And is merely being no better than someone you clearly detest really as high as you aspire?

But again, the response is more than merely putting your feet on the ground and walking around making "tsk tsk" noises. Clinton, while he wasn't in Oklahoma City, was getting other things done in response to it. And even if he wasn't, his government was. There was every reason to believe that there was so much important stuff going on that he had more important things to do in response than just show up and be in the way.

By the way, that was also a terrorist attack. The secret service is funny about letting Presidents get too close to the scene of terrorist attacks, until they can be pretty certain that the area is secure. Hell, they had Bush on Air Force One for most of the day after the 9/11 attacks. Nobody complained because he didn't fly immediately to New York City, because they believed he had more important immediate tasks than to be in the way, there was time for that later.

I'm tired of hearing whining about how the 'liberal media' gave Clinton a pass on everything, but won't give Bush a fair shake no matter what.

Are you for real? The current press media are administration lap dogs. In depth reporting has been replaced by reading of official press releases.

Plus, the relaxation on media ownership rules means that most news media outlets are now owned by large corporations, the sort that tend to very much SUPPORT the semi-fascist neoconservative agenda. They LOVE him.

The old canard of a liberal news media may have been true at one time (it almost definitely was), but not any more. That old dog will no longer hunt.

Anyone who was actually PAYING ATTENTION during the last 12 years would remember the glee with which the media evicerated Clinton over everything from Travelgate to Monicagate (you couldn't turn around without "gate" being attached to some new word or phrase) to Whitewater. He hardly got a pass from the media. Meanwhile, since 9/11, the media has seemingly bought wholeheartedly into the Administration rhetoric that to question the President in this day and age is unpatriotic and tantamount to treason.

It's taken another major disaster, and a collosal screwup in the Federal response, to shake them up and make them realize that he's NOT God, he IS human, and it's not only OK to question him, it's their JOB.

I'm tired of hearing that Clinton got off scott free on Waco.

Again, you aren't comparing apples to apples. This was a dark day, and Clinton got into a lot of trouble for it, as did Janet Reno. But note that Janet Reno publicly accepted responsibility and apologized. So far, no one has publicly accepted responsibility or apologized for the monumental failings in the aftermath of Katrina. Yes, Bush did, finally, make a luke-warm half-hearted acceptance of responsibility, but it was presented as one receives an apology from a second grader, whose parents are FORCING him to apologize. It's in the wording, he accepts responsibility for anything which MIGHT have gone wrong, but he doesn't even admit that anything (or at least, anything serious) did.

Also, by the way, the people who died in Waco were a cult. That doesn't mean that deserved to die, but there was significant reason to beleive they were dangerous, to themselves or to others. It's a tragedy that that many of them died. There has also been some evidence that THEY set off the devices which destroyed the house, and that all that was fired into the house was tear gas.

But one only needs to think of Jonestown or the Heaven's Gate people to recall the opinion the public has for weird cults.

So, you have a case where there's at least some evidence that, while not handled CORRECTLY, the BATF were not ENTIRELY to blame for the Branch Davidian compound problem, compared to a natural disaster everyone saw coming, that's supposed to be EXACTLY what FEMA and the National Guard exist for, and President Bush did little to convey the impression that he was doing anything but dragging his feet on it, nor that he even particularly CARED.

Do you even understand the difference?

Liam.

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Do Your Jobs

It's time for our Senators on both sides of the aisle to step up and do their jobs, and to point out when they are being prevented from doing so.

I don't know what to think of Judge Roberts. I honestly don't. On the one hand, he seems really evasive under questioning, in the way that really skilled lawyers can be.

On the other hand, whether he admits it or not, there has to be at least a little politicking going on in his mind. After all, he's up for one of the most prestigious jobs in the nation. Arguably in some ways more so, although more quietly so, than the Presidency itself, because of the long lasting tenure. Judge Roberts has a very real chance, if confirmed, of affecting the direction of this country for three decades or more. As a result, in a very real sense, he's up for a mother of a job interview, and has to know that he's in a position where realistically, the job is his to lose. In that situation, I think I'd be as cagey as my skills would allow as well.

I'm trying to avoid falling into the trap of liking or disliking him because of his friends or his enemies, because my gut feeling is that those who are for or against him generally have no more information than the rest of us do, and are simply assuming things about his positions and his character because of who nominated him.

So I'll say right here, before I get to the meat of my point, that at this point I have nothing against Judge Roberts and have no reason to believe he either should or should not be confirmed.

But... back to Senators doing their jobs. The Senate should send Judge Roberts back to the White House without a vote. I believe that's as valid a response at the Supreme Court level as it is with lower court nominees. Don't have a vote and rate the Judge on his merits, and make very public the fact that you don't object to Judge Roberts on merit and won't object if he is re-nominated... only that you require access to ALL of the information that the White House has about him or any other nominee.

This is their job. This task is among the most important that the Congress undertakes, because in a very real sense they're asked to have some say in the nanny who will oversee their actions. It's very important to the country that they get this right, just as it is every time a Supreme Court nomination comes up.

And so they should send Roberts back without a vote and tell the White House that this isn't a kids game. The Administration doesn't get to call "It's my ball, my rules, if you don't like it, I'll take my ball and go home". This isn't their ball. It's the United States' ball, and the United States' rules. Among those rules is that Congress has a reasonable right to examine ALL of a Judge's history, not just the part that the White House doesn't consider objectionable.

Under similar situations, you could make Hitler look good. (Again, I'm not equating Judge Roberts with Hitler, merely making a point.) If you were able to selectively control which writings and actions in Hitler's history someone had access to, you could make him seem like a great man for a job. He accomplished a lot, he managed to get most of an entire country united under his leadership, etc, etc. There's just that pesky "Third Reich" thing with the holocaust and all of that attacking his neighboring nations and stuff... But if you wanted to get Hitler confirmed, by removing from consideration all information about the later parts of his life you could make him seem like not too bad of a choice.

So, I know it'll never happen. But our Senators should stop playing politics, just for one grand and glorious moment, and say "Hey, this is our job. This is our Constitutional responsibility and damn it, we take it seriously. If you can't take it equally seriously, then you can take your nominee and go home, and bring him back when you're willing to let us do the job that we are, for the good of the country, supposed to do."

Copyright (c) September 15, 2005 by Liam Johnson. http://www.liamjohnson.net

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

John Roberts Judicial Hearings

I've spent a little time listening to the hearings. A bit of Kennedy's questions, a few of Biden's questions. I've also been reading the spin presented. The Democrat spin is that he is avoiding the tough questions, the Repub is that he is doing beautifully.

He sounds like an intelligent judge, no one's lapdog. Since learning of the lifetime appointments of the Supreme Court in high school, I've not worried about this branch. The extremely limited focus of their jobs, to hear issues that need constitutional interpretation combined with their lifetime appointments, almost assures that they drop all their 'friendship' loyalties. Almost all appointees have disappointed their party of appointment over and over again. It is relatively easy to tell the party of the appointment, based on their voting on the 'key' issues. But, all of them become more and more centrist as the years go by.

Their voting isn't like that of a Senator, where there will be thousands of votes, yeah or nay. They hear a few cases at a time, in detail and they realize the heft of their individual vote. Their votes have to be defended legally, and they receive no reward (like funding, like new bridges, like a better chance of being reelected) for going either way.

I like Judge Roberts as much as I could like an experienced lawyer. I have faith that the system of hearings will weed out any fanatics, and that the lifetime appointments and huge responsibility of being a Supreme Court Justice will even out any loyalties rather quickly.

Janet

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Punch & Judy Presidency

Janet and I had an interesting “What If” style of discussion this morning, and we have a theory. I want to stress before I get into it that this is kind of “conspiracy theorist” in nature. It sounds plausible to us, but unlike many of my other posts, I want to make it clear that I’m not CERTAIN this is the reality of our current government, only that it fits the facts as we understand them. In fact, the use of the term "theory" is probably too strong, it's a possibility, nothing more.

(Credit goes mostly to Janet, by the way. In discussing, we fleshed out the details, but the germ of the idea was hers.)

We’re coming to wonder whether what’s really going on in the executive branch of our federal government is a major power struggle.

As you know, I believe that policy out of this administration has been damaging to the country, and has been geared towards the benefit of a small number of special interests rather than the benefit of the nation and its population as a whole.

Further, I find it perfectly plausible, given all the facts that we have, and more to the point, the facts that are unconfirmable, that this last election was faked. I’ve mentioned that the voting machines in Ohio and other places are made by Diebold, a company whose CEO publicly stated in the run up to the election that he was committed to doing whatever was necessary to deliver Ohio to George W. Bush. I’ve mentioned that this is the first time in the history of exit polling in America that the official results have been more than the statistical margin-of-error wrong (and significantly so). And I’ve pointed out that the results on a Diebold voting machine can reportedly be easily (and untraceably) changed with 30 seconds on the single tabulator machine.

I’ve also mentioned that I believe that there is a small faction of neoconservatives who have made a mockery of the values of the Republican party, taking over control of the party for its own goals, while using psychological “mob rule mentality” tactics to bring large numbers of die-hard Republicans along in “ditto” mode, never really thinking about how little the actions of their party currently match their stated moral philosophies.

Janet and I consider that perhaps these neo-conservatives have been dealt a bit of a blow internally. Perhaps they chose a candidate they believed they could control (who better than a spoiled little rich brat who hadn’t really succeeded at anything in his life, after being handed chance after chance) and managed to groom him to the point of viability and got him elected.

For the first term, things went relatively smoothly. The puppet President knew he had won on a legal technicality but lost the popular vote, and things ran well with the lucky (for them) aid of a country disaster that helped instill the fear that is at the heart of neo-conservative ruling philosophy (read some of the works of the father of the neo-conservative movement for more details. I can’t bring his name to mind just now, but I’ll look it up later and add it in a comment).

But then the second election came along and they forgot to tell the puppet that they were still controlling things, and he came to start thinking he really WAS the President. A power struggle ensues between Bush and Cheney and suddenly Cheney finds the strings with which he had previously been controlling his marionette have been cut. The inmate has taken control of the asylum.

This might explain why Bush appointees seem to have taken a turn from those who most follow the neo-conservative principles to just those who have been pals with the President for the longest time.

However, let me finish by saying again that this is merely a theory. I’m really not willing to let go of “malice and personal gain” as the motive for most of what this Administration does. I really feel like there’s something more sinister than this theory at work. However, it was fun talking about it and positing the “what ifs”, and so I thought I’d share the results of our morning philosophical chat.

Liam.

Monday, September 12, 2005

For what it's worth...

...I'm traveling on business this week.

I'll probably post the odd thing or two this week, but not up to the volume I have been posting recently.

Liam.

Sunday, September 11, 2005

A Scary White House View

I've read several very scary views of life inside this Administration's White House recently. Most of them came from sources I couldn't verify or didn't know much about, so I haven't bothered to post them.

This one, however, comes from Newsweek, a publication which is highly regarded, except by those who have surrendered their critical thinking to the Right Wing spin machine.

It is frightening the way this President works. Reading it, it is entirely possible that he is not INTENTIONALLY running his government solely for the benefit of corporations and oil company interests... just that those are the only people who are "yes men" enough to be considered loyal and therefore believable.

I'm not sure which would be worse, a President who actively sublimates the good of his constituents in favor of a fascist Corporate-centric government, or one who does so accidentally, because he refuses to listen to (or even have around) anyone who presents him with facts he doesn't want to hear.

Anyway, here is the link. Enjoy.

Liam.

Friday, September 09, 2005

The Good News... and the Bad

The good news is that early reports are that the death toll in New Orleans may be far less than the intial estimates of over 10,000 dead.

That would be wonderful. It won't lessen the impact on the thousands who have lost everything they had, but at least they are still alive.

The bad news is that the press are being kept out of the city and will not be allowed in while the body retreival and counting is going on. Once again, the reason being given for this SOUNDS very reasonable: Provide dignity and respect for the dead by not allowing their bodies to be used as sensationalism on the news.

However, the side effect (a cynical person such as myself might suspect the intended effect) will be to prevent anyone from confirming or disputing the official numbers. And as the fed's spin machine grinds into high gear trying to misdirect attention from any culpability in the administration and its policies, there's all sorts of motive for wanting to keep the count of dead on the low side.

After all, slow response times leading to major deaths are the sorts of things that get Presidents impeached. Breached levees because of slashed budgets only really stir up the ire of the few, and are also much easier to spin away when all that was lost was PROPERTY, not LIVES.

Look, this President has got a majority of the nation believing he isn't truthful to them. His approval rating coming into this crisis was in the mid 30% range, which is down in the range that Nixon was at the height of the Watergate scandal. If the left wing had engaged in a huge smear campaign and the President had been nothing but truthful, one would think that having free and open access to information would work to the administration's advantage.

There's just no reason to restrict access like this... except to control the story, sanitize the message, prevent the more gruesome details and shocking counts from ever besmirching the tv screens and furrowing the brows of the citizenry.

I do not want my access to information controlled. American doesn't need and shouldn't have a ministry of information through which news must filter. Just because it's done by preventing news media access to the news rather than by censoring the news before it can be printed doesn't make it any less heinous.

Liam.

Priorities...

Another example of just how screwed up our President's priorities are. On Thursday, he signed an executive order suspending the Davis-Bacon minimum wage laws for workers rebuilding New Orleans.

The rationale behind it SOUNDS reasonable. With such a huge task to undertake, let's try to keep the costs to taxpayers down. But with many people having lost everything, now is not the time to start telling workers they have to work for less.

But what is exceedingly galling about this to me is not the wish to keep costs down, that sounds good. It's that the Administration isn't trying to save the tax payers money... they're trying to save profits for the corporations to whom they will outsource the rebuilding process.

Reportedly Halliburton has already obtained themselves a nice no-bid, set-your-own-price contract to help in the rebuilding effort. I'm sure the fact that Dick Cheney was previously CEO of Halliburton has NOTHING to do with the fact that pre 2000 I'd never heard of them, and now every time there's federal money to be spent, they're right there with the contract.

But this is just another case of caring for the rich and the corporate over the citizens whom he works for, like recommending shooting looters for stealing what they need to survive, but not even admitting that his oil company buddies might be gouging slightly when prices rise by nearly 30% before any increased costs or decreased availability of product could have that kind of effect.

Mark my words, we're going to walk away from this rebuilding effort with an even larger poor class, after construction workers have to take major pay cuts, and meanwhile Halliburton will have banner years and, if there's any reasonable oversight, will be caught with their hand in the cookie jar again as they have been several times in Iraq.

Let's see, there's a name for a government which equates corporate interests with government interests. Oh, right, fascism.

Have a nice day.

Liam.

Big Government vs Small Government

If ever there was an argument that PROVED that neither the extreme Left nor the extreme Right holds the moral high ground, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina reveals it.

Boiled down to its barest essentials, the extreme Liberal viewpoint believes in Very Large Government, government which intervenes in every aspect of society, evening out the inequities such that no one is fantastically wealthy and no one is dirt poor. This is simplistic at best and ignores human nature. If everyone gets the same for their work, regardless OF that work, then there is little incentive to better oneself or work harder. Hard work deserves to be rewarded.

On the other hand, the extreme Conservative viewpoint (and that held by the current Administration and it's neo-conservative base) is typified in Grover Norquist's statement that they wanted to reduce the size of government until it was small enough to drown it in the bath tub. Do away with government entirely. But this loses the reason why we have government in the first place: to pool resources.

When it comes right down to it, the role of government is to pool our varied resources and do things that benefit everyone and can't (or won't) be done by anyone in the private sector.

Rush Limbaugh missed this when he said on his radio program:

“But if your city believes that it's entitled, if that's, if that's the worldview of the leaders of a community, then I don't care what their race is -- if their worldview is that this is a welfare state -- "the government needs to protect us. The government needs to feed us. The government needs to transport us. The government" -- well, guess what? The government needs to build the levees. The government needs to make sure the levees are -- the government. You're passing the buck all over the place and accepting all the money that the government's sending in to you, ah, and then something like this happens and then you start, you know, wringing your hands.”

There are elements of society that need to be maintained in an orderly fashion, which benefit us all, and which are best done using a pooling of resources. The road and highway system, for example. Huge levee systems to protect inhabited areas from rising waters fit in there as well. Governmental oversight of those too large to be overseen by the private sector (major corporations) fits into this nicely.

Police, fire and rescue, homeland security, international relations, disaster preparedness and mitigation, these are all functions which REQUIRE the combined resources of us all for the good of us all, and "drowning government in the bathtub" ends up where we are right now in New Orleans: With huge loss of life and property and a lot of people pointing fingers at other people about who should have acted differently.

There are times to be conservative, such as when the income tax reaches near 70% at the highest levels (as it did early in my lifetime).

But the ideals of this country should be that we're each entitled to what we've earned. They should not be that we should be entitled to set our family up as a dynasty for years to come. Bill Gates, through skill and luck, has managed to amass a huge fortune, and good for him, he deserves to reap the benefits of his hard work.

Paris Hilton, on the other hand, has never done anything even moderately like work ("The Simple Life" tv series notwithstanding), and there's really no reason why she should be given the FULL value of the hard work of her ancestors while producing nothing but the occasional moment of entertainment to those who fancy downloading home made porn from the internet.

We need government. We need state government and federal government. We need pooled resources and people to administer those pooled resources. And sometimes we need to pay into the system. And who best to tax but those who have no more need of their money?

Raise the limit on the inheritance tax to $10 million or even $50 million and we will barely put a dent in the government's take from this tax. And there's absolutely no reason why Paris Hilton can't live out her entire life on $10 million dollars if she's not willing to gain the skills to draw a continuing paycheck for actually working the family business. But should she and her children and their children and so on be set up as a perpetual source of nothing and consumer of everything dynasty? No.

Don't repeal the estate tax. It's not unfair taxation, it's simply a recognition that once the person who earned the money is gone, the person who EARNED the luxury that comes along with it is also gone. It's a transfer tax. Perhaps a steep one, but we aren't supposed to be a nation of dynasties and class systems.

Liam.

My View

[For those who persist in thinking me liberal instead of centrist and independent, I wanted to post a comment I recently posted to the Huffington Post, in response to one poster who repeatedly asserted that "our goals are to elect a Democrat President and a Democrat congress". -- Liam]

Personally, I think our goal should be to elect the best leaders for our country, whatever party they might come from. I think this current crop of Republicans is past their expiration date and has gone sour and needs to be excised from the fridge.

But having the goal to get a Democrat elected come hell or high water is the same mindset that prevents otherwise intelligent Republicans from recognizing the evil done by "their guy". They think "He may not be perfect, but he's damn sure not a liberal" as if that is the be all and end all of their requirements for governance.

All good, thinking people should be independent, willing to embrace the progressive where it is needed and the conservative where it is warranted, and not get sucked into the Super Bowl mentality of "my team has to win, no matter what".

Liam.

Next up to the weasel table: Insurance Companies

[UPDATE: Janet tells me that from having lived in Louisiana, this isn't weasel behavior on the part of the insurance industry. Apparently when she has bought policies, she has been explicitly told that regardless of the original cause, if water damages your house that came in through windows or a roof that have been blown out/off by a hurricane, that's hurricane damage. If it comes up from the ground, that's flood damage. So while it feels weasel-ish, and while it's tragic that the areas least eligible (and least able to afford) flood insurance are also the once most likely to be under feet of water, it is apparently consistent and not the "bait and switch" maneuver I'd been led to believe. -- Liam]

Apparently the Insurance Companies that write Hurricane insurance policies are trying to classify the damage to New Orleans as caused by flooding, not by Hurricane Katrina, because far fewer people had flood insurance (much of the area not being eligible for it).

As Doug Heller from ConsumerWatch.org puts it, that's kind of like arguing that the murderer didn't kill anyone... the bullet did.

We've probably all experienced Insurance Industry weasel behavior before, but it takes real brass ones to tell a saddened nation that since the hurricane caused a flood, it doesn't count as hurricane damage.

(Then again, the gasoline companies got away with jacking our prices up by $1/gallon well before their costs could possibly have risen that much, why shouldn't the Insurance industry get in on the profiteering action?)

And speaking of the gas companies, why did Citgo prices go up? Citgo is the company owned by the Venezuelan oil interests. Their oil ALL comes from Venezuela. How, exactly, did their costs go up at all?

Liam.

On a lighter note...

From yesterday's Daily Show on Comedy Central (paraphrased):

President Bush has earmarked a billion dollars to build a new dam... in Alabama. He says we'll fight the water there so we don't have to fight it in New Orleans.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

More Feeble FEMA

For those who still believe this is all the fault of local authorities and that the Feds did nothing but help, check out this article from the Salt Lake (City) Tribune.

About a thousand fire fighters from around the country volunteered to help out in the rescue effort in New Orleans. They ended up being brought to Atlanta and spent a day in training. Training for what? To be community relations officers, talking up FEMA and passing out flyers with the FEMA phone number, while wearing FEMA shirts.

All while Mayor Ray Nagin is begging for some help, since his own firefighters are at the end of their rope, having been working rescue and relief efforts for a week.

Of course, FEMA claims that they were open and honest about what they were looking for, but based on the reactions of the men and women in question, they were not given the impression this was a community relations job.

And even if it was, why fly in 1000 trained rescuers from around the nation for this task? Propaganda? "Look how many firefighters we brought in! We have so many, we can waste them on community relations". Oh, but by the way, we're not really using any of them to actually fight fires or work in rescue. That we can leave to an increasingly exhausted local fire brigade.

I'm not saying that getting information to the displaced isn't important. I'm saying that it doesn't require highly skilled rescue people, nor people flown in from around the country. Hell, hire some of the now jobless people who have lost everything and deputize THEM to be your information squad. They're local, idle, and would probably cost less to PAY to do this than it costs to fly in the rescue workers.

Oh, and by the way, FEMA is telling the firefighters not to talk to reporters. Those who have anyway ask not to be identified citing that as the reason.

But then, those of us who really recognize the damage this administration does to our nation on a daily basis aren't really surprised that PR is more important than search and rescue.

It's all about the image. Don't ACTUALLY do anything for the public, just spend your time trying to convince that public that you have their best interests (and their moral code) at heart and hope they're too blind to actually see that you're all talk, while your actions consist mainly of giving more money to the wealthiest citizens and major corporations.

Liam.

Personal Attacks and Invalid Debating

I recently wrote a long diatribe on invalid debating tactics and I will probably post it soon, for the edification of those who care. Right now, though, I want to ask what leads people to sign on to a particular party's bandwagon to the exclusion of all critical thought?

How can you buy so heavily into one side of an argument that you are willing to dimiss, ignore or even ridicule even those closest to you, when they try to have an open mind and actually examine the facts with a critical eye?

Look, I'm not saying that one should change opinion if one believes the facts support their opinion, but to engage in ad hominem attacks (personal dismissal in lieu of substantive debate on topic), repetition instead of proof and mere ignoring of large parts of a person's argument is wrong.

When holding on to your belief structure requires that you treat someone you love with that level of disrespect, isn't it time to examine whether there's actually any FACT supporting your position? And if there were, would you need to resort to parroting party line talking points, refusing to conceed that the other side may have a point and even talking condescendingly towards the person?

These are tactics which are rude and invalid to use on those you DON'T know, it's positively disrespectful to use them on people you know and love. Consider that. You don't have to change your opinion, but RESPECT the opinions of your loved ones when they disagree, and give them the courtesy of considering their points on merit, not merely falling back on a knee jerk "that's liberal, you've clearly been brainwashed" argument. Unless you enjoy making your loved ones cry over how little you seem to respect them.

Liam.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Quickie...

News this morning is that FEMA and DHS has put a moratorium on photos of the dead in New Orleans.

Kind of like the moratorium on photos of caskets returning from the war in Iraq.

More evidence that they view the population of the United States as children who can't handle reality and have to be protected from things they can't handle.

A far cry from the days of award winning World War II journalism with actual photos of the horrors of war.

Can't have the American public actually SEEING anything going wrong. That might make people question.

You want another reason why this Administration is damaging? Because this is dangerously close to propaganda. We have our own TASS. Our own Pravda. Control the media, control what the public sees. Free media? Who needs it.

Liam.

Request For Admissions

Michael Smerconish is an occasional contributor at the Huffington Post, and one with whom I rarely agree, because he appears to be a Bush apologist. However, he has written an article that I think is very interesting.

He talks about his days as a lawyer and how, pre-trial, often both sides would take a list of simple true/false statements and answer them. Whatever was agreed to as true by both parties was admitted as fact in the trial. This was to cut down on the bickering over minutia, to keep the trial as focused as possible.

He proposes such a list with regard to 9/11 and Katrina, and while I think his list of questions is somewhat slanted, I wanted to take a crack at answering them.

I think they’re interesting, and I would love to have anyone else who reads this blog go through the same list of statements and answer them. Admit, Deny, Unsure and add explanation or clarification as you see fit.

Here we go:

Admit or Deny:

9/11 was the work of radical Islam.


Admit.

Post 9/11, there was a consensus in America to be “forward leaning” with regard to radical Islam, meaning, to be pre-emptive if necessary to protect us against further attack.

Admit, but the key word there is “radical”. An important distinction.

Iraq played no role in the events of 9/11.

Admit.

Iraq was nevertheless perceived by American and foreign military and intelligence operations to pose a threat based principally upon the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD.

Unsure. My impression is that this belief was based more on a “want to believe” than actual hard facts. I believe there were those who were misled about the state of the intelligence, and I believe that among those, there were those who reasonably perceived a threat that didn’t exist. I’m not sure that, at the very top levels, the belief in the WMD was justified.

Hussein’s perceived possession of WMD was the primary reason advanced by the Bush Administration in support of the invasion of Iraq.

Deny. It was one of several which was at the time and going forward have been presented. Depending on the day and the audience, it was AT TIMES the primary reason. At other times it was secondary. Sometimes far secondary.

It is now apparent that Hussein had no WMD, meaning, the Administration’s predicate for going to war was faulty.

Admit.

Hussein was, nevertheless, an evil SOB.

Admit.

The fact that the Administration was wrong does not mean that the President lied to us concerning WMD.

Deny. The fact that someone is wrong does not mean someone NECESSARILY lied, but this is worded so as to try to sound like an admission that the President did NOT lie. As stated above, I dispute the characterization of the mistake as being merely “wrong”. I believe the intelligence was cherry picked to make the case for WMD when there was plenty of credible evidence (Hans Blix and other weapons inspectors, etc) that was completely discounted in the rush to war. In the facts as I perceive them, the only way the President did not lie directly to us is if he lied to HIMSELF, to the point that he believed it. Then he was not technically lying to the American public, but lies were told at some point that culminated in untruths being told to the American public. In my book, that’s almost the same as directly lying to the American public.

The war in Iraq is going poorly.

Admit.

It is entirely possible that when all is said and done, we will have facilitated the replacement of Hussein with a leadership regime that is beholden to Iran and unfriendly toward the United States, albeit, one that does not represent the evilness of Hussein nor the type of threat that he could have become.

Admit.

Leaving Iraq immediately would embolden insurgents and terrorists.

Uncertain. I do not believe the link between terrorists and the insurgents has been proven. I believe there is a lot more reason to believe the insurgents are people who feel we’ve wrongly invaded and are fighting back against what they perceive as an unjust occupation than because they are somehow aligned with terrorists. I believe that if we were to invade, say, Harlem (another area with a largely poor and poorly equipped populace), we would face some of the same tactics we face in Iraq, as residents fought back with “terrorist” tactics not because they liked terrorism, but because it was all they had. When attacked, you fight back as best you can. If attacked by a larger, stronger enemy, you have to fight dirty to have a chance.

Our presence in Iraq provides a rallying point for the insurgency and the radical Islamists.

Mostly. It provides a focal point for radical Islamists. It provides the reason for the existence of the insurgency (although as long as a government we helped install is in place, our exit might not completely eliminate the insurgency).

Leaving Iraq as soon as possible must be our goal.

Admit as stated, deny the implication. It’s all in the words “as soon as possible”. We’ve clearly made a mess of the country, it wouldn’t be fair to just leave. But setting a timetable for withdrawal and starting to negotiate the turnover of power to the government in place, in my view, would take the wind out of the insurgents sails, as long as they believed we fully intended to abide by our word, something I don’t think they have any reason to believe to this point. We should leave in a controlled fashion, but we should be working towards that goal.

It is time for the Administration to set a timetable to leave Iraq.

Mostly admit. It should not be exact and inflexible, open to modification if we perceive we’re doing more damage by leaving too quickly. But we should be making an effort in that direction. However… I admit that there’s no perfect solution. The problem is that we’re in a mess we should never have been in (in my opinion). I think some on the pro-Bush side tend to say the Left is no better because they don’t have a plan, but that’s kind of like building an entire building with substandard materials, and then calling the homeowner names because they don’t have a plan to deal with the problem. The problem should have been dealt with initially, expecting others to have a better plan that you do after you’ve already soiled your bed is a bit wrong.

It is reasonable to assume that many national guardsmen who would otherwise have been in America, and in a position to respond to Hurricane Katrina, are instead in Iraq.

Admit.

The President did not cause Hurricane Katrina.

Admit. I would add here, neither did Gov. Blanco, Mayor Nagin or any local official either. (Not being partisan, but if we’re going to have this list, we really should be complete).

The immediate federal response to the hurricane was poor.

Admit.

The immediate response of the City of New Orleans was itself inadequate.

Admit. But I think it’s interesting that just in the questions, you flag the federal response as “poor” but the City’s response as “inadequate”. I would actually reverse them. The City’s response was poor. Adequate intention poorly executed. I would term the federal response to be poor intention inadequately executed.

Among the victims in New Orleans, the worst hit was the poor, most of who are black.

Admit.

The City of New Orleans has a black mayor.

Admit.

Those who accuse the federal government of “racism” in its poor response have been silent with regard to New Orleans’ black mayor.

Admit, but I think there is a difference. My belief is that the local government was poorly prepared but did their best when it hit. Clearly, Mayor Nagin went out on a limb by ordering the mandatory evacuation when many previous Mayors would simply have ordered a RECOMMENDED evacuation. In interviews, the Mayor, the Governor and everyone else in local government appears harried and sleep deprived. They’ve been working hard. They could have prepared better, but it’s hard to fault them when they’ve clearly been working hard in the aftermath.

Blacks were the worst hit because as a group, they were the least economically able to cope with the emergency, and were least likely to have access to transportation or alternative accommodations; many simply refused to leave.

Admit, but I think it’s fairer to say the POOR were the worst hit because as a group they had… That there is a much higher percentage of blacks than whites in the group “the poor” doesn’t change that there ARE black people who DID have the resources and DID evacuate. Making this statement with “Blacks” as the subject rather than “The poor” is (IMO) unnecessarily racist.

A person who steals food during Hurricane Katrina in the absence of relief from local, state or federal governments, is doing what is necessary for his survival.

Admit.

A person who steals a flat screen in the midst of Hurricane Katrina is a looter.

Admit.

Four years removed from 9/11 we do not appear prepared to cope with the aftermath of a large-scale attack.

Admit.

Four years removed from 9/11 we remain vulnerable to attack by radical Islam because political correctness has blinded us to the commonalities of those who seek to kills us.

Deny. What is the commonality between a hurricane and a religious extremist? What is the commonality between the perpetrators of 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing (the second worst terrorist attack on our country)? We remain vulnerable because we did not have SUFFICIENT blinders with regard to commonalities between those who attacked us and those who merely dress the same and share a religion, something which we DIDN’T do with Christian extremist Timothy McVeigh. If we had not been drawn into a resource-depleting war in Iraq based pretty solely on the fact that they were also Islamic people with turbans and oil, we might have had more resources to spend on catching Osama bin Laden and to further our readiness at home to respond to disasters, both natural and man made in nature.

Liam.

A Different Perspective

The BBC World News has an article on a Typhoon in China which was on the same order of magnitude as Katrina was here.

This is the first I've heard of it. China moved about a million people out of the storms way (another, more recent article that I read (but lost the link to) says 2.5 million), and the death toll is less than 600.

Centralized country governments CAN move efficiently and effectively in the face of on-coming disaster. Just, apparently, not ours.

(And for the record, I'm not saying we should be more like China, for anyone who wants to step up and say "See: Liam's just a commie liberal who idolizes the Chinese government". I'm not, and I don't. But this is an example of a disaster response done RIGHT (or at least, less wrong) and comparisons deserve to be drawn.)

Liam.

On the other hand...

I do think that, like them or hate them, this event points out a serious flaw in our nation's war on terror, one which people have been talking about for a long time, but which may now get some main stream play: The "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" rhetoric.

The problem with this is that it's the old "The best defense is a good offense" strategy that really only works in sports like football. Why? Because in real life, there are no points. The “Offense in lieu of Defense” argument works when you’re dealing with points, and in order to win, you simply need to do better than your opponent. Even in an absurdly high scoring game with two great offenses and two really poor defenses, you only need to outscore your opponents by one point. 150-149 and 25-3 both go into the record books as a win.

On the other hand, in war, destroying 80% of your opponents cities, armies, population, infrastructure or whatever while he only destroys 75% of yours kind of makes for a Pyrrhic victory. You may have “won”, but in so doing you effectively destroyed yourself.

Put it another way, we’re all taught not to put all of our eggs in one basket. Sinking all of our available resources into a preemptive war in nations that sponsor terrorism (accepting for the moment that tenet of justification for the Iraq war) leaves us very vulnerable if we miss even ONE attack or (in this case) natural disaster.

It’s the reason why people in the northern climates carry emergency survival kits in their trunks. No one wants to believe their car will ever break down or get stuck somewhere remote in mid winter, but if it does happen, you need to be prepared.

Hope for the best. Work towards the best. But be prepared for the worst.

We, as a country, need separate baskets for some of our eggs.

Liam.

Assigning Blame

Y'know what? I disagree with those on both sides (left and right) who think the various politicians involved here should be assigning blame at this point.

The liberals are incensed that the Administration talking points of the moment include words like “There is plenty of time for recriminations later, right now we have a job to do.”

And you know what else? That only applies to relief workers. I think it’s perfectly fine for the rest of us to be watching this and taking notes and trying to figure out who is to blame for the failures in relief and rescue. And I do think there should eventually be an independent (truly independent, not a stacked deck like sometimes happens) inquiry into how, after four years of supposedly beefing up our response capabilities to just this sort of disaster, things went SO very poorly.

But for those who are actually working (or supposed to be) on the problem right now, they SHOULDN’T be answering questions. Yet. They SHOULD be given a pass when, like Michael Chertoff on Meet the Press, they keep saying words like “What would you have me do now, keep rescuing people and getting food and water to the sick and starving or stop and figure out who is to blame?”

There is plenty of time for both the Bush Administration and local officials like Blanco and Nagin to answer questions and hold inquiries. Later.

For now, let’s let them do their jobs, at least as much as they are doing them. If there are things which should be done differently RIGHT NOW, those are worth discussing RIGHT NOW. Anything past can wait a week or two.

(And again, this pass is directed only at those directly involved in or responsible for the relief effort. The rest of us can continue our petty political bickering.)

Liam.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

One other thing...

For everyone who is arguing that local government is supposed to be first responders and the federal government is supposed to come in after the fact and help clean up (several people have made this argument to me today), and thus Gov. Blanco and the rest bear all of the responsibility and FEMA did exactly what it was supposed to, please read the following:

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.

Lest anyone think I'm pulling that off of some left wing fantasy fest, let me point you to the link.

The Homeland Security department web page is http://www.dhs.gov. If you go there and click on the "Emergencies & Disasters" tab, you're brought to http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home2.jsp, and right there, plain as day.

Reading further, it's clear that they share first-responder responsibility WITH local authorities, but local authorities were on the scene and doing what they could. They had insufficient resources, and DHS (and FEMA, which is now part of DHS), which were supposed to provide additional support, were nowhere to be seen.

Again, remember, the state of emergency was signed on Friday before the storm hit. The letter requesting aid was signed and delivered on Sunday. And yet the only real indication of the presence of FEMA or DHS on the ground before Thursday evening was certain cases of documented blocking of local efforts.

And by the way, what changed? As far as I can tell, Gov. Blanco STILL hasn't signed the document, and yet now there are armed forces in the city of New Orleans trying to solve the issues. So clearly that signature was not necessary, which means that the delay of getting troops in there was NOT because she wouldn't sign... except if her not signing put Bush into a snit and made him choose to move slower.

Liam.

A question...

I have a question. It's not really a valid question, for several reasons that I'll get into later, but I have it, so I'm going to ask it.

Was Haley Barbour asked to sign over the control of HIS state to the Administration before THEY got help?

Now, some of the reasons why this isn't a valid question are:

  1. The nature of the problems in Mississippi weren't the same as those in New Orleans, so arguably federalization of powers was not called for.
  2. Also, if Haley Barbour WAS asked and DID sign over his state, that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do, only that Barbour, a staunchly loyal Bush Republican, does what he's asked.


Still, I'd love to know if, in the same situation, a loyal Republican governor would have been asked to federalize his state before the feds would lift a finger to help. Was Rudy Guilliani (spelling approximate) asked to federalize NYC or George Pataki New York State on 9/11?

Because this is key to the right wings argument about New Orleans. Gov. Blanco wouldn't, they say, sign the federalization papers (which is what we really meant when we said "declaration of state of emergency") and that's what caused the delay in response.

I think this fails on a number of levels. Gov. Blanco should have had control over the National Guard troops in her state... only there weren't many. Several states offered to send some (since Louisiana's contingent were mostly in Iraq, training for Iraq, or on leave recently back from Iraq) but the transfer from state to state requires White House approval... which didn't come until very late.

So Gov. Blanco didn't have many National Guard troops to operate with.

Should she have federalized? I don't know, but I think it is insane to think that the federal government tried to hold her hostage until she would, by not moving to help and by actively (in some cases) preventing locally coordinated aid from doing it's job. Again, I point to the three cases listed by Parish President Broussard on Sunday: Shipments of water turned back by FEMA, emergency shipments of diesel fuel refused to local authorities on FEMAs orders, FEMA cutting emergency communication lines (I still haven't heard any logical reason for that one).

And if she HAD federalized, would the administration then have swooped in, saved the day, and then crowed about how they (the Republicans) had saved the day after the inept Democrats on the ground threw up their hands and turned it all over to them?

There is blame here for a number of people, but I still have to wonder why every time we saw Nagin or Broussard or Blanco on television, they looked harried and exhausted, but every time we saw Brown or Bush or Chertoff they looked rested and calm and well rehearsed? Seeing that, can there be any question who is actually working on the problem (however ineffectively) and who, well, isn't?

Liam.

Another Point of View, I don't agree with it but...

I think we have most of the options covered.... Facts: There was a hurricane called Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico, it got strong enough to be classified as level 5, it hit New Orleans, and more importantly Lake Pontchatrain, and when the tide came back in after it hit the lake, New Orleans flooded. That flood was expected yet wasn't really prepared for. The thousands and thousands left in New Orleans looked for shelter, they found it on rooftops, in taller buildings, and in the Super Dome and the Civic Center. Chaos ensued. People were killed, raped, and robbed. Stores were broken into and people robbed them, some for food, others for merchandise that had nothing to do with survival. OK, now some alleged facts: 99% of the population left in New Orleans were good law abiding people, about 1% were armed and evil... Making the city as dangerous a place as possible. Exacerbating the situation was the lack of planning on the local level, not enough food, not enough supplies, no generators for the Superdome or the Civic Center. Not nearly enough law enforcement to keep the people safe. (as a side note, I've always been a bit afraid in New Orleans, even 20 years ago, even last year...)The lack of people and supplies were apparent even before the storm hit, so the governor and the mayor began trying to get help... From people, from the federal government in the way of FEMA and National guardsman from other states. The help for whatever reason, wasn't there as soon as expected and chaos turned deadly. Thousands died after the flood peaked. Then when the assistance came, the rescue happened later than expected.

It is so essential that we find the key to what happened. I've heard that it is the fault of Mayor Nagin, the fault of Governor Blanco, the fault of President Bush, and even the fault of the Presidents since Kennedy for not fixing what was an obvious disaster waiting to happen. Now, I've read an article which puts the blame on the people themselves, sort of. I don't buy it, but it is an interesting way of looking at things, and I think deserves a listen.

HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED.

An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
by Robert Tracinski Sep 02, 2005
It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National guardsman poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

" 'These troops are...Under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.' "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005

Janet

Phone Banks in Force

Well, it appears as though Republican phone banks are out in force trying to assign the blame for failures in New Orleans to the local government, Governor Blanco and Mayer Nagen (both Democrats).

Why am I pretty sure it's a phone bank and not really legitimate calls?

Because one of my local talk shows that I listen to in the morning on my way in to work isn't available anywhere but here, and yet they received a call from someone who identified themselves as (I'm making up the name, because I didn't catch it, but the state is correct) "Ed in Virginia".

The substance of his call was "I want to know why the Mayor and the Governor dropped the ball so badly!". I remember thinking to myself "Odd, why would someone from VA be calling the show?"

I was then listening to a nationally syndicated left-wing radio show, hosted by a man named Thom Hartmann. He hosts a local show (not available on the internet or anywhere outside of Portland OR) in the morning and his nationally syndicated show in the afternoon. He mentioned during the national show having been surprise to receive during his morning show a call from someone in Virginia asking pretty much exactly the same question.

So tell me this, why are people from Virginia calling radio programs that they can't be listening to, can't be regular fans of, asking such a loaded question?

This can't be another Rovian tactic, can it? Rove, the man who helped defeat TX Governor Ann Richards by having a phone bank call voters and ask "If you knew that Gov. Richards was gay, would it affect your vote?". Gov. Richards is not gay, but that one poll convinced enough homophobes that she WAS to turn the tide of the election.

Tell me this: If the FACTS really support that the federal government did everything right and local government was entirely responsible for the failure, why resort to this level of tactic? If the truth is on your side, why can't you simply rely on thinking people everywhere getting the message out?

Liam.

VoW: Message from an Evacuee

Hello, Janet!

Thank you so much for writing to me. Currently, my friend and I are trying to stick together and work out what we're going to do next. The day before yesterday I went to attempt to enroll at UNT (in Denton, Texas) with no luck at all. They basically gave me the run-around and asked different for fees such as applying for housing and registering for classes before they'd be willing to help me out. Here's the list of things I currently own (the rest of my belongings are safe but unreachable back at my university):

- My backpack with a few days' worth of clothing and hygenic products

- Two bedsheets

- A company poncho my dad gave me

- Two pairs of shoes

- My script

- C.S. Lewis' "The Magician's Nephew"

And that's about it. After my unsuccessful experience at UNT, I gave LSU a call on a whim to see if they could be of any assistance. Turns out that they are taking in displaced students and waiving the application and tuition fees, and are even attempting to house the students (although amount of availability is presently unknown to me).

and I had taken refuge in Prairieville, Louisiana in the house of the kind and generous family, but I headed back to Texas thinking would be returning home to Florida the following day. It also turns out that 's mother refuses to let her come home and will cut her off financially unless she enrolls in another school for the fall semester, LSU being the first school in mind.

So currently, I am back home in , Texas in the company of my family and friends while is still stranded in Prairieville. However, this coming Tuesday she plans to go to LSU (in the company of her cousin that lives in Baton Rouge) and explain everything that I am telling you and literally beg them to give us a place to stay. A lot of my fellow colleagues and friends are either just as lost as the two of us, or are being ushered off to places unknown.

and I are really putting our hopes into LSU currently and are awaiting Tuesday morning after she has met with admissions. And until we know what we are doing next, I will ask nothing of you. But please keep and myself in mind. As soon as we know what our next move is, we will be more than willing to gratefully and humbly accept whatever you can give. Thank you again SO much for writing me!

Sincerely,




[And a second message...]


Thank you again, Janet! I'm leaving for Prairieville tonight by Greyhound. called me this morning and said that she and her mother think our chances would be greater if we were both present, and I definitely agree. If LSU doesn't work out, it's clear that we have other options. And I'll definitely be in touch! Thanks again!

~

Monday, September 05, 2005

Theory

I heard a theory in response to the Meet the Press from yesterday, and I pray it isn't true. I hope it isn't. But with this administration's history, I can't be CERTAIN it isn't.

What this person pointed out was, following my comments on how Broussard looked like he hadn't slept and Barbour looked tanned and rested, that it wasn't surprising that Mississippi had gotten quick response (being run by a faithful Republican and former head of the RNC) while Louisiana had gotten a piss poor one (with a Democrat as Governor and in a few other key New Orleans positions).

Until this point, I've been assuming that the difference was merely in scale of the task. Mississippi had deaths numbered in the low 100s (last report I heard), and so the damage was predominantly property damage.

On the other hand, Louisiana's we don't even know yet, but numbers in the thousands and even tens of thousands are being theorized, all in one major area.

But in the back of my head keeps ringing the question why did Haley Barbour say they had federal troops on the ground by Sunday, when Louisiana couldn't get anyone in place until Tuesday evening for FEMA and Thursday evening for any kind of law enforcement (National Guard troops). And the only answers I can come to are:
  • Republicans reward their own.
  • The areas of Mississippi hit weren't as saturated with poor people.

Rewarding their own (and demonizing all opposition) does seem to be what this administration is best at, terming all dissenting opinion "unpatriotic", "unamerican" or "treasonous". Not to mention leaking blatent lies about when a state of emergency declaration was formally made.

On the other hand, I have not been sleeping much, with migraines and continued obsessing about the devastation in Katrina's wake. I am probably much more open to conspiracy theories at this point than I should be.

I hope so. I sincerely hope that once I've had a bit more sleep, regardless of what I think of our leadership, I don't actually believe they'd let additional people die in numbers exceeding those on 9/11 just to drag their feet and punish opposition.

Liam.

And Rove sticks his weasly nose into things again...

As some of you will have read by now, the slow response time of the federal government was due to the delay in Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco's delay in declaring a state of emergency, still not having done so as of Saturday, September 3rd. This courtesy of the Washington Post on September 4th, attributed to "a senior Bush official".

There is only one problem with this "fact" now making the rounds of administration apologists' talking points: It was a lie. Governor Blanco declared a state of emergency on Friday, August 26, when the hurricane had yet to hit, but was projected to follow a path very close to the one it did over the subsequent weekend.

The Washington Post has since issued a retraction of the original story, and it turns out the "senior Bush official" was none other than Karl Rove, seeking once again to put false information out there in such saturation that the truth (when it surfaced) would sound like mere partisan defensive bluster.

Only my bet is that this time it backfires on Rove, for two reasons:

  1. The whole hurricane story had somewhat deflected attention away Rove's OTHER now infamous (and still possibly treasonous) leak.
  2. Now that the cat is so quickly out of the bag on this one, I can only hope that reporters will finally catch a hint and not report ANYTHING leaked by Karl Rove unless they fact check it first.

By the way, Rove was also apparently directly responsible for the lack of information I've previously noted from Secretary Chertoff on Meet the Press. He has instructed (according to a New York Times article) administration officials not to comment on prior events, but to turn all interviews to focus on the things the Federal government IS doing.

Liam.

Huffington Post article I enjoyed

For those who follow links to things I've enjoyed, here's another one from The Huffington Post. It is decidedly whimsical, unabashedly partisan, and given recent events, hard to disagree with, although I'm sure some of of the regular participants in this blog will.

Liam.

Sunday, September 04, 2005

Meet The Press Update

Well, I watched it.

The earlier transcript was accurate (thanks to the folks at atrios, where I got it) but completely inadequate to convey the absolute anguish on the face of Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard. If you have a chance to see this interview, take it. Not to see a grown man break down on national television, but to see real reaction, real emotion. Something more than the steely faces of the various commentators and politicians, trying to look gravely concerned but without any real connection to the problems.

I was struck strongly by the contrast between President Broussard and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, to whom Tim Russert cut when Broussard could no longer speak. Gov. Barbour spoke like a disconnected politician, even smiling as he discussed the damage to his state. He looked the consumate politician, trying to appear jovial and folksy for his constituents and frankly not particularly concerned with the death and destruction except as mere statistics, rattled off like one might list the ERA and win/loss percentage of an ace pitcher on a favored baseball team.

Watch this show. If you can get to it, the interview with President Broussard begins roughly halfway through the hour-long show.

By the way, in the first half of the show is an interview with Secretary of Homeland Defense Chertoff which really contains very little information, but I can't fault him for that. He was asked a number of questions and his answers generally were along the lines of no matter what has happened thus far, we've got far too much to be doing right now and in the near future to be worrying about what did or didn't happen to this point. I don't fully buy his explanation for President Bush's "No one expected..." comment (which was that Bush was referring to how on Monday evening it looked as though New Orleans had dodged a bullet, and that the levees broke after people thought it was all clear). But I certainly agree that Mr. Chertoff and his people have far more important things to be dealing with right now than determining who (if anyone) should be fired, what went right and what went wrong, and crafting responses to the press.

[Update: Janet just watched Broussard and Barbour, and she pointed out what I missed on the difference between the two men: Broussard looks like a man who hasn't slept since Monday night. Barbour looks like a man who just got back from a vacation in Aruba, tanned, relaxed and ready to campaign.]

Liam.

No Child Left Behind, No Exceptions for Flooding

In an interview on NPR, head of the Department of Education Margaret Spellings said that she did not want to write off this school year for children from New Orleans schools.

There are now conflicting reports, but initially the indication was that children from these schools would not be exempted from No Child Left Behind testing regulations. Sounds like a good thing, right?

Well, no, not exactly. Because the testing regulations require certain standards of learning of students and of their schools. These students have been through hell. The odds of any of them managing to stay even with students who did NOT watch their homes, schools and lives washed away (along with some of their neighbors) are low. Odds are many of them won't even find a steady place to live and attend school for several weeks. At a time like this, a few days of grade school are not a priority.

However, schools which take these children in will now have their test results pulled down BY those children. Schools which take in refugee children may find themselves punished by reduced federal funding in coming years when their aggregate test scores for THIS year drop.

Hopefully the second report that I read was correct, and the "adequate yearly progress" requirements for children of the affected areas will be waived for at least this year. But it's worth being aware that at least one report says they will not be.

Liam.

VoW: Sunday Two Thirty p.m.

[Note: I'm posting this one because I've said negative things about the Red Cross earlier on this blog, and while the things I said are still valid, it's nice to know that they're doing such good things. I want to present the good with the bad. --Liam.]

We just got back from trying to help deliver a truck load of water to
a Red Cross Shelter. (A man showed up at our congregation today with
over 700 gallons. He and his wife had driven from Port Arthur, Texas
this morning to deliver it.) As per the announcement on t.v., the
shelters are NOT accepting food/water/clothing donations at this
time. The folks at the shelter told him to call the OEP to see where
it was needed. The OEP told him to take it to the Red Cross
distribution center at the Fairgrounds on Hwy. 190. I'm guessing
there are other distribution sites in the area, and this one was for
Livingston Parish.

The man in charge of the shelter at North Park said that they are
getting 2 hot meals per day that are being coordinated by the Red
Cross. If churches or whoever show up with hot meals, they will just
be wasted. I was really impressed with the efficiency of the Red
Cross!!! We have donated to them in the past, but it was just
amazing to see them in action. They are doing so much -even trying
to be proactive in disease prevention by giving people vaccinations
for tetnus, and updating child vaccinations (if the people wanted) etc.

We had heard rumors that there were tents all over North Park.
Nope. Just a few tents that were actually shower tents. The people
are being housed in the rec. building there. All was in order,
although there were some policemen there. Mostly people were just
sitting around finishing their lunches. The police were helping with
drinks and talking/joking among themselves. It was very calm and
orderly. Alltel had a truck there where the folks could call loved
ones for free. Nice.

I would like to go take the Red Cross volunteer training if someone
wants to trade child watching with me.....??

-[Name]

VoW: Saturday One Thirty a.m.

hello group. i did wish we had [meeting] today. we did not go since i have little gas in the [vehicle] and no promise of others coming. once again i feel that email is not sufficient for REAL communication.

i am a little tense myself, outraged at the slow deliverance of those suffering, bored in my home. i have practically howled in frustration that there is nothing regular promised to victims. that kind of immediate response is what i needed, to be able to look forward to something concrete. i feel that is the root of the unrest that affects us all. crime committing in this situation is if someone is at a limit. they need showers clean clothes food and money and know they are safe and welcome somewhere to sleep, not to feel punished. we may need to speak out as citizens if the tension worsens. i'm just trying to imagine being homeless stinky hungry not being able to get my money from the bank something akin to waiting at the dmv for days. the more the refugees are taken care of, the safer the city will be.

everyone here has had to deal with the heat from lack of power, not having debit or charge card access, lack of gasoline, and the blare of the tv. i do feel that baton rouge is going to be permanently changed. we can make it a lovely thing or not. being neighborly to all strangers i have encountered this week, asking after their families, has been rewarding. for some people a friendly smile is all they have to hang on to. at least they can have hope that people do care even when their world has ended. hey, it works for me. i live in midcity baton rouge near downtown and have not personally witnessed or heard any gunshots or such. (hmm, it just occurred to me that our location is probably why some of family is not staying with us even though they don't have power). if we act like this place is safe, our guests will feel safe in return.

i have to remind myself that usually when i'm in complaining or verbally upset, it usually happens when i feel safe enough for it to happen. if we are able to chat here, we are doing okay. being irritable means that we feel comfortable enough to show our real selves, and i feel privileged to know many of you.

however, i have had to remind myself today to quit thinking and dwelling and play with my kids, my treasures. listening to news has not actually helped me much aside from wondering about my entergy bill. action is what is needed, and is what will make us feel better. even if it is cooking an elaborate recipe for our family since the pantry has odd ingredients, or playing harry potter uno over and over. this is the longest i have sat at the computer in weeks, so i better hurry it up.

there is much fear in baton rouge and it will escalate to being warranted if we are not as compassionate as when we felt hearing about disaster in thailand or india. i know it is hard. biologically we also feel the need to protect our territory. i am a little ashamed that i have not been able to invite any strangers to come stay with us when we have a safe (and loud) home. i think a common trait of a [identifying comment] is having control issues right? but anyway i think giving good will and heartfelt kindness as i can will be much healthier for me at least. i haven't always been smiley and nonjudgmental in baton rouge at large, but now is a good time to start a permanent trend of respect.

i have been flooded before, from tropical storm [hurricane]. we had to wait a week for the water to recede just so we could look, hoping that it would be saveable. still hoped it even as we looked for a house. it became an opportunity to move into the house i am in now. i'm sure that i was an unbearable person at the time.

this is an opportunity for baton rouge to grow into a nicer and better city just by how we react. not everyone will want to move back if they get settled here. we will have quite a mardi gras this spring. now is the time to expand the live music and theater scene.

now what i wanna know, is if there are any sister [identifying information]in town.

the [store] on [street] has all the foods. as well as [store]of course though it is breathtakingly expensive. by the way, this is sort of positive gossip, the [Store Name] company is already offering to pay the next thirty days fulltime wages to all of their new orleans employees for the disaster and any work they fill in now at baton rouge is hours added extra. i can hope that other businesses especially corporations will match or beat that.

when the gas trucks get in, i think we need a pow wow, especially as [identifying information]have been snowed in and some of us smothered by extra family. [meeting] day definitely, and possibly a needed night out. possibly at [store] just because i know it is not crowded. i'm thinking tuesday at 6? i'm tired enough to wish we could just all soak in a hot tub somewhere. can we rent a party at the [place]? perhaps we can volunteer an effort together like cook a vat of jambalaya or bring some clothes and toys as a group.
take it easy this weekend everyone!

love,
[name]

VoW: Friday Six Thirty p.m.

I have to also chime in and say that as of yesterday the information we
were getting was being given to us as facts. My husband works for the City
[office] with the police and DPW ... I can tell you that my husband
called me about the information he was given directly from a police
officer. In addition,several of us left LSU at 10:30 yesterday morning due
to the fears from a rumored uprising among the evacuees at LSU in addition
to the down town closings. Also -- it was confirmed that the Mayor closed
the governmental building and his own office for the SAFETY of those
working around the River Center. Furthermore - as an LSU employee I
received an e-mail from the Chancellor informing us that there was
confirmed civil unrest in Baton Rouge and to immediately keep all campus
buildings locked.

Since that time -- the news has repeatedly stated these rumors were not
true and the LSU Chancellor stated in a meeting today that it was untrue --
although at the time it was confirmed by the police to him. Even with
this said .. I have to tell you that I am still concerned. I am just
personally wondering how much is rumor and how much is trying to be
downplayed for PR and to prevent public panic. I can tell you that there
are things that have occurred that is not being reported -- these are
isolated incidents -- but they are not being reported and I just wonder if
there is the possibility of some things not being reported too. I do
realize that when minor things occur it can be exaggerated as it travels
through the community and by the time it reaches us it is blown way out of
proportion -- but -- we do know that it is indeed fact that the
governmental building employees were sent hom for safety reasons... that
alone raises concern for me.

I am so upset to hear about the people in New Orleans still stranded
without food and water. It absolutely breaks my heart to know that this is
not only happening in the United States -- but it is happening just down
the street from us .. in our own state. I feel completely helpless and
frustrated that it is taking so long for help to get there. There just
has to be more busses that could get there to get these people out .. or
planes or something.

Thanks [Name] for the e-mail yesterday. I personally would rather hear
everything .. the facts and the rumors both and then we can decide for
ourselves what to do with that information.


[Name]

 

Career Education