By now the use of dozens of NY riot police to break up a rally while Cindy Sheehan was speaking is all over the web (although 'oddly' missing from telecasts of the conservative mainstream media)you can read what Chuck has to say for a synopsis.
I would like to suggest that this is also somewhat rooted in New York politics. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican who was elected to succeed Rudy Giuliani in the wake of 9/11, is now facing a united opposition since Fernando Ferrer won the Democratic primary last week. Despite changing his positions toward the left in advance of the election, the mayor had a problem. With Ferrer getting all the press, Mayor Bloomberg had to do something dramatic to reclaim the stage. The anti-war rally was just the opportunity for him to do that.
Now I haven't posted as much as I would like on the nascent but growing anti-war movement (which is bigger than just Cindy Sheehan, although it organized around her and the President could have bought himself some time if he'd given her half an hour and sent her home happy last month, but it's too late for him on that).
However, this outrage has caused me to think that it may be a good idea for progressives who live outside of New York (and I generally don't get involved in political races outside my local area) to come together in support of Mr. Ferrer's 'Freddy and Goliath' campaign to oust the mayor. If you want to get involved go here. Also keep in mind that IF you live in NY City, then any contributions you make will be matched 6-1 by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, up to two hundred and fifty dollars.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Eerily reminiscent words
Despite the best efforts of the administration to distance the war in Iraq from such comparisons, it seems that every week you hear about some comparison to Vietnam. Of course, the comparison is clear-- a protracted guerilla war in which the mission seems to change regularly (meaning there is no clearly defined mission).
However, a story out today compares the literal words right out of the mouth of Lyndon B. Johnson (1967) and George W. Bush (this year).
LBJ: "America is committed to the defense of South Vietnam until an honorable peace can be negotiated"...Despite the obstacles to victory, "We shall stay the course."
-- speech to the Tennessee Legislature on March 15, 1967.
Bush: "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. And the job is this: We'll help the Iraqis develop a democracy."
--August 3, 2005
OK. Not quite the same. I do recall once learning the difference between 'shall' and 'will' in my grammar class. Not sure who has the correct usage.
If you read through the article, there are other comparisons between their words. One in my mind stands out.
"Be assured that the death of your son will have meaning," Johnson told the parents of a posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor during a Rose Garden ceremony on April 6, 1967. "For I give you also my solemn pledge that our country will persist — and will prevail — in the cause for which your boy died."
Speaking to military families in Idaho on Aug. 24, Bush said: "These brave men and women gave their lives for a cause that is just and necessary for the security of our country, and now we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission."
Unable to justify our remaining there for any better reason, the purpose of these speeches seem to be to justify staying and losing more young Americans because of those who have already died.
Now I have had a number of friends (mostly Republicans, but also a couple of Democrats) tell me that we need to support the President during time of war.
I understand that position, but I wonder how many people had the same view 38 years ago, and how many more American soldiers died fighting in a dead end war because of it. It was the wrong position then, and it is the wrong position now.
However, a story out today compares the literal words right out of the mouth of Lyndon B. Johnson (1967) and George W. Bush (this year).
LBJ: "America is committed to the defense of South Vietnam until an honorable peace can be negotiated"...Despite the obstacles to victory, "We shall stay the course."
-- speech to the Tennessee Legislature on March 15, 1967.
Bush: "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. And the job is this: We'll help the Iraqis develop a democracy."
--August 3, 2005
OK. Not quite the same. I do recall once learning the difference between 'shall' and 'will' in my grammar class. Not sure who has the correct usage.
If you read through the article, there are other comparisons between their words. One in my mind stands out.
"Be assured that the death of your son will have meaning," Johnson told the parents of a posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor during a Rose Garden ceremony on April 6, 1967. "For I give you also my solemn pledge that our country will persist — and will prevail — in the cause for which your boy died."
Speaking to military families in Idaho on Aug. 24, Bush said: "These brave men and women gave their lives for a cause that is just and necessary for the security of our country, and now we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission."
Unable to justify our remaining there for any better reason, the purpose of these speeches seem to be to justify staying and losing more young Americans because of those who have already died.
Now I have had a number of friends (mostly Republicans, but also a couple of Democrats) tell me that we need to support the President during time of war.
I understand that position, but I wonder how many people had the same view 38 years ago, and how many more American soldiers died fighting in a dead end war because of it. It was the wrong position then, and it is the wrong position now.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are arrogant jerks.
Credit story to Buzzflash.
Just in case anyone thinks that since the President took responsibility for the Katrina disaster, the Federal Government has become any more responsible: a story in the Mirror says otherwise: Hundreds of tons of British food aid burned.
According to the article, HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned.
US red tape is stopping it from reaching hungry evacuees.
Instead tons of the badly needed Nato ration packs, the same as those eaten by British troops in Iraq, has been condemned as unfit for human consumption.
And unless the bureaucratic mess is cleared up soon it could be sent for incineration.
One British aid worker last night called the move "sickening senselessness" and said furious colleagues were "spitting blood".
The food, which cost British taxpayers millions, is sitting idle in a huge warehouse after the Food and Drug Agency recalled it when it had already left to be distributed.
Scores of lorries headed back to a warehouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, to dump it at an FDA incineration plant.
Apparently the Food and Drug Administration recalled the food because of regulations in place regarding the importation of meat from Britain following a mad cow (BSE) scare several years ago. The aid worker addressed that issue directly :
"If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years."
The aid worker went on, "This is the most appalling act of sickening senselessness while people starve.
"The FDA has recalled aid from Britain because it has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, despite the fact that these are Nato approved rations of exactly the same type fed to British soldiers in Iraq.
"Under Nato, American soldiers are also entitled to eat such rations, yet the starving of the American South will see them go up in smoke because of FDA red tape madness."
So it is good enough for our soldiers in Iraq, but not for people on cots at evacuation centers. If that is true, then it looks even worse for this government.
The aid worker summed it up better than I could: "There will be a cloud of smoke above Little Rock soon - of burned food, of anger and of shame that the world's richest nation couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery and lets Americans starve while they arrogantly observe petty regulations.
"Everyone is revolted by the chaotic shambles the US is making of this crisis. Guys from Unicef are walking around spitting blood.
And here is the kicker: After they spent all those millions donating aid to us that we decide is banned by regulations in America, then instead of burning it, couldn't we at least send it back to them?! Or if not that, then put it on the next plane to Sub-Saharan Africa or someplace else where people don't have enough to eat?
Boy, we have a bunch of pinheads running our government, and firing Michael Brown didn't solve the problem.
Just in case anyone thinks that since the President took responsibility for the Katrina disaster, the Federal Government has become any more responsible: a story in the Mirror says otherwise: Hundreds of tons of British food aid burned.
According to the article, HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned.
US red tape is stopping it from reaching hungry evacuees.
Instead tons of the badly needed Nato ration packs, the same as those eaten by British troops in Iraq, has been condemned as unfit for human consumption.
And unless the bureaucratic mess is cleared up soon it could be sent for incineration.
One British aid worker last night called the move "sickening senselessness" and said furious colleagues were "spitting blood".
The food, which cost British taxpayers millions, is sitting idle in a huge warehouse after the Food and Drug Agency recalled it when it had already left to be distributed.
Scores of lorries headed back to a warehouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, to dump it at an FDA incineration plant.
Apparently the Food and Drug Administration recalled the food because of regulations in place regarding the importation of meat from Britain following a mad cow (BSE) scare several years ago. The aid worker addressed that issue directly :
"If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years."
The aid worker went on, "This is the most appalling act of sickening senselessness while people starve.
"The FDA has recalled aid from Britain because it has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, despite the fact that these are Nato approved rations of exactly the same type fed to British soldiers in Iraq.
"Under Nato, American soldiers are also entitled to eat such rations, yet the starving of the American South will see them go up in smoke because of FDA red tape madness."
So it is good enough for our soldiers in Iraq, but not for people on cots at evacuation centers. If that is true, then it looks even worse for this government.
The aid worker summed it up better than I could: "There will be a cloud of smoke above Little Rock soon - of burned food, of anger and of shame that the world's richest nation couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery and lets Americans starve while they arrogantly observe petty regulations.
"Everyone is revolted by the chaotic shambles the US is making of this crisis. Guys from Unicef are walking around spitting blood.
And here is the kicker: After they spent all those millions donating aid to us that we decide is banned by regulations in America, then instead of burning it, couldn't we at least send it back to them?! Or if not that, then put it on the next plane to Sub-Saharan Africa or someplace else where people don't have enough to eat?
Boy, we have a bunch of pinheads running our government, and firing Michael Brown didn't solve the problem.
In memoriam
The Wiesenthal Center has announced the death of Simon Wiesenthal, in his sleep at his Vienna home at the age of 96.
Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor, devoted the rest of his life to tracking and finding Nazis and bringing them to justice. He made sure that none of them could sleep safely, knowing that they were always hunted.
A biography of Wiesenthal is found here.
Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor, devoted the rest of his life to tracking and finding Nazis and bringing them to justice. He made sure that none of them could sleep safely, knowing that they were always hunted.
A biography of Wiesenthal is found here.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Katrina now an excuse for-- achieving segregation.
CNN just ran a story about Kenner, Louisiana. The town is a New Orleans suburb that was damaged by Katrina, but not to the point of being uninhabitable. Except for one area.
The city has a sizable Hispanic population. According to the report, the mayor, Phil Capitano, has refused to open a shelter to house people living in one area of the city. The Hispanic area. It is also the only area where the power has not been turned on, and apparently, according to the CNN report, by the order of the mayor. The police chief,who was interviewed said that there was no reason he knew of why it could not be turned on. They even showed a confrontation between the police chief (who is one of the good guys, but doesn't have the final say on anything) and an angry resident about racism. The CNN report made it pretty clear: Pure and simple, the mayor wants a 'whites only' town. In fact, he has now ordered all of the Hispanic residents forcibly removed to another town 50 miles away (his excuse is so they can avoid Rita-- keep in mind that they all stayed during Katrina).
So, I did a little digging. I found on this site. According to the lead story,
La. officials probes pilfered donations
9/18/2005, 7:39 p.m. CT
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
The Associated Press
KENNER, La. (AP) — Officials are responding to complaints that city workers helped themselves to cases of Gatorade, brand-new clothing and other donated items that were intended for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
This town is evil.
The city has a sizable Hispanic population. According to the report, the mayor, Phil Capitano, has refused to open a shelter to house people living in one area of the city. The Hispanic area. It is also the only area where the power has not been turned on, and apparently, according to the CNN report, by the order of the mayor. The police chief,who was interviewed said that there was no reason he knew of why it could not be turned on. They even showed a confrontation between the police chief (who is one of the good guys, but doesn't have the final say on anything) and an angry resident about racism. The CNN report made it pretty clear: Pure and simple, the mayor wants a 'whites only' town. In fact, he has now ordered all of the Hispanic residents forcibly removed to another town 50 miles away (his excuse is so they can avoid Rita-- keep in mind that they all stayed during Katrina).
So, I did a little digging. I found on this site. According to the lead story,
La. officials probes pilfered donations
9/18/2005, 7:39 p.m. CT
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
The Associated Press
KENNER, La. (AP) — Officials are responding to complaints that city workers helped themselves to cases of Gatorade, brand-new clothing and other donated items that were intended for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
This town is evil.
Total contempt for our own puppet government
Today, British coalition troops in Iraq opened an offensive in Basra. Using ten armored vehicles, backed by helicopters, they overwhelmed the opposition, destroyed their target and quickly achieved their objective.
Were they fighting insurgents then? No, they were not. They were attacking an Iraqi prison-- guarded by members of the very same police force that we have been working so hard to recruit and train. Their objective was to free two British commandos, arrested after being accused of gunning down two Iraqi policemen.
According to the article, the British and Iraqis offered different explanations.
Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of Basra province, condemned the British for raiding the prison, an act he called “barbaric, savage and irresponsible...
A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act,” al-Waili said, adding that the British force had spirited the prisoners away to an unknown location.
The British view is this:
Late Monday, a Ministry of Defense spokesman, speaking in London on condition of anonymity as is customary, said he had no information suggesting the men were freed as a result of any overt military action. But the spokesman stopped short of denying reports that British vehicles crashed through the jail walls. The ministry issued a statement saying the two Britons were back with other British troops....According to the BBC, defense officials insisted they had been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men, but acknowledged a wall was demolished as British forces tried to “collect” the two prisoners.
Additionally, a witness said that he watched about 150 prisoners flee the jail (did the British not care about this either, or just assume that when they knocked the wall of the jail down the rest of the inmates would just quietly sit around waiting for the guards to return?)
In other words, the British chose to ignore Iraqi 'sovereignty.' Of course, this isn't the first time this has been done. We made it clear last year, just a day after the ink was dry on the proclamation of Iraqi sovereignty, that they would know that it was just a piece of paper.
On June 29 of last year, just one day after granting Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004, The coalition decided that they didn't like an Iraqi court acquitting a man on a charge of attempted murder of coalition troops, so the coalition authority rearrested him and sent him to Abu Graib for a retrial.
US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.
Interesting that our prosecutors alluded to the Geneva convention when under the infamous Gonzalez memo of 2002, they also claim not to be bound by the Geneva convention. But, the real issue here is this:
As I said at the time, I have no problem conceptually with the coalition authority believing they have the right to try a man accused of attacking coalition troops. But, if they believe that, why did they send him to an Iraqi court in the first place? They obviously were only going to uphold the verdict if it was favorable (sort of like if you get a die roll you don't like, picking the die up for another roll). This makes it clear that they considered the Iraqi court as a puppet institution, and coming only one day after the official 'sovereignty' date, it made it clear that it was a farce.
Oddly enough, it may happen that Iraq does eventually have an independent sovereign government, but if it does, it will resemble the pre-war government of Afghanistan (if the new constitution is any guide), and it will be because we failed.
Were they fighting insurgents then? No, they were not. They were attacking an Iraqi prison-- guarded by members of the very same police force that we have been working so hard to recruit and train. Their objective was to free two British commandos, arrested after being accused of gunning down two Iraqi policemen.
According to the article, the British and Iraqis offered different explanations.
Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of Basra province, condemned the British for raiding the prison, an act he called “barbaric, savage and irresponsible...
A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act,” al-Waili said, adding that the British force had spirited the prisoners away to an unknown location.
The British view is this:
Late Monday, a Ministry of Defense spokesman, speaking in London on condition of anonymity as is customary, said he had no information suggesting the men were freed as a result of any overt military action. But the spokesman stopped short of denying reports that British vehicles crashed through the jail walls. The ministry issued a statement saying the two Britons were back with other British troops....According to the BBC, defense officials insisted they had been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men, but acknowledged a wall was demolished as British forces tried to “collect” the two prisoners.
Additionally, a witness said that he watched about 150 prisoners flee the jail (did the British not care about this either, or just assume that when they knocked the wall of the jail down the rest of the inmates would just quietly sit around waiting for the guards to return?)
In other words, the British chose to ignore Iraqi 'sovereignty.' Of course, this isn't the first time this has been done. We made it clear last year, just a day after the ink was dry on the proclamation of Iraqi sovereignty, that they would know that it was just a piece of paper.
On June 29 of last year, just one day after granting Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004, The coalition decided that they didn't like an Iraqi court acquitting a man on a charge of attempted murder of coalition troops, so the coalition authority rearrested him and sent him to Abu Graib for a retrial.
US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.
Interesting that our prosecutors alluded to the Geneva convention when under the infamous Gonzalez memo of 2002, they also claim not to be bound by the Geneva convention. But, the real issue here is this:
As I said at the time, I have no problem conceptually with the coalition authority believing they have the right to try a man accused of attacking coalition troops. But, if they believe that, why did they send him to an Iraqi court in the first place? They obviously were only going to uphold the verdict if it was favorable (sort of like if you get a die roll you don't like, picking the die up for another roll). This makes it clear that they considered the Iraqi court as a puppet institution, and coming only one day after the official 'sovereignty' date, it made it clear that it was a farce.
Oddly enough, it may happen that Iraq does eventually have an independent sovereign government, but if it does, it will resemble the pre-war government of Afghanistan (if the new constitution is any guide), and it will be because we failed.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Will he recognize what is really unecessary spending before he cuts it?
President Bush promised to rebuild the Gulf Coastal regions of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama-- an undertaking expected to cost well over a quarter of a trillion dollars (that's 'trillion,' with a 't.')
He said that he would do it without raising taxes, and balance the budget by cutting 'unnecessary spending.'
Of course, this goes along with his conservative philosophy, but on further examination it looks anything but conservative.
For example, in order to finance our last quarter trillion dollar disaster, in Iraq, without raising taxes (and in an economy already mired deep in record debt thanks to his tax CUTS in early 2001), the President cut 'unnecessary spending' already, several times. Among the hits: deep cuts to the national parks and other shared treasures of America, and cuts to block grant programs to the states. This last case was actually a stroke of genius on his part, if his goal was to get rid of government assistance to the poor without being blamed. While running for office, he campaigned on changing the way Federal assistance was given, and proposed packaging them into block grants to the states. His first year in office, this was done. Then, after another year, he began proposing (and Congress began passing) deep cuts in the block grants. This put state and local officials in the position of taking the heat for either the inevitable cuts in services or increases in taxes, while the President could claim that he was not making the decisions on these matters.
Most troubling, however, was another matter on his cut list: New Orleans levees. Not just New Orleans, of course, but public safety and works across the country. As quoted more than a year ago in the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the levee money would have, even if it was approved in full, prevented widespread death and destruction at the hands of Katrina (although it is equally valid to point out that it would have alleviated the effects in some areas); but what this shows is something very profound. The President's definition of 'unnecessary spending' is highly questionable. If it involves gambling that the deleterious effects of cuts won't happen, just as he gambled with the New Orleans flood control system to finance Iraq, then I (not being a gambler) don't support it.
However, since the President is so opposed to raising taxes, I would like to propose an 'unnecessary' spending program that he could cut: Repeal or suspend the enormously expensive and ineffective Medicare Prescription Drug bill that was passed in December of 2003, and which, even in order to get passed, Tom Delay had to break the rules including, among other violations, offer what amounted to a bribe to Republican Nick Smith of Michigan (which is one of the ethics charges DeLay is now answering to the ethics committee for). Not only that, but the actual cost was kept secret, even from the members of Congress who actually had to vote on it.
According to a report published by the Pacific Research Center, this bill, which sends most of its taxpayer largesse to pharmaceutical companies, originally pegged at $400 billion for the first year, will cost over $1.6 trillion over the next two decades.
Meanwhile, America's seniors are not as dumb as the Republican leadership thought they would be. It turns out, that they are opting out of the program in unanticipated numbers. In fact, the President and his supporters will be lucky if they even get half of the seniors in America to sign up for what is being billed as a 'free' benefit. In fact, it is ironic that during the crucial first two days of the Katrina crisis, the President was in Arizona and California campaigning to try and get seniors to sign up for the program.
Dr. Joseph Mercola, Author of the Total Health Program, sums it up perfectly: The Medicare drug plan will force millions of older Americans to accept inferior drug coverage while it enriches pharmaceutical companies and cheats taxpayers.
Now, the $1.6 trillion dollars that the Medicare drug bill will cost according to the Pacific Research Center study is several times even the highest estimates for Katrina. And it does little or nothing for seniors, but only enriches Merck and Pfizer.
Further, despite what we all think of when someone says, 'welfare,' between draconian cuts in individual welfare in most states due to the block grant situation, and huge increases in corporate welfare under Bush because of bills like this, corporate welfare is now five times as much of what is spent in welfare every year, as is welfare payments to individuals.
So, instead of urging the President to raise taxes (although sooner or later we will have to do that too when it comes time to pay the piper for all this borrowing), I have a suggestion for some 'unnecessary spending' he can cut.
He said that he would do it without raising taxes, and balance the budget by cutting 'unnecessary spending.'
Of course, this goes along with his conservative philosophy, but on further examination it looks anything but conservative.
For example, in order to finance our last quarter trillion dollar disaster, in Iraq, without raising taxes (and in an economy already mired deep in record debt thanks to his tax CUTS in early 2001), the President cut 'unnecessary spending' already, several times. Among the hits: deep cuts to the national parks and other shared treasures of America, and cuts to block grant programs to the states. This last case was actually a stroke of genius on his part, if his goal was to get rid of government assistance to the poor without being blamed. While running for office, he campaigned on changing the way Federal assistance was given, and proposed packaging them into block grants to the states. His first year in office, this was done. Then, after another year, he began proposing (and Congress began passing) deep cuts in the block grants. This put state and local officials in the position of taking the heat for either the inevitable cuts in services or increases in taxes, while the President could claim that he was not making the decisions on these matters.
Most troubling, however, was another matter on his cut list: New Orleans levees. Not just New Orleans, of course, but public safety and works across the country. As quoted more than a year ago in the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
"It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
-- Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; New Orleans Times-Picayune, June 8, 2004.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the levee money would have, even if it was approved in full, prevented widespread death and destruction at the hands of Katrina (although it is equally valid to point out that it would have alleviated the effects in some areas); but what this shows is something very profound. The President's definition of 'unnecessary spending' is highly questionable. If it involves gambling that the deleterious effects of cuts won't happen, just as he gambled with the New Orleans flood control system to finance Iraq, then I (not being a gambler) don't support it.
However, since the President is so opposed to raising taxes, I would like to propose an 'unnecessary' spending program that he could cut: Repeal or suspend the enormously expensive and ineffective Medicare Prescription Drug bill that was passed in December of 2003, and which, even in order to get passed, Tom Delay had to break the rules including, among other violations, offer what amounted to a bribe to Republican Nick Smith of Michigan (which is one of the ethics charges DeLay is now answering to the ethics committee for). Not only that, but the actual cost was kept secret, even from the members of Congress who actually had to vote on it.
According to a report published by the Pacific Research Center, this bill, which sends most of its taxpayer largesse to pharmaceutical companies, originally pegged at $400 billion for the first year, will cost over $1.6 trillion over the next two decades.
Meanwhile, America's seniors are not as dumb as the Republican leadership thought they would be. It turns out, that they are opting out of the program in unanticipated numbers. In fact, the President and his supporters will be lucky if they even get half of the seniors in America to sign up for what is being billed as a 'free' benefit. In fact, it is ironic that during the crucial first two days of the Katrina crisis, the President was in Arizona and California campaigning to try and get seniors to sign up for the program.
Dr. Joseph Mercola, Author of the Total Health Program, sums it up perfectly: The Medicare drug plan will force millions of older Americans to accept inferior drug coverage while it enriches pharmaceutical companies and cheats taxpayers.
Now, the $1.6 trillion dollars that the Medicare drug bill will cost according to the Pacific Research Center study is several times even the highest estimates for Katrina. And it does little or nothing for seniors, but only enriches Merck and Pfizer.
Further, despite what we all think of when someone says, 'welfare,' between draconian cuts in individual welfare in most states due to the block grant situation, and huge increases in corporate welfare under Bush because of bills like this, corporate welfare is now five times as much of what is spent in welfare every year, as is welfare payments to individuals.
So, instead of urging the President to raise taxes (although sooner or later we will have to do that too when it comes time to pay the piper for all this borrowing), I have a suggestion for some 'unnecessary spending' he can cut.
Friday, September 16, 2005
Maybe they just pay him to PRETEND that he's paying attention
President Bush, in an ABC interview on September 1, three days after Hurricane Katrina, said, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”
Of course the fact that this had been anticipated is by now well documented elsewhere. However, it turns out in this story, Katrina forecasters remarkably accurate that
National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield also gave daily pre-storm videoconference briefings to federal officials in Washington, warning them of a nightmare scenario of New Orleans’ levees not holding, winds smashing windows in high-rise buildings and flooding wiping out large swaths of the Gulf Coast...
A photo on the White House Web site shows Bush in Crawford, Texas, watching Mayfield give a briefing on Aug. 28, a day before Katrina smashed ashore with 145-mph winds.
And there you have it. The President believes that no one anticipated this, but the day before he was briefed by the guy who did.
Wonder where his mind was wandering.
Of course the fact that this had been anticipated is by now well documented elsewhere. However, it turns out in this story, Katrina forecasters remarkably accurate that
National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield also gave daily pre-storm videoconference briefings to federal officials in Washington, warning them of a nightmare scenario of New Orleans’ levees not holding, winds smashing windows in high-rise buildings and flooding wiping out large swaths of the Gulf Coast...
A photo on the White House Web site shows Bush in Crawford, Texas, watching Mayfield give a briefing on Aug. 28, a day before Katrina smashed ashore with 145-mph winds.
And there you have it. The President believes that no one anticipated this, but the day before he was briefed by the guy who did.
Wonder where his mind was wandering.
Even Ghouls can get a No-Bid Contract.
Credit goes to my sister, Miriam, for alerting me about this story.
I wrote a post Wednesday questioning the handing out of no-bid construction contracts. But this is even worse.
According to Raw Story, the no-bid contract for collecting, identifying and disposing of bodies from Hurricane Katrina has been outsourced to a firm, Kenyon Interntational, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Service Corporation International, SCI, a funeral company with a long a sad record of breaking the law to dispose of bodies, some in very disturbing ways.
So how did SCI get the contract? Well, it began with FEMA (then under Michael Brown) who contacted the firm and began negotiations. Then, after the Department of Homeland Security finished negotiating the deal, Lousiana Governor Kathleen Blanco signed it.
From the story:
In other words, FEMA and then Blanco outsourced the body count from Hurricane Katrina -- which many believe the worst natural disaster in U.S. history -- to a firm whose parent company is known for its "experience" at hiding and dumping bodies.
For example, in 2002 , the state of Florida sued SCI and its Florida funeral home, Menorah gardens, because of accusations that occupied plots that were resold. It also affirms the most disturbing accusation: that a backhoe was used to crack open a vault to make room for another body. Pieces of Hyman Cohen's vault, burial shroud and remains were scattered in nearby woods in ''a field of wild hogs,'' according to the state.
After being taken to court, SCI paid $100,000,000 to the families of the deceased.
Then, SCI was one of several companies implicated in a a Georgia scandal involving the dumping of bodies in the woods by an unlicensed crematorium. In that scandal, it was also unearthed that 67 bodies were packed into a vault designed for one body.
No wonder we have this exchange from the Raw story article:
A secretary at the lawfirm that sued SCI over the Florida cemetery scandals gasped when informed that FEMA had outsourced handling of Katrina victims' bodies to an SCI subsidiary.
"Oh, good lord!" she said.
Now, we know what SCI's past record is. So why did they get the contract? Well, that relates to an ealier scandal, in Texas in 1998. To really understand the article, it is necessary to know what was then common knowledge in Texas-- that the relationship between SCI CEO Robert Waltrip and the Bush family goes way back. According to an article in the Washington Post about a judge's ruling that Bush, then running for President, would not personally have to testify in the case, Waltrip donated $45,000 to Bush's 1994 gubernatorial bid.
According to the article,
What began as a citizen's complaint against SCI in January 1998 has since grown into a scandal revolving around campaign contributions, and the influence they may buy. All of the politicos who intervened on SCI's behalf received major contributions from SCI's political action committee, or PAC. Did that money convince them to help SCI -- the world's largest death care company -- and to punish the agency that investigated SCI? Whether that was the reason or not, the state officials took positions that may hurt consumers. SCI's prices are routinely among the highest in the funeral business. One consumer advocate, Lamar Hankins, the president of the Funeral & Memorial Societies of America, says the company routinely engages in "price gouging." But campaign cash, not consumers, is at the heart of this scandal. And the scandal promises to grow as the lawsuit -- filed by former TFSC director Eliza May -- works through the discovery process. The suit alleges that May was fired because she "repeatedly and in good faith reported violations of the law and conduct that she reasonably believed to constitute violations of the law."
Now, a whistleblower was fired. And not even a whistleblower against the Bush administration, but rather a whistleblower against a company owned by a Bush friend. Man, what a feeling of deja vu I had when I read that.
So, they give a no-bid contract to a company owned by a Bush friend and which has a record of just getting rid of corpses to handle the bodies of Katrina victims. And, here is the kicker: we are paying SCI to do a job that local mortuaries had already agreed to do for no charge. At the end of the original article, we find:
Dan Buckner, co-owner of the Gowan-Smith Chapel in the Gulf area... had planned to serve with the Disaster Mortuary Operational Repsonses Team... Upon learning of Kenyon's contract, Buckner expressed puzzlement. He told the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, 'volunteers would have gone at no charge.
Aside from making the body count questionable, the selection of Kenyon and SCI is hardly reassuring to the victims of Katrina who may have lost loved ones in the disaster. At the very least, isn't it your right to expect that your family members will receive a decent burial?
I wrote a post Wednesday questioning the handing out of no-bid construction contracts. But this is even worse.
According to Raw Story, the no-bid contract for collecting, identifying and disposing of bodies from Hurricane Katrina has been outsourced to a firm, Kenyon Interntational, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Service Corporation International, SCI, a funeral company with a long a sad record of breaking the law to dispose of bodies, some in very disturbing ways.
So how did SCI get the contract? Well, it began with FEMA (then under Michael Brown) who contacted the firm and began negotiations. Then, after the Department of Homeland Security finished negotiating the deal, Lousiana Governor Kathleen Blanco signed it.
From the story:
In other words, FEMA and then Blanco outsourced the body count from Hurricane Katrina -- which many believe the worst natural disaster in U.S. history -- to a firm whose parent company is known for its "experience" at hiding and dumping bodies.
For example, in 2002 , the state of Florida sued SCI and its Florida funeral home, Menorah gardens, because of accusations that occupied plots that were resold. It also affirms the most disturbing accusation: that a backhoe was used to crack open a vault to make room for another body. Pieces of Hyman Cohen's vault, burial shroud and remains were scattered in nearby woods in ''a field of wild hogs,'' according to the state.
After being taken to court, SCI paid $100,000,000 to the families of the deceased.
Then, SCI was one of several companies implicated in a a Georgia scandal involving the dumping of bodies in the woods by an unlicensed crematorium. In that scandal, it was also unearthed that 67 bodies were packed into a vault designed for one body.
No wonder we have this exchange from the Raw story article:
A secretary at the lawfirm that sued SCI over the Florida cemetery scandals gasped when informed that FEMA had outsourced handling of Katrina victims' bodies to an SCI subsidiary.
"Oh, good lord!" she said.
Now, we know what SCI's past record is. So why did they get the contract? Well, that relates to an ealier scandal, in Texas in 1998. To really understand the article, it is necessary to know what was then common knowledge in Texas-- that the relationship between SCI CEO Robert Waltrip and the Bush family goes way back. According to an article in the Washington Post about a judge's ruling that Bush, then running for President, would not personally have to testify in the case, Waltrip donated $45,000 to Bush's 1994 gubernatorial bid.
According to the article,
What began as a citizen's complaint against SCI in January 1998 has since grown into a scandal revolving around campaign contributions, and the influence they may buy. All of the politicos who intervened on SCI's behalf received major contributions from SCI's political action committee, or PAC. Did that money convince them to help SCI -- the world's largest death care company -- and to punish the agency that investigated SCI? Whether that was the reason or not, the state officials took positions that may hurt consumers. SCI's prices are routinely among the highest in the funeral business. One consumer advocate, Lamar Hankins, the president of the Funeral & Memorial Societies of America, says the company routinely engages in "price gouging." But campaign cash, not consumers, is at the heart of this scandal. And the scandal promises to grow as the lawsuit -- filed by former TFSC director Eliza May -- works through the discovery process. The suit alleges that May was fired because she "repeatedly and in good faith reported violations of the law and conduct that she reasonably believed to constitute violations of the law."
Now, a whistleblower was fired. And not even a whistleblower against the Bush administration, but rather a whistleblower against a company owned by a Bush friend. Man, what a feeling of deja vu I had when I read that.
So, they give a no-bid contract to a company owned by a Bush friend and which has a record of just getting rid of corpses to handle the bodies of Katrina victims. And, here is the kicker: we are paying SCI to do a job that local mortuaries had already agreed to do for no charge. At the end of the original article, we find:
Dan Buckner, co-owner of the Gowan-Smith Chapel in the Gulf area... had planned to serve with the Disaster Mortuary Operational Repsonses Team... Upon learning of Kenyon's contract, Buckner expressed puzzlement. He told the Shelbyville Times-Gazette, 'volunteers would have gone at no charge.
Aside from making the body count questionable, the selection of Kenyon and SCI is hardly reassuring to the victims of Katrina who may have lost loved ones in the disaster. At the very least, isn't it your right to expect that your family members will receive a decent burial?
Red meat politics
We have a lot of really big issues to debate right now in this country. The war in Iraq, what we are doing about terrorism, the situation in the Gulf Coast and what to do about FEMA, jobs, the environment and global warming, the protection of our intelligence assets, the record national debt and ongoing deficits, the accessibility of healthcare to millions of people who are being priced out of the market, fuel costs and energy policy, Social Security, protecting our children from predators, immigration, Iran, North Korea, education, the list is endless.
However, I predict that the issue we will hear the most about in the next election is none of these. It will be about the ruling by District Judge Lawrence Karlton that two districts in California cannot allow their students to recite the pledge of Allegiance containing the two words, 'under God.'
Now, I have my own opinion about that, which is that the phrase does not invoke a supplication to Deity, nor is saying the pledge (or for that matter mouthing those particular words when saying the pledge) mandatory in any situation. Heck, go to any large public event and you will probably see people sitting and chatting during the pledge, or during the national anthem. Therefore, there is no reason to claim that it is an enforcement of belief, and in fact, it has been said as it is since 1952, so it is likely as much a part of nearly every American by now as the recognition of the motto, 'In God we Trust' on the money, so there are no real grounds to change it. I would further suspect that the majority of liberals would agree with my position on that, even though it is in contrast to what conservatives are always trying to claim that liberals believe in. In fact, a couple of years ago when the original ruling was issued by the ninth circuit, I immediately contacted my school board member and suggested that if such a nonsensical policy were put into force here, then perhaps the school might simply raise the flag five minutes early every day and the public could stand on the street (public access) and say the pledge INCLUDING all of its words, together.
BUT:
However this goes, it is a minor issue. The fact that such a big deal is being made over it however is in keeping with the stuff that the right usually throws into elections. For example, every election cycle, we hear again about a flag burning amendment (never mind that there was exactly one documented instance of an American flag being burned last year in America in protest-- to listen to the right wing, replete with stock footage of flag burnings from decades ago, or taken from Al Jazeera broadcasts from that part of the world, you'd almost think that the sidewalks of American cities were lined with people standing side by side burning one flag after another.) The purpose of the 'flag desecration amendment' is not to change the Constitution. It is to get Democrats who oppose changing the most important document in the world just to stifle a handful of kooks, on record as 'supporting people burning, urinating on and walking on the flag,' so that Republicans can use it as political fodder.
We have seen the same kind of stuff on other issues, such as last year when the Republican National Committee sent out mailings to West Virginia voters advising that Democrats had a secret plan to ban the Bible (that one worked, by the way-- until then Kerry was even with Bush in that state, but after the flier went out he never came within striking distance again.) You will also hear them pounding the drums on the Death Penalty (completely ignoring the fact that aside from the Federal Death Penalty, which covers a very small number of inmates, the death penalty, its use, its legality and its ethics are purely state issues that the courts occasionally issue rulings on, but the President and Congress have almost no say on it.) I even remembered the year I lived in Texas, the Republican candidate for railroad commissioner won by running 'tough on the death penalty ads' (I guess in case they ever decide that tying people to the tracks is a legitimate method of execution). You will probably also see a number of gay marriage amendments (11 were on the ballot, mostly, by 'coincidence' in swing states last year, or states like Oklahoma that had a critical Senate race, and not surprisingly, the states where they are working on it for 2006 all have a Democratic governor and/or a possible tight Senate race; I wonder if Mr. Rove had anything to do with this?
But hey, this is nothing new. Republicans know they can't win on the issues in most places, so they have learned obfuscation, distortion and personal attacks, and raised them to a new level.
But now they have a newer issue. Thanks to the court ruling, you will hear about how Democrats are 'anti-American (and frankly, even those who want to return to the pre-1952 pledge would only be reciting the same version of the pledge that millions of Americans took during WWII-- were they anti-American too?) We will see it overtake the real issues, as this kind of stuff always seems to.
However, I predict that the issue we will hear the most about in the next election is none of these. It will be about the ruling by District Judge Lawrence Karlton that two districts in California cannot allow their students to recite the pledge of Allegiance containing the two words, 'under God.'
Now, I have my own opinion about that, which is that the phrase does not invoke a supplication to Deity, nor is saying the pledge (or for that matter mouthing those particular words when saying the pledge) mandatory in any situation. Heck, go to any large public event and you will probably see people sitting and chatting during the pledge, or during the national anthem. Therefore, there is no reason to claim that it is an enforcement of belief, and in fact, it has been said as it is since 1952, so it is likely as much a part of nearly every American by now as the recognition of the motto, 'In God we Trust' on the money, so there are no real grounds to change it. I would further suspect that the majority of liberals would agree with my position on that, even though it is in contrast to what conservatives are always trying to claim that liberals believe in. In fact, a couple of years ago when the original ruling was issued by the ninth circuit, I immediately contacted my school board member and suggested that if such a nonsensical policy were put into force here, then perhaps the school might simply raise the flag five minutes early every day and the public could stand on the street (public access) and say the pledge INCLUDING all of its words, together.
BUT:
However this goes, it is a minor issue. The fact that such a big deal is being made over it however is in keeping with the stuff that the right usually throws into elections. For example, every election cycle, we hear again about a flag burning amendment (never mind that there was exactly one documented instance of an American flag being burned last year in America in protest-- to listen to the right wing, replete with stock footage of flag burnings from decades ago, or taken from Al Jazeera broadcasts from that part of the world, you'd almost think that the sidewalks of American cities were lined with people standing side by side burning one flag after another.) The purpose of the 'flag desecration amendment' is not to change the Constitution. It is to get Democrats who oppose changing the most important document in the world just to stifle a handful of kooks, on record as 'supporting people burning, urinating on and walking on the flag,' so that Republicans can use it as political fodder.
We have seen the same kind of stuff on other issues, such as last year when the Republican National Committee sent out mailings to West Virginia voters advising that Democrats had a secret plan to ban the Bible (that one worked, by the way-- until then Kerry was even with Bush in that state, but after the flier went out he never came within striking distance again.) You will also hear them pounding the drums on the Death Penalty (completely ignoring the fact that aside from the Federal Death Penalty, which covers a very small number of inmates, the death penalty, its use, its legality and its ethics are purely state issues that the courts occasionally issue rulings on, but the President and Congress have almost no say on it.) I even remembered the year I lived in Texas, the Republican candidate for railroad commissioner won by running 'tough on the death penalty ads' (I guess in case they ever decide that tying people to the tracks is a legitimate method of execution). You will probably also see a number of gay marriage amendments (11 were on the ballot, mostly, by 'coincidence' in swing states last year, or states like Oklahoma that had a critical Senate race, and not surprisingly, the states where they are working on it for 2006 all have a Democratic governor and/or a possible tight Senate race; I wonder if Mr. Rove had anything to do with this?
But hey, this is nothing new. Republicans know they can't win on the issues in most places, so they have learned obfuscation, distortion and personal attacks, and raised them to a new level.
But now they have a newer issue. Thanks to the court ruling, you will hear about how Democrats are 'anti-American (and frankly, even those who want to return to the pre-1952 pledge would only be reciting the same version of the pledge that millions of Americans took during WWII-- were they anti-American too?) We will see it overtake the real issues, as this kind of stuff always seems to.
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Perspective makes all the difference
Funny, but losing one's home can change one's perspective.
For example, former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who lost his home in hurricane Katrina (along with about a million other people) has admitted that it was a mistake to put FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, Trent was downright embarrassed two weeks ago when President Bush showed up at the ruins and joked about how nice it would be to sit on Sen. Lott's porch when he rebuilds it (Lott recently blamed Bush for helping to engineer his loss of the majority leader's job over racially insensitive remarks three years ago). Probably he was embarrassed by being singled out when so many others suffered the same loss.
But considering that Lott helped to move FEMA to the DHS, his change of heart is significant. He has seen firsthand how, even today (if you read the article you will find this) there are STILL people in Mississippi waiting for FEMA to arrive. In fact, the destruction of coastal Mississippi and the agonizingly slow response time has been all but ignored by the media focusing on New Orleans (as well, recently, by the White House since they don't have the convenience of a Democratic Governor they can blame FEMA's late arrival on).
Lott has now seen first hand that the effect of subordinating FEMA's role to that of the new agency, combined with its having an incompetent head, has made it ineffective.
The role of Government is to protect the state and its citizens, and he has now realized that it no longer does this.
For example, former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, who lost his home in hurricane Katrina (along with about a million other people) has admitted that it was a mistake to put FEMA in the Department of Homeland Security.
Now, Trent was downright embarrassed two weeks ago when President Bush showed up at the ruins and joked about how nice it would be to sit on Sen. Lott's porch when he rebuilds it (Lott recently blamed Bush for helping to engineer his loss of the majority leader's job over racially insensitive remarks three years ago). Probably he was embarrassed by being singled out when so many others suffered the same loss.
But considering that Lott helped to move FEMA to the DHS, his change of heart is significant. He has seen firsthand how, even today (if you read the article you will find this) there are STILL people in Mississippi waiting for FEMA to arrive. In fact, the destruction of coastal Mississippi and the agonizingly slow response time has been all but ignored by the media focusing on New Orleans (as well, recently, by the White House since they don't have the convenience of a Democratic Governor they can blame FEMA's late arrival on).
Lott has now seen first hand that the effect of subordinating FEMA's role to that of the new agency, combined with its having an incompetent head, has made it ineffective.
The role of Government is to protect the state and its citizens, and he has now realized that it no longer does this.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Is a little oversight too much to ask?
This week, two news stories came out that highlight an ongoing problem, and one which apparently the Bush administration does not consider it necessary to do anything about.
The first, was when it turned out that September 11 funds, appropriated by Congress to be given to banks for the purpose of making low interest loans to businesses victimized by the September 11 terrorist attacks, were found to have been loaned to businesses all over the country, and as diverse as a liquor store, pizza joint and hair salon in Iowa and a smoothie maker, an auto repair shop and a dentist in Colorado. The culprit? Well, according to the second article,
the AP review suggests that there was little oversight over who was getting the money and that banks had financial incentive to make as many loans as possible..
From the first article,
Mike Schlueter, owner of Brewski's Beverage, a liquor store in Council Bluffs, got a $544,000 STAR loan in the fall of 2002 when he purchased the business from its previous owners. He said he never knew the money was linked to terrorism relief..."I didn't even know. The bankers were the ones that dealt with everything," he said. "I completely relied on the bank for the funding."
The money was just given to the banks, and the government just assumed that it would be used to help businesses hurt by terrorism.
More recently, the work performed in Iraq by companies such as Bechtel and Fluor, politically well connected companies given no-bid contracts for work in Iraq, is coming under scrutiny. For example, Fluor and Bechtel were among firms accused of fraud and abuse in Iraq.
According to Peter W. Singer, a former Pentagon official interviewed in this article, the onus for the fraud and financial irregularities should not be on the companies themselves, but on the government.
"it's not the company's fault if it has a dumb client. I'm not blaming the companies, I'm blaming the government," said Singer, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
The contracts are legal because the Bush administration repealed regulations put in place by the Clinton administration that would have allowed officials to bar new government work for companies convicted or penalized during the previous three years. Of course, companies like Bechtel (six violations the past ten years) and Fluor (fifteen violations) would have been barred had Bush not changed the law.
Now, we see that these same two firms have been awarded no-bid contracts for rebuilding Katrina work.
Keeping in mind that because the President's invocation of an exception to the Davis-Bacon act allows contractors to pay below prevailing rates, this no-bid contract holds an even sweeter cherry-- for the contractors.
We see what the problem is. Repeat violators continuing to rip off the government at every turn. The claim that Katrina relief had to be expedited, which justifies the no-bid contracts is true in some areas, but not in construction since it will take several weeks before the city is decontaminated and otherwise made habitable. This is plenty of time to put out a contract for bid.
Is the culprit a lack of people to provide adequate oversight, is it that the people are there but are providing incompetent oversight, or is it that this administration looks the other way on corporate fraud because they don't consider it a serious problem or they refuse to believe that a large corporation might break the law, or that it isn't such a big deal if they do?
The first, was when it turned out that September 11 funds, appropriated by Congress to be given to banks for the purpose of making low interest loans to businesses victimized by the September 11 terrorist attacks, were found to have been loaned to businesses all over the country, and as diverse as a liquor store, pizza joint and hair salon in Iowa and a smoothie maker, an auto repair shop and a dentist in Colorado. The culprit? Well, according to the second article,
the AP review suggests that there was little oversight over who was getting the money and that banks had financial incentive to make as many loans as possible..
From the first article,
Mike Schlueter, owner of Brewski's Beverage, a liquor store in Council Bluffs, got a $544,000 STAR loan in the fall of 2002 when he purchased the business from its previous owners. He said he never knew the money was linked to terrorism relief..."I didn't even know. The bankers were the ones that dealt with everything," he said. "I completely relied on the bank for the funding."
The money was just given to the banks, and the government just assumed that it would be used to help businesses hurt by terrorism.
More recently, the work performed in Iraq by companies such as Bechtel and Fluor, politically well connected companies given no-bid contracts for work in Iraq, is coming under scrutiny. For example, Fluor and Bechtel were among firms accused of fraud and abuse in Iraq.
According to Peter W. Singer, a former Pentagon official interviewed in this article, the onus for the fraud and financial irregularities should not be on the companies themselves, but on the government.
"it's not the company's fault if it has a dumb client. I'm not blaming the companies, I'm blaming the government," said Singer, now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
The contracts are legal because the Bush administration repealed regulations put in place by the Clinton administration that would have allowed officials to bar new government work for companies convicted or penalized during the previous three years. Of course, companies like Bechtel (six violations the past ten years) and Fluor (fifteen violations) would have been barred had Bush not changed the law.
Now, we see that these same two firms have been awarded no-bid contracts for rebuilding Katrina work.
Keeping in mind that because the President's invocation of an exception to the Davis-Bacon act allows contractors to pay below prevailing rates, this no-bid contract holds an even sweeter cherry-- for the contractors.
We see what the problem is. Repeat violators continuing to rip off the government at every turn. The claim that Katrina relief had to be expedited, which justifies the no-bid contracts is true in some areas, but not in construction since it will take several weeks before the city is decontaminated and otherwise made habitable. This is plenty of time to put out a contract for bid.
Is the culprit a lack of people to provide adequate oversight, is it that the people are there but are providing incompetent oversight, or is it that this administration looks the other way on corporate fraud because they don't consider it a serious problem or they refuse to believe that a large corporation might break the law, or that it isn't such a big deal if they do?
North Korea will keep their nukes.
North Korea said yesterday that they will keep their nuclear program.
According to a Newsweek article, Pyongyang said flatly that it will not give up its right to civilian nuclear programs. Of course since the North Koreans have issued claims before that they already have nuclear weapons, and millions of its citizens still live in huts with no electricity at all, it is clear that this 'civilian' nuclear program is code talk for nuclear weapons program.
The fact is, the North Koreans can say what they want. They know they are safe from an American military invasion (and have been for years). There are two main reasons for this:
1) they already have a deterrent, in the form of thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, which essentially hold the south Korean capital hostage and could begin blanketing that city with shells within literally seconds after an order came to do so, and 2) recalling that the Chinese intervened in 1950 when American forces came too far up into North Korea, they know it is unlikely that America would risk an invasion. China, to be sure, sees North Korea as a minor nuisance, sometimes flooding the border with refugees, but it has to be considered a possibility that an American army that close to their borders would provoke the same response it did in 1950. That said, the article suggests that the Chinese intend to lean on North Korea, In New York on Tuesday, Chinese President Hu Jintao told President Bush that China was ready to “step up” pressure on Pyongyang for progress in the negotiations.
Beyond that, truth be told, the North Koreans (just like the Iranians, who I posted on a couple of weeks back) know that despite inheriting the strongest military machine in the history of the world, President Bush has squandered it to the point where other than bombing, there isn't a whole lot we CAN do. Right at the moment, we simply don't have the ability to invade North Korea or anywhere else. Our army is scattered and does not have a clear mission.
The fact is, North Korea can develop any nuclear capable system right now that it wants.
So what should we do?
First, tone down the rhetoric. We won't invade North Korea, so why should we keep talking like we mean it when clearly we don't?
Second, sell them the food and medcine they want. A hungry country is a desperate country, and there certainly indivuals and organizations who would pay a great deal of money for a working nuke. If we make them too poor, then we risk creating exactly the hazard that is our greatest fear-- terrorists with nuclear weapons.
Third, We need to come to grips with the fact that another nation is in the nuclear club. The whole nuclear non-proliferation treaty is rarely endorsed by countries now building them. We won't be able to prevent more and more nations from joining, so we need a different 'line in the sand' (I blogged on this early in July).
Fourth, we must begin a policy of 'constructive engagement.' It is no secret that alone among communist countries, Cuba and North Korea stand out as being old line Marxist states. And, not coincidentally, those are the two countries where we have maintained a cold -war style of engagement. In communist countries where we have engaged the public and showed them the benefits of our lifestyle, either the people themselves have overthrown their governments (i.e. Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union) or pushed them into making some reforms, which will be an ongoing process (i.e. China, Vietnam). Isolating countries like North Korea and Cuba only serves to strengthen the Marxist dictators in those countries internally.
According to a Newsweek article, Pyongyang said flatly that it will not give up its right to civilian nuclear programs. Of course since the North Koreans have issued claims before that they already have nuclear weapons, and millions of its citizens still live in huts with no electricity at all, it is clear that this 'civilian' nuclear program is code talk for nuclear weapons program.
The fact is, the North Koreans can say what they want. They know they are safe from an American military invasion (and have been for years). There are two main reasons for this:
1) they already have a deterrent, in the form of thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, which essentially hold the south Korean capital hostage and could begin blanketing that city with shells within literally seconds after an order came to do so, and 2) recalling that the Chinese intervened in 1950 when American forces came too far up into North Korea, they know it is unlikely that America would risk an invasion. China, to be sure, sees North Korea as a minor nuisance, sometimes flooding the border with refugees, but it has to be considered a possibility that an American army that close to their borders would provoke the same response it did in 1950. That said, the article suggests that the Chinese intend to lean on North Korea, In New York on Tuesday, Chinese President Hu Jintao told President Bush that China was ready to “step up” pressure on Pyongyang for progress in the negotiations.
Beyond that, truth be told, the North Koreans (just like the Iranians, who I posted on a couple of weeks back) know that despite inheriting the strongest military machine in the history of the world, President Bush has squandered it to the point where other than bombing, there isn't a whole lot we CAN do. Right at the moment, we simply don't have the ability to invade North Korea or anywhere else. Our army is scattered and does not have a clear mission.
The fact is, North Korea can develop any nuclear capable system right now that it wants.
So what should we do?
First, tone down the rhetoric. We won't invade North Korea, so why should we keep talking like we mean it when clearly we don't?
Second, sell them the food and medcine they want. A hungry country is a desperate country, and there certainly indivuals and organizations who would pay a great deal of money for a working nuke. If we make them too poor, then we risk creating exactly the hazard that is our greatest fear-- terrorists with nuclear weapons.
Third, We need to come to grips with the fact that another nation is in the nuclear club. The whole nuclear non-proliferation treaty is rarely endorsed by countries now building them. We won't be able to prevent more and more nations from joining, so we need a different 'line in the sand' (I blogged on this early in July).
Fourth, we must begin a policy of 'constructive engagement.' It is no secret that alone among communist countries, Cuba and North Korea stand out as being old line Marxist states. And, not coincidentally, those are the two countries where we have maintained a cold -war style of engagement. In communist countries where we have engaged the public and showed them the benefits of our lifestyle, either the people themselves have overthrown their governments (i.e. Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union) or pushed them into making some reforms, which will be an ongoing process (i.e. China, Vietnam). Isolating countries like North Korea and Cuba only serves to strengthen the Marxist dictators in those countries internally.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Sex ed groups find a way to challenge abstinence only education.
Abstinence is the only 100% sure way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. We know that, and it should be taught that way as part of a broader sex education curriculum.
However, what we have seen over the past few years is an abstinence only curriculum. In fact, this agenda, which removes all other forms of sexual education, is damaging, because it is ineffective. A study by the American Society of Pediatricians cites statistics that 45% of high school girls and 48% of boys have engaged in sexual intercourse. For these students, who are not practicing abstinence, there needs to be a recognition that ignorance is more dangerous than providing a discussion of birth control, STD's and other topics contained in a sex ed class.
In fact, abstinence only education is a recent development, and it is (as I posted on July 21) liberal solutions that have worked over the past generation to reduce the abortion rate to half of what it was in the mid 1970's.
Now, however, we see a new tactic being used by groups which favor a broad based sex education curriculum (and despite what conservative pundits say, no liberal proposes not teaching the benefits of abstinence, but rather we support teaching it as the best, but not the only option for avoiding pregnancy and illness). These groups are challenging abstinence only by the use of an obscure law that allows "affected persons" to seek the correction of information disseminated by federal agencies, the groups said Tuesday that the abstinence education programs contain erroneous and ineffective information. They asked the Health and Human Services Department to correct it.
According to James Wagoner, the President of Advocates for Youth, one of the two groups challenging the programs, the programs state that condom use reduces the incidence of HIV/AIDS by 69-90%, while in fact the rate is at least 98%.
Now, abstinence is still the best plan, and I hope that my younger daughters practice it. But my older daughter did not, and I hope that if they also do not then they will use birth control and protect themselves in every way they can.
However, what we have seen over the past few years is an abstinence only curriculum. In fact, this agenda, which removes all other forms of sexual education, is damaging, because it is ineffective. A study by the American Society of Pediatricians cites statistics that 45% of high school girls and 48% of boys have engaged in sexual intercourse. For these students, who are not practicing abstinence, there needs to be a recognition that ignorance is more dangerous than providing a discussion of birth control, STD's and other topics contained in a sex ed class.
In fact, abstinence only education is a recent development, and it is (as I posted on July 21) liberal solutions that have worked over the past generation to reduce the abortion rate to half of what it was in the mid 1970's.
Now, however, we see a new tactic being used by groups which favor a broad based sex education curriculum (and despite what conservative pundits say, no liberal proposes not teaching the benefits of abstinence, but rather we support teaching it as the best, but not the only option for avoiding pregnancy and illness). These groups are challenging abstinence only by the use of an obscure law that allows "affected persons" to seek the correction of information disseminated by federal agencies, the groups said Tuesday that the abstinence education programs contain erroneous and ineffective information. They asked the Health and Human Services Department to correct it.
According to James Wagoner, the President of Advocates for Youth, one of the two groups challenging the programs, the programs state that condom use reduces the incidence of HIV/AIDS by 69-90%, while in fact the rate is at least 98%.
Now, abstinence is still the best plan, and I hope that my younger daughters practice it. But my older daughter did not, and I hope that if they also do not then they will use birth control and protect themselves in every way they can.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Will Bush's first veto be of a bill to end torture?
According to this story in the Boston Globe about the Bush/Rove response to Katrina, there is an interesting battle possibly bubbling on the horizon.
Hidden about halfway through the article,
Senator John McCain, a conservative Republican and a war hero, has been appalled by the administration's policy that prisoners of war in American custody may be deliberately subjected to cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment as part of interrogations. We are the only nation in the world with such a stated policy. (which was designed in 2002 by now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales).
McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham, all Republicans on the Senate armed services committee, have drafted an amendment to the defense appropriations bill.
It states that US policy should be:
defined as the interrogation procedures authorized by the US Army Field Manual, which specifically prohibits cruel, degrading, or inhumane treatment. Second, all detainees held by the United States, in whatever invented category, must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Not an unreasonable amendment at all. McCain said, 'This is not about who ''they" are, McCain has said repeatedly. It's about who we are. ''We are Americans... and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation."
Bush responded to the proposed amendment by threatening to veto the entire defense appropriations bill if the amendment is included. He sent Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to capitol hill to twist Republican arms.
Since then, dozens of retired generals, admirals, and other ranking officials have signed letters supporting the McCain amendment. Retired Brigadier General James Cullen, former chief judge of the US Army Court of Appeals, told a conference on national security policy in Washington last Monday that the legal experts of the military's own criminal system had been systematically excluded from the setting of interrogation and detention policy after 9/11.
Now, I for one am not one to trust McCain, he shifts positions more often than a weather vane. Virtually everything he does is with an eye to his own Presidential prospects in 2008.
But this amendment is bigger than McCain. It is about the United States standing up for what we have been in the past (after all, it only returns interrogation tactics back to what they have been historically, and puts us into compliance with the Geneva convention in regard to Red Cross registration).
Hidden about halfway through the article,
Senator John McCain, a conservative Republican and a war hero, has been appalled by the administration's policy that prisoners of war in American custody may be deliberately subjected to cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment as part of interrogations. We are the only nation in the world with such a stated policy. (which was designed in 2002 by now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales).
McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham, all Republicans on the Senate armed services committee, have drafted an amendment to the defense appropriations bill.
It states that US policy should be:
defined as the interrogation procedures authorized by the US Army Field Manual, which specifically prohibits cruel, degrading, or inhumane treatment. Second, all detainees held by the United States, in whatever invented category, must be registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Not an unreasonable amendment at all. McCain said, 'This is not about who ''they" are, McCain has said repeatedly. It's about who we are. ''We are Americans... and we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how terrible they may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, but it also undermines our greatness as a nation."
Bush responded to the proposed amendment by threatening to veto the entire defense appropriations bill if the amendment is included. He sent Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney to capitol hill to twist Republican arms.
Since then, dozens of retired generals, admirals, and other ranking officials have signed letters supporting the McCain amendment. Retired Brigadier General James Cullen, former chief judge of the US Army Court of Appeals, told a conference on national security policy in Washington last Monday that the legal experts of the military's own criminal system had been systematically excluded from the setting of interrogation and detention policy after 9/11.
Now, I for one am not one to trust McCain, he shifts positions more often than a weather vane. Virtually everything he does is with an eye to his own Presidential prospects in 2008.
But this amendment is bigger than McCain. It is about the United States standing up for what we have been in the past (after all, it only returns interrogation tactics back to what they have been historically, and puts us into compliance with the Geneva convention in regard to Red Cross registration).
Send the doctor here then.
I had earlier done a post on why the President declined foreign aid when people were dying.
Today, he not surprisingly declined another offer. from Cuba.
However, as the article says, Despite Bush administration assurances that international aid offers will be kept free of politics, Cold War tensions seem to be freezing out help from Cuba.
Empty words, apparently.
Now I have no great love for the regime of Mr. Castro, and there is no question that he is a despot whose death won't be mourned by a great many people. However, a doctor is a doctor, and aid is aid, and it is very presumptuous of President Bush, who took several days to make up his mind about aid from even friendly countries, to turn down any aid. Heck, if they don't want the doctor cited in the article in the disaster region, then send him here-- like most rural areas, we are chronically short of doctors here (I even know some people on the reservation who go the medicine men instead of doctors-- not because of some deeply held faith, but simply because they can get in to see the medicine man and the doctors are booked up for weeks or months in advance).
Today, he not surprisingly declined another offer. from Cuba.
However, as the article says, Despite Bush administration assurances that international aid offers will be kept free of politics, Cold War tensions seem to be freezing out help from Cuba.
Empty words, apparently.
Now I have no great love for the regime of Mr. Castro, and there is no question that he is a despot whose death won't be mourned by a great many people. However, a doctor is a doctor, and aid is aid, and it is very presumptuous of President Bush, who took several days to make up his mind about aid from even friendly countries, to turn down any aid. Heck, if they don't want the doctor cited in the article in the disaster region, then send him here-- like most rural areas, we are chronically short of doctors here (I even know some people on the reservation who go the medicine men instead of doctors-- not because of some deeply held faith, but simply because they can get in to see the medicine man and the doctors are booked up for weeks or months in advance).
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Righties should pay attention to this Republican. I do.
Last month I wrote a post on Colin Powell entitled, Trading Honor for a Pack of Lies in which I described the admission by Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's assistant that Powell had been fed intelligence which was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."
In the post I wrote
To this day, I believe that Colin Powell believed what he said, and if one could ask him I believe he would regret his propagation of a lie. As Secretary of State, he had an absolute right to know what anyone else in the administration knew, yet they knowingly fed him lies, and therefore fed him to the wolves.
Well, it happens that this week, Powell answered that question, and many others, in an wide-ranging interview he gave to ABC news.
In addition to his role in the run-up to the Iraq war, Powell discussed the response to Hurricane Katrina.
His insights are valuable, because they are correct. In fact, he also verified everything I wrote in the initial post when he said,
He told Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.
When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."
Although he does not blame former FBI director George Tenet, he says,
"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me."
Addressing the Katrina response, Powell said, "I think there have been a lot of failures at a lot of levels — local, state and federal. There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why."
Exactly right. The dangers to New Orleans have been documented in article after article, report after report, and yet requests for funds to maintain levees, build higher levees, and upgrade and build pumps and other drainage systems were routinely ignored by Congress, except to be cut. (see, the US news article, Why Didn't Anyone do Anything about the Warnings?. Al Naomi, a senior project manager for the New Orleans district of the Army Corps of engineers, told U.S. News in June that his proposal entitled, 'Benefits of category 5 Protection: Loss of Life Prevented; Makes evacuation manageable," (to upgrade protection in the city to withstand a level 5 hurricane) is still awaiting federal funding--for a feasibility study.
Powell also said, "When you look at those who weren't able to get out, it should have been a blinding flash of the obvious to everybody that when you order a mandatory evacuation, you can't expect everybody to evacuate on their own. These are people who don't have credit cards; only one in 10 families at that economic level in New Orleans have a car. So it wasn't a racial thing — but poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor,"
Right again.
He also said that he was reluctant to go to war in Iraq, but once the President made the decision to do so, he supported it.
Now, there are some things I disagree with Mr. Powell strongly about, including his insistence that we must remain in Iraq, but clearly he stood, as I perceived him then, head and shoulders above the rest of the Bush administration.
And I was wrong about one thing in my August post. I ended by saying, To paraphrase MacArthur, (Powell)...is now just an old soldier fading away.
Apparently he isn't fading away after all. And that is a good thing.
In the post I wrote
To this day, I believe that Colin Powell believed what he said, and if one could ask him I believe he would regret his propagation of a lie. As Secretary of State, he had an absolute right to know what anyone else in the administration knew, yet they knowingly fed him lies, and therefore fed him to the wolves.
Well, it happens that this week, Powell answered that question, and many others, in an wide-ranging interview he gave to ABC news.
In addition to his role in the run-up to the Iraq war, Powell discussed the response to Hurricane Katrina.
His insights are valuable, because they are correct. In fact, he also verified everything I wrote in the initial post when he said,
He told Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address — assertions that later proved to be false.
When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."
Although he does not blame former FBI director George Tenet, he says,
"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me."
Addressing the Katrina response, Powell said, "I think there have been a lot of failures at a lot of levels — local, state and federal. There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why."
Exactly right. The dangers to New Orleans have been documented in article after article, report after report, and yet requests for funds to maintain levees, build higher levees, and upgrade and build pumps and other drainage systems were routinely ignored by Congress, except to be cut. (see, the US news article, Why Didn't Anyone do Anything about the Warnings?. Al Naomi, a senior project manager for the New Orleans district of the Army Corps of engineers, told U.S. News in June that his proposal entitled, 'Benefits of category 5 Protection: Loss of Life Prevented; Makes evacuation manageable," (to upgrade protection in the city to withstand a level 5 hurricane) is still awaiting federal funding--for a feasibility study.
Powell also said, "When you look at those who weren't able to get out, it should have been a blinding flash of the obvious to everybody that when you order a mandatory evacuation, you can't expect everybody to evacuate on their own. These are people who don't have credit cards; only one in 10 families at that economic level in New Orleans have a car. So it wasn't a racial thing — but poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor,"
Right again.
He also said that he was reluctant to go to war in Iraq, but once the President made the decision to do so, he supported it.
Now, there are some things I disagree with Mr. Powell strongly about, including his insistence that we must remain in Iraq, but clearly he stood, as I perceived him then, head and shoulders above the rest of the Bush administration.
And I was wrong about one thing in my August post. I ended by saying, To paraphrase MacArthur, (Powell)...is now just an old soldier fading away.
Apparently he isn't fading away after all. And that is a good thing.
Something else Congress could do in addition to appropriating funds
Katrina has been called the perfect storm.
It soon will be exactly that, but with the assistance of the U.S. Congress, for a group of people you may not have heard as much about lately.
Last May, the Congress passed and President Bush signed a bankruptcy reform bill which was largely written by the credit card industry. The bill, which is scheduled to go into effect on October 17, raises the bar for people to file for chapter seven bankrupcty. Under the new law, many people will instead be forced to file for chapter thirteen bankrupcty, which is much more onerous and opens up the likelihood of losing one's home or other assets. The new law requires that most of the people whose income is above the median for their state file chapter thirteen instead of chapter seven. The worst part of the law is that it requires that the court NOT consider the causes for the debts involved. So, people who are forced to file for bankrupcty due to job loss, horrendous medical expenses or a disaster like Katrina are considered exactly the same in court as people who went on a shopping spree at the mall and ran up a bunch of credit card debt.
So who is this going to hurt? For the most part, not the people you have seen on television every day in shelters or stadium seats. Those people face a horrific trial to come, and it will begin by burying the dead in their community in the coming months. But chapter thirteen bankruptcy is probably a trial they won't face, because nearly all of them will fall below the median incomes for their states, and if they file for bankruptcy it will be chapter seven.
The people it will hurt is another group of Katrina victims, a group that you probably haven't heard about as much. They are people, mostly from suburbs or wealthier parts of New Orleans or from coastal Mississippi, nearly all white, mostly homeowners, who probably left during the evacuation and may have found a hotel room in Jackson or Baton Rouge but who now may not have a home and certainly don't have a job to go back to. The hurricane destroyed over 400,000 jobs, including virtually every job in New Orleans except for a few hundred police and other emergency workers.
When these people cannot make their house or other payments, they may file for bankruptcy. But their income will be determined as if they still had a job (in fact, most of them technically do, they just aren't doing it or getting paid for it), along with other factors like last year's income. So their failure to earn income right now will have a minimal effect, and I suspect that many, if not most, will be determined to be above the median income for Louisiana or Mississippi (both states with overall a low median income). This will put them on track for chapter thirteen, and losing their homes (or they could just accept foreclosure and lose their homes that way). The home may be rebuilt, if it is insured for flood damage, or by Federal government aid (don't hold your breath on that one though, I have a friend in the Florida panhandle who knows people still waiting for Federal assistance from Hurricane Ivan last year, and who got hit again with Dennis this year), but they won't be the ones moving back into it. The banks will sell it to someone else and their years of payments will be no better than very high rent payments. And remember that by law the bankruptcy court can't consider their status as a Katrina victim.
It is true that most of these people are relatively wealthy, white, and live in areas that voted for George Bush heavily. They voted for Congressmen who supported the new bankrupcty law.
But just because someone is wealthy, white and Republican doesn't mean that they don't deserve compassion.
Here is my proposal:
Enact emergency legislation in Congress to suspend the effects of the new bankrupcty bill for one year for people residing in zip codes affected by Hurricane Katrina (this is a well defined group, and easier to determine than the degree to which any specific individual has been affected). If necessary, allow them to file for chapter seven (which includes a homestead exemption) under the old law.
It soon will be exactly that, but with the assistance of the U.S. Congress, for a group of people you may not have heard as much about lately.
Last May, the Congress passed and President Bush signed a bankruptcy reform bill which was largely written by the credit card industry. The bill, which is scheduled to go into effect on October 17, raises the bar for people to file for chapter seven bankrupcty. Under the new law, many people will instead be forced to file for chapter thirteen bankrupcty, which is much more onerous and opens up the likelihood of losing one's home or other assets. The new law requires that most of the people whose income is above the median for their state file chapter thirteen instead of chapter seven. The worst part of the law is that it requires that the court NOT consider the causes for the debts involved. So, people who are forced to file for bankrupcty due to job loss, horrendous medical expenses or a disaster like Katrina are considered exactly the same in court as people who went on a shopping spree at the mall and ran up a bunch of credit card debt.
So who is this going to hurt? For the most part, not the people you have seen on television every day in shelters or stadium seats. Those people face a horrific trial to come, and it will begin by burying the dead in their community in the coming months. But chapter thirteen bankruptcy is probably a trial they won't face, because nearly all of them will fall below the median incomes for their states, and if they file for bankruptcy it will be chapter seven.
The people it will hurt is another group of Katrina victims, a group that you probably haven't heard about as much. They are people, mostly from suburbs or wealthier parts of New Orleans or from coastal Mississippi, nearly all white, mostly homeowners, who probably left during the evacuation and may have found a hotel room in Jackson or Baton Rouge but who now may not have a home and certainly don't have a job to go back to. The hurricane destroyed over 400,000 jobs, including virtually every job in New Orleans except for a few hundred police and other emergency workers.
When these people cannot make their house or other payments, they may file for bankruptcy. But their income will be determined as if they still had a job (in fact, most of them technically do, they just aren't doing it or getting paid for it), along with other factors like last year's income. So their failure to earn income right now will have a minimal effect, and I suspect that many, if not most, will be determined to be above the median income for Louisiana or Mississippi (both states with overall a low median income). This will put them on track for chapter thirteen, and losing their homes (or they could just accept foreclosure and lose their homes that way). The home may be rebuilt, if it is insured for flood damage, or by Federal government aid (don't hold your breath on that one though, I have a friend in the Florida panhandle who knows people still waiting for Federal assistance from Hurricane Ivan last year, and who got hit again with Dennis this year), but they won't be the ones moving back into it. The banks will sell it to someone else and their years of payments will be no better than very high rent payments. And remember that by law the bankruptcy court can't consider their status as a Katrina victim.
It is true that most of these people are relatively wealthy, white, and live in areas that voted for George Bush heavily. They voted for Congressmen who supported the new bankrupcty law.
But just because someone is wealthy, white and Republican doesn't mean that they don't deserve compassion.
Here is my proposal:
Enact emergency legislation in Congress to suspend the effects of the new bankrupcty bill for one year for people residing in zip codes affected by Hurricane Katrina (this is a well defined group, and easier to determine than the degree to which any specific individual has been affected). If necessary, allow them to file for chapter seven (which includes a homestead exemption) under the old law.
Flash me, or Stay Here and Starve.
As if the misery for survivors of Katrina wasn't bad enough, it turns out that female survivors of the hurricane gathered on New Orleans rooftops were told to bare their breasts before they would be rescued. Those who refused were left where they were.
According to British tourist Ged Scott of Liverpool, "I could not have a lower opinion of the authorities, from the police officers on the street right up to George Bush... The American people saved us. I wish I could say the same for the American authorities."
This is not only truly disgusting, but it is a criminal act (something of value, namely saving her life, is offered to a woman for a sexual act, which is solicitation), and I hope it will be investigated immediately and those guilty prosecuted for it.
Many heroic rescuers have risked their lives and taken time away to come and help, and most are doing an outstanding job. But the actions of one or a small number risk to besmirch the reputation of those who deserve to be applauded.
According to British tourist Ged Scott of Liverpool, "I could not have a lower opinion of the authorities, from the police officers on the street right up to George Bush... The American people saved us. I wish I could say the same for the American authorities."
This is not only truly disgusting, but it is a criminal act (something of value, namely saving her life, is offered to a woman for a sexual act, which is solicitation), and I hope it will be investigated immediately and those guilty prosecuted for it.
Many heroic rescuers have risked their lives and taken time away to come and help, and most are doing an outstanding job. But the actions of one or a small number risk to besmirch the reputation of those who deserve to be applauded.
Friday, September 09, 2005
This is truly frightening
Just in, an appeals court has reversed a lower court ruling and ruled that the Government can continue to hold U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, accused of planning a 'dirty bomb' attack, with no charges being filed against him.
Padilla's lawyer, Andrew Patel, responded by saying, "It's a matter of how paranoid you are... What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail — without a hearing (or) a trial."
Keep in mind that the evidence against Padilla has never been made public, and at this point one has to wonder if they even have very much of it. We have certainly seen how the Bush administration has been willing to detain people in Iraq on flimsy or no evidence, so I wonder if the real reason they won't charge Mr. Padilla is that in fact there isn't much evidence.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head. This case now will go to the Supreme Court, and if they agree that Padilla can be held indefinitely, then it creates the way for a system of Gulags in the United States, in which shoddy or no evidence other than a baseless accusation can be used to put someone away for as long as, well, the Government wants them to be put away. And keep in mind that no matter what your political leanings are, you are a fool if you believe that no one will ever be elected President who might be tempted to abuse these powers.
Padilla's lawyer, Andrew Patel, responded by saying, "It's a matter of how paranoid you are... What it could mean is that the president conceivably could sign a piece of paper when he has hearsay information that somebody has done something he doesn't like and send them to jail — without a hearing (or) a trial."
Keep in mind that the evidence against Padilla has never been made public, and at this point one has to wonder if they even have very much of it. We have certainly seen how the Bush administration has been willing to detain people in Iraq on flimsy or no evidence, so I wonder if the real reason they won't charge Mr. Padilla is that in fact there isn't much evidence.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head. This case now will go to the Supreme Court, and if they agree that Padilla can be held indefinitely, then it creates the way for a system of Gulags in the United States, in which shoddy or no evidence other than a baseless accusation can be used to put someone away for as long as, well, the Government wants them to be put away. And keep in mind that no matter what your political leanings are, you are a fool if you believe that no one will ever be elected President who might be tempted to abuse these powers.
Didn't you just know some wacko would say this?
A Philadelphia based group called 'repent America' issued a news release claiming that God sent hurricane Katrina to destroy New Orleans because of an annual event called, 'southern decadence,' which caters to gay people.
So,
"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued.
The article also sites the fact that Louisiana has ten abortion clinics as a reason God wanted to punish the state (I wonder, with hundreds dead in Mississippi and virtually every inch of its coastline in ruins for several miles inland, what the Magnolia state's sins were).
Of course, Mr. Marcavage and others like him wouldn't even consider putting the blame where it belongs; For starters, consider the 2001 FEMA report that said that a major hurricane hitting New Orleans is one of 'three likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country.' Note that the post linked to here is a reprint of an article first published in December 2001. So, what did the U.S. government (the Bush administration and Congress) do? CUT FUNDING to even maintain the levee system as it was then, or improve the drainage system. Cut funding. That's what Republicans do best. It's what they did. And the levees failed and the drainage projects to improve the outflow of water are still in the designers book.
There are also matters like the by now overwhelming evidence in favor of global warming (and if you choose to plug your ears about that, then YOU find an explanation for why water temperatures in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are near 90 degrees, an historic high). Then there is the destruction of wetlands and barrier islands by building shipping canals through them-- which to be sure way predates the Bush administration, but which has invariably pitted conservatives (of both parties)and rich shipping magnates against the people who are affected and environmentalists-- and with the former group almost always prevailing.
But, I guess it is easier for fundamentalists like Mr. Marcavage to blame God for all the deaths and misery (and never miss an opportunity to advance your political agenda) than it is to look in the mirror and realize what they have voted for.
So,
"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued.
The article also sites the fact that Louisiana has ten abortion clinics as a reason God wanted to punish the state (I wonder, with hundreds dead in Mississippi and virtually every inch of its coastline in ruins for several miles inland, what the Magnolia state's sins were).
Of course, Mr. Marcavage and others like him wouldn't even consider putting the blame where it belongs; For starters, consider the 2001 FEMA report that said that a major hurricane hitting New Orleans is one of 'three likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country.' Note that the post linked to here is a reprint of an article first published in December 2001. So, what did the U.S. government (the Bush administration and Congress) do? CUT FUNDING to even maintain the levee system as it was then, or improve the drainage system. Cut funding. That's what Republicans do best. It's what they did. And the levees failed and the drainage projects to improve the outflow of water are still in the designers book.
There are also matters like the by now overwhelming evidence in favor of global warming (and if you choose to plug your ears about that, then YOU find an explanation for why water temperatures in the Northern Gulf of Mexico are near 90 degrees, an historic high). Then there is the destruction of wetlands and barrier islands by building shipping canals through them-- which to be sure way predates the Bush administration, but which has invariably pitted conservatives (of both parties)and rich shipping magnates against the people who are affected and environmentalists-- and with the former group almost always prevailing.
But, I guess it is easier for fundamentalists like Mr. Marcavage to blame God for all the deaths and misery (and never miss an opportunity to advance your political agenda) than it is to look in the mirror and realize what they have voted for.
Who was too lazy to run this guy's background check?
Why do you submit a resume? It's so your potential employer knows if you are qualified for the job.
As it is, FEMA head Michael Brown never claimed to have experience with disaster relief beyond a brief stint in the 1970's as an assistant city manager in Edmond, Oklahoma.
But now, it turns out that he apparently didn't even have the limited experience with disaster relief and leadership that he claimed he had.
In a story first reported by the Daily Kos and now being reported by Time Magazine, it turns out that Brown lied about his past experiences.
For example,
Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him."
An assistant to FEMA defended Brown and claimed that he was in fact an assistant city manager. That would mean that his former employers, all of whom claimed he was a good employee, had lied about him. And, he didn't even graduate until 1978, the last year he claims to have been running the emergency services division. Even if one believes his supervisors are lying about him, it seems odd that they would hire an undergraduate college student to direct their own emergency management response.
But that isn't the only problem with his resume.
Under the "honors and awards" section of his profile at FindLaw.com — which is information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their offices—he lists "Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University". However, Brown "wasn't a professor here, he was only a student here," says Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State University). "He may have been an adjunct instructor," says Johnson, but that title is very different from that of "professor." Carl Reherman, a former political science professor at the University through the '70s and '80s, says that Brown "was not on the faculty." As for the honor of "Outstanding Political Science Professor," Johnson says, "I spoke with the department chair yesterday and he's not aware of it." Johnson could not confirm that Brown made the Dean's list or was an "Outstanding Political Science Senior," as is stated on his online profile.
Of course, in the wake of 9/11, it shows even more of the incompetence of this administration that they would let a man serve as head of FEMA, an agency on which literally many people's lives depend, and which could very well be on the front lines of any future terror attack, manage to get hired with lies on his resume.
So what did qualify him to serve in a position where the lives of tens of thousands of people depended on his knowing what to do?
Well, he WAS the rules chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party. At least that resume item, I find believable.
As it is, FEMA head Michael Brown never claimed to have experience with disaster relief beyond a brief stint in the 1970's as an assistant city manager in Edmond, Oklahoma.
But now, it turns out that he apparently didn't even have the limited experience with disaster relief and leadership that he claimed he had.
In a story first reported by the Daily Kos and now being reported by Time Magazine, it turns out that Brown lied about his past experiences.
For example,
Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to him."
An assistant to FEMA defended Brown and claimed that he was in fact an assistant city manager. That would mean that his former employers, all of whom claimed he was a good employee, had lied about him. And, he didn't even graduate until 1978, the last year he claims to have been running the emergency services division. Even if one believes his supervisors are lying about him, it seems odd that they would hire an undergraduate college student to direct their own emergency management response.
But that isn't the only problem with his resume.
Under the "honors and awards" section of his profile at FindLaw.com — which is information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their offices—he lists "Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University". However, Brown "wasn't a professor here, he was only a student here," says Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State University). "He may have been an adjunct instructor," says Johnson, but that title is very different from that of "professor." Carl Reherman, a former political science professor at the University through the '70s and '80s, says that Brown "was not on the faculty." As for the honor of "Outstanding Political Science Professor," Johnson says, "I spoke with the department chair yesterday and he's not aware of it." Johnson could not confirm that Brown made the Dean's list or was an "Outstanding Political Science Senior," as is stated on his online profile.
Of course, in the wake of 9/11, it shows even more of the incompetence of this administration that they would let a man serve as head of FEMA, an agency on which literally many people's lives depend, and which could very well be on the front lines of any future terror attack, manage to get hired with lies on his resume.
So what did qualify him to serve in a position where the lives of tens of thousands of people depended on his knowing what to do?
Well, he WAS the rules chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party. At least that resume item, I find believable.
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Wonder if they bought any Halliburton stock?
According to a Canadian financial firm has published a report suggesting that the stock market is indeed being manipulated. By the U.S. Government.
The report, entitled, Move Over, Adam Smith: The Visible Hand of Uncle Sam has been published by Sprott Asset Management of Toronto. It was written by the firm's president, John P. Embry, and his assistant, Andrew Hepburn.
The report concludes that the U.S. government has intervened to help the stock market so many times that, it has become a serious moral hazard situation, with market manipulation an endemic feature of the U.S. stock market."
The hazard is not an unfamiliar one. We all remember the way the confidence of investors was shaken by the Enrons, the Tycos, the WorldComs, the Imclones, etc. We know how badly insider trading hurt the market, as millions of small investors, who previously believed that they were on an equal footing with the big guys, discovered they weren't because the big guys were cheating. Many of those investors have still not returned to the stock market, despite the prosecution of a few high profile insider traders.
The hazard is that, aside from the moral grey area of whether the Federal government should be in the business of manipulating the stock market in the first place, someone must know what they are doing. What they are buying, for how long, and in what quantities. And the money the Federal Government can put into or take out of the stock market dwarfs anything that Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers could come up with. It is not hard to suppose (in fact, it is hard not to suppose) that someone with the knowledge of this isn't taking advantage of this to their favor.
When they are exposed, it could be the mother of all insider trading scandals.
The report acknowledges this:
a policy enacted in secret and knowingly withheld from the body politic has created a huge disconnect between those knowledgeable about such activities and the majority of the public, who have no clue whatsoever.
"There can be no doubt that the firms responsible for implementing government interventions enjoy an enviable position unavailable to other investors. Whether they have been indemnified against potential losses or simply made privy to non-public government policy, the major Wall Street firms evidently responsible for preventing plunges no longer must compete on anywhere near a level playing field. It is most unfair that the immensely powerful have been further ensconced in their perched positions and thus effectively insulated from the competitive market forces ostensibly present in our society.
"In addition to creating a privileged class, the manipulation also has little democratic legitimacy in the sense that the citizenry has not given its consent.
The full text of the report is available (PDF) at http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf
The report, entitled, Move Over, Adam Smith: The Visible Hand of Uncle Sam has been published by Sprott Asset Management of Toronto. It was written by the firm's president, John P. Embry, and his assistant, Andrew Hepburn.
The report concludes that the U.S. government has intervened to help the stock market so many times that, it has become a serious moral hazard situation, with market manipulation an endemic feature of the U.S. stock market."
The hazard is not an unfamiliar one. We all remember the way the confidence of investors was shaken by the Enrons, the Tycos, the WorldComs, the Imclones, etc. We know how badly insider trading hurt the market, as millions of small investors, who previously believed that they were on an equal footing with the big guys, discovered they weren't because the big guys were cheating. Many of those investors have still not returned to the stock market, despite the prosecution of a few high profile insider traders.
The hazard is that, aside from the moral grey area of whether the Federal government should be in the business of manipulating the stock market in the first place, someone must know what they are doing. What they are buying, for how long, and in what quantities. And the money the Federal Government can put into or take out of the stock market dwarfs anything that Ken Lay or Bernie Ebbers could come up with. It is not hard to suppose (in fact, it is hard not to suppose) that someone with the knowledge of this isn't taking advantage of this to their favor.
When they are exposed, it could be the mother of all insider trading scandals.
The report acknowledges this:
a policy enacted in secret and knowingly withheld from the body politic has created a huge disconnect between those knowledgeable about such activities and the majority of the public, who have no clue whatsoever.
"There can be no doubt that the firms responsible for implementing government interventions enjoy an enviable position unavailable to other investors. Whether they have been indemnified against potential losses or simply made privy to non-public government policy, the major Wall Street firms evidently responsible for preventing plunges no longer must compete on anywhere near a level playing field. It is most unfair that the immensely powerful have been further ensconced in their perched positions and thus effectively insulated from the competitive market forces ostensibly present in our society.
"In addition to creating a privileged class, the manipulation also has little democratic legitimacy in the sense that the citizenry has not given its consent.
The full text of the report is available (PDF) at http://www.sprott.com/pdf/pressrelease/TheVisibleHand.pdf
Taking advantage of an emergency to drive down wages
This is apalling.
President Bush today invoked an exemption in the 1931 Davis-Bacon act to allow Federal Contractors to pay below the prevailing wages in rebuilding areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
In fact, there should be no problem hiring people to work at any price, as over 400,000 people were made jobless by the storm. But that is not an excuse to let contractors abuse those people by paying them peanuts.
A more specific concern, and a main reason why federal contractors are normally required to pay prevailing wage by the law has to do with the quality of the work they are expected to provide.
Senator Edward Kennedy, D-MA, summarized it when he said, "One of the things the American people are very concerned about is shabby work and that certainly is true about the families whose houses are going to be rebuilt and buildings that are going to be restored,"
What this means is that we will see contractors who will slash the wages of their competent help, knowing that either a) they will quit so the contractor can hire someone desperate, but not necessarily skilled enough, to do the job for hardly anything, or b) they will be so afraid of joining the army of unemployed who will be choking the area, that they will accept the cut and do the same job for less (while the contractor pockets the cash).
Maybe it is appropriate that the President is invoking a provision from a bill that Herbert Hoover signed into law in 1931, at the height of the depression.
Looks like my friend Elizabeth Rogers was right about the comparison between Bush and Hoover.
President Bush today invoked an exemption in the 1931 Davis-Bacon act to allow Federal Contractors to pay below the prevailing wages in rebuilding areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina.
In fact, there should be no problem hiring people to work at any price, as over 400,000 people were made jobless by the storm. But that is not an excuse to let contractors abuse those people by paying them peanuts.
A more specific concern, and a main reason why federal contractors are normally required to pay prevailing wage by the law has to do with the quality of the work they are expected to provide.
Senator Edward Kennedy, D-MA, summarized it when he said, "One of the things the American people are very concerned about is shabby work and that certainly is true about the families whose houses are going to be rebuilt and buildings that are going to be restored,"
What this means is that we will see contractors who will slash the wages of their competent help, knowing that either a) they will quit so the contractor can hire someone desperate, but not necessarily skilled enough, to do the job for hardly anything, or b) they will be so afraid of joining the army of unemployed who will be choking the area, that they will accept the cut and do the same job for less (while the contractor pockets the cash).
Maybe it is appropriate that the President is invoking a provision from a bill that Herbert Hoover signed into law in 1931, at the height of the depression.
Looks like my friend Elizabeth Rogers was right about the comparison between Bush and Hoover.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Enough is enough. Raise my taxes!!
Today, a couple of stories came out about the effect of Katrina on the economy.
The first, which was originally reported in the Wall Street Journal, was that it is now estimated that the tab for rebuilding could top 200 billion dollars. Given that the conservatives in Congress and the administration saved less than a couple of hundred million (0.1 % of that) by four years of cutting budgets for improving drainage and other flood related projects, this doesn't even make economic sense.
The second is a projection by the Congressional Budget Office that Katrina will cost 400,000 jobs and reduce the national economic growth rate by 1%. Given the already sluggish rate of growth in the Bush economy, this is not good news at all. Certainly these new unemployed will be a drain on both state and Federal resources, especially in the southeast. Prices for heating fuel, groceries and energy will spike upward this year.
So, we are now stuck with: a record deficit (mainly due to the massive tax cuts early in the Bush administration, which failed to create any new revenue, but merely put us in hock to the Chinese, who are holding the notes on all that new debt), a war that is going nowhere but has cost us a quarter trillion already, and a similar dollar cost due to a disaster that could have been avoided. Last years Medicare drug bill that is scheduled to send hundreds of billions more in corporate welfare to the pharmaceutical companies only makes this picture worse.
Under the circumstances, it would be prudent to ask Americans to share in the sacrifice. In fact, it is already the only time in history that we have ever cut taxes during wartime, and with the huge costs ahead, it is time to consider raising taxes (at least repealing the ruinous cuts) so that we can at least try to move towards a balanced budget. The failure of the flood control levees shows what can happen if you try to trim the deficit with reckless budget cuts. In fact, FEMA and other agencies have been victims of Republicans' single minded fixation on dismantling, parting out and weakening the Federal Government until it is ineffective (well, except for the police agencies of the state, they have strengthened those).
But, what do conservatives want to do? Well, Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist's group) wants to cut taxes some more on the wealthy. In this case, the inheritance tax, which very few Americans even pay, and which many of those who would pay it, from Warren Buffett to Bill Gates Sr., are opposed to getting rid of. And they even make the point in the memo that they don't want Katrina to get in the way of their repeal of the inheritance tax.
If Republicans can't see now how their policies are hurting the countries, it is time to sweep out their tired old philosophy and replace it with a philosophy that believes that the government should be made effective so it can serve the public.
The first, which was originally reported in the Wall Street Journal, was that it is now estimated that the tab for rebuilding could top 200 billion dollars. Given that the conservatives in Congress and the administration saved less than a couple of hundred million (0.1 % of that) by four years of cutting budgets for improving drainage and other flood related projects, this doesn't even make economic sense.
The second is a projection by the Congressional Budget Office that Katrina will cost 400,000 jobs and reduce the national economic growth rate by 1%. Given the already sluggish rate of growth in the Bush economy, this is not good news at all. Certainly these new unemployed will be a drain on both state and Federal resources, especially in the southeast. Prices for heating fuel, groceries and energy will spike upward this year.
So, we are now stuck with: a record deficit (mainly due to the massive tax cuts early in the Bush administration, which failed to create any new revenue, but merely put us in hock to the Chinese, who are holding the notes on all that new debt), a war that is going nowhere but has cost us a quarter trillion already, and a similar dollar cost due to a disaster that could have been avoided. Last years Medicare drug bill that is scheduled to send hundreds of billions more in corporate welfare to the pharmaceutical companies only makes this picture worse.
Under the circumstances, it would be prudent to ask Americans to share in the sacrifice. In fact, it is already the only time in history that we have ever cut taxes during wartime, and with the huge costs ahead, it is time to consider raising taxes (at least repealing the ruinous cuts) so that we can at least try to move towards a balanced budget. The failure of the flood control levees shows what can happen if you try to trim the deficit with reckless budget cuts. In fact, FEMA and other agencies have been victims of Republicans' single minded fixation on dismantling, parting out and weakening the Federal Government until it is ineffective (well, except for the police agencies of the state, they have strengthened those).
But, what do conservatives want to do? Well, Americans for Tax Reform (Grover Norquist's group) wants to cut taxes some more on the wealthy. In this case, the inheritance tax, which very few Americans even pay, and which many of those who would pay it, from Warren Buffett to Bill Gates Sr., are opposed to getting rid of. And they even make the point in the memo that they don't want Katrina to get in the way of their repeal of the inheritance tax.
If Republicans can't see now how their policies are hurting the countries, it is time to sweep out their tired old philosophy and replace it with a philosophy that believes that the government should be made effective so it can serve the public.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
FEMA tricked donors into giving money to Pat Robertson
This is the kind of story that only a die hard Republican could excuse (and probably very few of them, even).
Last week, FEMA, while responding slowly to the hurricane, put up a website that featured three organizations of the many available charities that people could donate to for the aid of victims. The American Red Cross, Operation Blessing, and America's Second Harvest. A second link below the three featured organizations listed fifty others which did not share the top billing (and thus the lion's share of the donations).
Two of the three are legitimate: The Red Cross, and Second Harvest, a national coalition of food banks.
The third is run by televangelist Pat Robertson with his wife as Vice President and his son on the board of directors. No, this isn't a 'bash Pat Robertson for no reason' post or some diatribe about political payback (although it is certainly true that Robertson's troops were instrumental in the President's re-election, so that certainly may have been a motivation).
It is instead a cold examination of the record:
Operation Blessing
in 1994, during the infamous Rwandan genocide, Robertson used his 700 Club's daily cable operation to appeal to the American public for donations to fly humanitarian supplies into Zaire to save the Rwandan refugees.
The planes purchased by Operation Blessing did a lot more than ferry relief supplies.
An investigation conducted by the Virginia attorney general's office concluded in 1999 that the planes were mostly used to transport mining equipment for a diamond operation run by a for-profit company called African Development Corp.
So not only were these funds misused, but here is the kicker-- the principal executive and sole shareholder of the mining company was none other than-- Pat Robertson.
Investigators concluded that Operation Blessing "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements ..."
The article then goes on to point out that the money given to Operation Blessing, even today, largely goes to fund Robertson's TV empire. Probably not what the donors intend.
Then a few years ago, Robertson defended Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, now facing a war crimes trial.
Even in a disaster like this, the Bush version of FEMA is willing to steer donations to a charity with a questionable (and I'm being generous) record of service.
After a public uproar FEMA removed the charity from the site. Several days late, like most of what they have been doing lately.
Last week, FEMA, while responding slowly to the hurricane, put up a website that featured three organizations of the many available charities that people could donate to for the aid of victims. The American Red Cross, Operation Blessing, and America's Second Harvest. A second link below the three featured organizations listed fifty others which did not share the top billing (and thus the lion's share of the donations).
Two of the three are legitimate: The Red Cross, and Second Harvest, a national coalition of food banks.
The third is run by televangelist Pat Robertson with his wife as Vice President and his son on the board of directors. No, this isn't a 'bash Pat Robertson for no reason' post or some diatribe about political payback (although it is certainly true that Robertson's troops were instrumental in the President's re-election, so that certainly may have been a motivation).
It is instead a cold examination of the record:
Operation Blessing
in 1994, during the infamous Rwandan genocide, Robertson used his 700 Club's daily cable operation to appeal to the American public for donations to fly humanitarian supplies into Zaire to save the Rwandan refugees.
The planes purchased by Operation Blessing did a lot more than ferry relief supplies.
An investigation conducted by the Virginia attorney general's office concluded in 1999 that the planes were mostly used to transport mining equipment for a diamond operation run by a for-profit company called African Development Corp.
So not only were these funds misused, but here is the kicker-- the principal executive and sole shareholder of the mining company was none other than-- Pat Robertson.
Investigators concluded that Operation Blessing "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements ..."
The article then goes on to point out that the money given to Operation Blessing, even today, largely goes to fund Robertson's TV empire. Probably not what the donors intend.
Then a few years ago, Robertson defended Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, now facing a war crimes trial.
Even in a disaster like this, the Bush version of FEMA is willing to steer donations to a charity with a questionable (and I'm being generous) record of service.
After a public uproar FEMA removed the charity from the site. Several days late, like most of what they have been doing lately.
Pick someone who will get it all out.
President Bush says that he plans to personally lead the investigation into what happened in New Orleans.
Now, if he and his administration weren't accused of being involved with the lion's share of the mistakes that were made, that would be an example of leadership. But since they are, this sounds like an attempt to whitewash and sweep under the rug some of the hard questions that need to be asked. Otherwise, even if he comes up with recommendations, they are likely to be tainted.
What I have noticed is that Republicans have toned down their claims that it was a 'natural disaster' or an 'act of God' since it was pointed out that wetlands have disappeared as shipping canals have been built, that the budget was cut for flood control levees, and that water temperatures in the northern Gulf of Mexico are at a record, nearing 90 degrees. But ultimately, any inquiry needs to focus on these issues as well as the response, and it seems that Bush plans to focus solely on what happened after the hurricane struck.
Now, if he and his administration weren't accused of being involved with the lion's share of the mistakes that were made, that would be an example of leadership. But since they are, this sounds like an attempt to whitewash and sweep under the rug some of the hard questions that need to be asked. Otherwise, even if he comes up with recommendations, they are likely to be tainted.
What I have noticed is that Republicans have toned down their claims that it was a 'natural disaster' or an 'act of God' since it was pointed out that wetlands have disappeared as shipping canals have been built, that the budget was cut for flood control levees, and that water temperatures in the northern Gulf of Mexico are at a record, nearing 90 degrees. But ultimately, any inquiry needs to focus on these issues as well as the response, and it seems that Bush plans to focus solely on what happened after the hurricane struck.
Monday, September 05, 2005
CHIEF Justice Roberts?
Rarely would I actually repost a post verbatim (in fact, this is the first time I have ever done that) but with the announcement today that President Bush will renominate John Roberts to be not only a Justice of the Supreme Court, but its Chief Justice, I believe it is appropriate to do so. The position of Chief Justice is a unique one on the court. Not only in terms of salary (which means that Mr. Roberts will start out making more money than any of his senior colleagues) but because of the role of the chief justice in setting the court's schedule and generally setting the tone of the court.
Other than the fact that it is interesting that President Bush apparently didn't feel comfortable nominating either Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas (the two most stalwart conservatives on the court) to the position, it is even more important that we have a thorough understanding of John Roberts.
I first posted this on August 15.
Today, the Ronald Reagan library and archives released over 5,000 pages of documents relating to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts.
And they certainly cast light on his views on some (if not all) of the subjects that are of the most concern to many people.
For example, in a memo on November 21, 1985,Roberts criticized the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting "meditation or voluntary prayer" in Alabama schools. Roberts said the ruling's conclusion that "the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection -- or even silent 'prayer' -- seems indefensible."
Of course the reason behind the ruling is that in such a setting, 'voluntary' is often accompanied by intense pressure from both peers and school officials, as it was in Alabama under the law that the court threw out. The court decided that school should not be a place for coercion. Just that simple. This ruling, notice, did not affect such events as the use of a prayer by one person at an event like a game or a graduation, since no one is then forced, or can be coerced, into participating. But apparently Judge Roberts believes that there was no problem with coercion in the name of religion.
Much more disturbing, however, was Roberts' take on a 1983 ruling in which the Washington state supreme court found the state guilty of discrimination for paying women less than men for jobs of "comparable worth."
Roberts wrote about three Republican congresswomen who objected to the ruling (ironically, led by Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the Senators who will be voting on his confirmation) "I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistribute concept. Their slogan may as well be 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender,'"
It is hard to see, aside from the complete insensitivity that John Roberts shows here in regard to the matter of unequal pay, how this statement, in particular its last line, can be considered anything other than blatantly sexist. The implication is that only men are able, and that working women are asking for money that they don't deserve. I'm not even female, and I find this line absolutely insulting, almost akin to suggesting that we should go back to feudalism.
Troubling. Very troubling.
UPDATE: Now, that is the post as I posted in three weeks ago. However, I should also have mentioned that it is quite curious that in his choice of words to criticized Olympia Snowe and others that he chose to paraphrase Karl Marx. While the clear implication is that working women are asking for pay that they do not deserve (being 'not able') the unwritten and unstated but background implication is that those who are in favor or equal pay are Marxists.
Other than the fact that it is interesting that President Bush apparently didn't feel comfortable nominating either Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas (the two most stalwart conservatives on the court) to the position, it is even more important that we have a thorough understanding of John Roberts.
I first posted this on August 15.
Today, the Ronald Reagan library and archives released over 5,000 pages of documents relating to Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts.
And they certainly cast light on his views on some (if not all) of the subjects that are of the most concern to many people.
For example, in a memo on November 21, 1985,Roberts criticized the Supreme Court's decision prohibiting "meditation or voluntary prayer" in Alabama schools. Roberts said the ruling's conclusion that "the Constitution prohibits such a moment of silent reflection -- or even silent 'prayer' -- seems indefensible."
Of course the reason behind the ruling is that in such a setting, 'voluntary' is often accompanied by intense pressure from both peers and school officials, as it was in Alabama under the law that the court threw out. The court decided that school should not be a place for coercion. Just that simple. This ruling, notice, did not affect such events as the use of a prayer by one person at an event like a game or a graduation, since no one is then forced, or can be coerced, into participating. But apparently Judge Roberts believes that there was no problem with coercion in the name of religion.
Much more disturbing, however, was Roberts' take on a 1983 ruling in which the Washington state supreme court found the state guilty of discrimination for paying women less than men for jobs of "comparable worth."
Roberts wrote about three Republican congresswomen who objected to the ruling (ironically, led by Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the Senators who will be voting on his confirmation) "I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistribute concept. Their slogan may as well be 'From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender,'"
It is hard to see, aside from the complete insensitivity that John Roberts shows here in regard to the matter of unequal pay, how this statement, in particular its last line, can be considered anything other than blatantly sexist. The implication is that only men are able, and that working women are asking for money that they don't deserve. I'm not even female, and I find this line absolutely insulting, almost akin to suggesting that we should go back to feudalism.
Troubling. Very troubling.
UPDATE: Now, that is the post as I posted in three weeks ago. However, I should also have mentioned that it is quite curious that in his choice of words to criticized Olympia Snowe and others that he chose to paraphrase Karl Marx. While the clear implication is that working women are asking for pay that they do not deserve (being 'not able') the unwritten and unstated but background implication is that those who are in favor or equal pay are Marxists.
The Reverse Midas touch-- everything the King touches, turns to garbage.
I am really tired of how those who seek to excuse the President's slow and ham-handed response to the tragedy that this nation suffered, continue to blame Louisiana Governor Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Nagin and say that it is all their failings.
The scope of the devastation and the emergency were way beyond what the city or state could handle in any circumstances. The largest city in the state was destroyed, as well as most, if not all, of its suburbs. Also, some rural parishes (the name for a county in Louisiana) along the coast. Additionally, three quarters of the parishes in the state suffered significant damage (Baton Rouge had three feet of water). The idea that any state (let alone any municipality) could deal with such an enormous disaster just using state resources is ridiculous on the face of it. Even ignoring the fact that the Louisiana national guard was deployed in Iraq and the Federal Government, with five days of advance warning, made NO moves to replace the manpower in case it was needed until the political pressure forced them to move, There was simply not enough manpower to handle this. Frankly, to blame state and local officials belittles those who went beyond the line of duty-- some of the first responders literally went for a full week on the job with little or no sleep, and knowing full well that in such chaos it is unlikely they will be paid on time, or at all. Two New Orleans police officers were literally so overwhelmed that they committed suicide, and many others, as well as state police, turned in their badges. The state and local officials used every single person at their disposal, but it was not enough. I live in Arizona, and the equivalent here would be if Maricopa county (Phoenix and surrounding area) suddenly became uninhabitable, asking that the rest of us in Arizona take care of it ourselves just using state resources. That would simply be too Herculanean of a task.
To protect the citizens is the job of the Federal Government. And they say not to point fingers-- there is a good reason for that; They have failed in every way imaginable (I've been detailing it in other posts) from cutting funding requests to repair and maintain levies, to ignoring the 2001 FEMA report that made it clear that this would happen sooner or later unless major upgrades were made, to failing to use the billions spent on Homeland Security to improve training and coordination among first responders and the Federal Government, to blocking aid from Chicago and other jurisdictions.
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. We have the most inept President I can remember. And not all conservatives are inept. I was never a fan of Reagan, but he did know how to recognize a problem and when to stay the course and when to change his approach.
Bush, in contrast, has the following sorry record:
2001: Massive tax cuts. Result: record surplus turned into a record deficit, job losses instead of gains as promised.
2001: Met with President Fox, promised to 'fix' immigration problems and secure the border. Result: Apparently 'fix' and 'secure' means 'ignore' and 'let in worse things' in Bush's lexicon.
2001: 9/11; War on terror begins. Result: still looking for Osama. Not only is he free to plan more attacks on America, but by putting the war in Afghanistan on the back burner we have settled for a bloody war of attrition and are letting the country go back to the semi-feudal, warlord dominated state where he was able to find refuge in the first place.
2001: Creation of Homeland Security Department: Designed to train First Responders, as well as coordinate state, local and Federal agencies to handle something even on the scale of a nuclear attack. FEMA was eliminated as a cabinet level agency and folded into the Homeland Security Deparment. Result: Four years after 9/11, and we clearly haven't gotten any results from the billions invested, except maybe that the Government now has the right to read your email. And local cops now have to spend more money on 'terror alert' stuff, meaning less time fighting crime in your neighborhood. Beyond that, well see last week and let me know if you think the dollars were spent as intended.
2001: De-emphasized healthcare issues, deciding that the healthcare system was fine as it was and that the market would take care of it. Result: The number of Americans with healthcare insurance has declined, medical costs have increased at a double digit clip, America now spends a higher percentage of its GDP on healthcare than any other nation, and we have a critical nursing shortage.
2002: Iraq invasion (for stated reasons of WMD, but we never let Blix actually find out if there were any). We know how this one is turning out. About the best outcome that it is realistic to hope for from here is to get out of there with no more than 2000 Americans dead and an Iranian style Islamic republic where women have the right to go to junior high school.
2003: The big Bush energy bill becomes law. Massive tax dollars spent to subsidize oil companies in finding new fuel sources, and they get the right to drill in environmentally sensitive areas in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2005, the same oil companies get the right to drill in ANWR (meaning that Republicans have now gotten almost everything they ever asked for in the area of energy, with the help of Democrats from oil states). Result: You've been seeing it all year at your corner gas station.
2004: Medicare prescription drug bill. Result: Less than half of seniors indicate that they intend to sign up for the complicated and not very helpful plan. But billions more of your tax dollars are going directly to pharmaceutical companies. By now, corporate welfare annually costs several times as much as individual welfare, but you don't hear the people who talk about 'welfare queens' complaining about this turkey-- mostly, they VOTED for it.
2004: Valerie Plame Leak. President Bush, promising to run an ethical administration, promises the leaker will be fired. Result: We now know that it is Karl Rove. No firing forthcoming. We will hear from the special prosecutor on this one.
2001-2005: Cut funding every year for Louisiana flood control projects, as well as wetlands restoration. Result: You see it every day on TV.
With a dismal record of failure like this, I am thankful that the President (so far) has failed utterly in his attempt to 'fix' Social Security.
The scope of the devastation and the emergency were way beyond what the city or state could handle in any circumstances. The largest city in the state was destroyed, as well as most, if not all, of its suburbs. Also, some rural parishes (the name for a county in Louisiana) along the coast. Additionally, three quarters of the parishes in the state suffered significant damage (Baton Rouge had three feet of water). The idea that any state (let alone any municipality) could deal with such an enormous disaster just using state resources is ridiculous on the face of it. Even ignoring the fact that the Louisiana national guard was deployed in Iraq and the Federal Government, with five days of advance warning, made NO moves to replace the manpower in case it was needed until the political pressure forced them to move, There was simply not enough manpower to handle this. Frankly, to blame state and local officials belittles those who went beyond the line of duty-- some of the first responders literally went for a full week on the job with little or no sleep, and knowing full well that in such chaos it is unlikely they will be paid on time, or at all. Two New Orleans police officers were literally so overwhelmed that they committed suicide, and many others, as well as state police, turned in their badges. The state and local officials used every single person at their disposal, but it was not enough. I live in Arizona, and the equivalent here would be if Maricopa county (Phoenix and surrounding area) suddenly became uninhabitable, asking that the rest of us in Arizona take care of it ourselves just using state resources. That would simply be too Herculanean of a task.
To protect the citizens is the job of the Federal Government. And they say not to point fingers-- there is a good reason for that; They have failed in every way imaginable (I've been detailing it in other posts) from cutting funding requests to repair and maintain levies, to ignoring the 2001 FEMA report that made it clear that this would happen sooner or later unless major upgrades were made, to failing to use the billions spent on Homeland Security to improve training and coordination among first responders and the Federal Government, to blocking aid from Chicago and other jurisdictions.
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. We have the most inept President I can remember. And not all conservatives are inept. I was never a fan of Reagan, but he did know how to recognize a problem and when to stay the course and when to change his approach.
Bush, in contrast, has the following sorry record:
2001: Massive tax cuts. Result: record surplus turned into a record deficit, job losses instead of gains as promised.
2001: Met with President Fox, promised to 'fix' immigration problems and secure the border. Result: Apparently 'fix' and 'secure' means 'ignore' and 'let in worse things' in Bush's lexicon.
2001: 9/11; War on terror begins. Result: still looking for Osama. Not only is he free to plan more attacks on America, but by putting the war in Afghanistan on the back burner we have settled for a bloody war of attrition and are letting the country go back to the semi-feudal, warlord dominated state where he was able to find refuge in the first place.
2001: Creation of Homeland Security Department: Designed to train First Responders, as well as coordinate state, local and Federal agencies to handle something even on the scale of a nuclear attack. FEMA was eliminated as a cabinet level agency and folded into the Homeland Security Deparment. Result: Four years after 9/11, and we clearly haven't gotten any results from the billions invested, except maybe that the Government now has the right to read your email. And local cops now have to spend more money on 'terror alert' stuff, meaning less time fighting crime in your neighborhood. Beyond that, well see last week and let me know if you think the dollars were spent as intended.
2001: De-emphasized healthcare issues, deciding that the healthcare system was fine as it was and that the market would take care of it. Result: The number of Americans with healthcare insurance has declined, medical costs have increased at a double digit clip, America now spends a higher percentage of its GDP on healthcare than any other nation, and we have a critical nursing shortage.
2002: Iraq invasion (for stated reasons of WMD, but we never let Blix actually find out if there were any). We know how this one is turning out. About the best outcome that it is realistic to hope for from here is to get out of there with no more than 2000 Americans dead and an Iranian style Islamic republic where women have the right to go to junior high school.
2003: The big Bush energy bill becomes law. Massive tax dollars spent to subsidize oil companies in finding new fuel sources, and they get the right to drill in environmentally sensitive areas in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2005, the same oil companies get the right to drill in ANWR (meaning that Republicans have now gotten almost everything they ever asked for in the area of energy, with the help of Democrats from oil states). Result: You've been seeing it all year at your corner gas station.
2004: Medicare prescription drug bill. Result: Less than half of seniors indicate that they intend to sign up for the complicated and not very helpful plan. But billions more of your tax dollars are going directly to pharmaceutical companies. By now, corporate welfare annually costs several times as much as individual welfare, but you don't hear the people who talk about 'welfare queens' complaining about this turkey-- mostly, they VOTED for it.
2004: Valerie Plame Leak. President Bush, promising to run an ethical administration, promises the leaker will be fired. Result: We now know that it is Karl Rove. No firing forthcoming. We will hear from the special prosecutor on this one.
2001-2005: Cut funding every year for Louisiana flood control projects, as well as wetlands restoration. Result: You see it every day on TV.
With a dismal record of failure like this, I am thankful that the President (so far) has failed utterly in his attempt to 'fix' Social Security.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Let's hope the Speaker doesn't speak for the people who elected him to lead them.
Last week House Speaker Denny Hastert made headlines for suggesting that we bulldoze most of New Orleans rather than spending money to rebuild it. Hastert, of course, has steered a great deal of pork to his own district in Illinois, but apparently wanted to take a 'hard line' on the budget. Which he has, incidentally in past years on New Orleans flood control and planning (of course, this year, Speaker Hastert and his Congress shaved another twenty million off beyond what the President had already cut in his budget.)
So now, according to today's Arizona Republic, Bill Clinton said what many people probably thought when they heard Hastert's latest idiocy. When Hastert's remarks were described to him at a forum in Syracuse, New York, Clinton said that it was lucky that he was not present when Hastert made the remark, or 'I'm afraid I would have assaulted him.'
Of course, Clinton has a reputation, well earned, for keeping his temper in check and not blurting out half baked responses, so he was obviously angry to have said this. Clinton, as I alluded to in the last post, worked with other world leaders to organize a quick and successful relief effort in a very similar situation in Mozambique in March of 2000, and he has done a remarkable job of holding his tongue watching the fumbling, painfully slow and foot dragging response by the Bush administration. It has now been almost a week, and finally people in the city are getting real relief (although people in places like Plaquemines and St. Bernard are still waiting.) But I guess Denny's comment was just too much, as it would have been for anyone with a shred of decency.
As for Hastert, according to the Republic article, he is starting to make amends. Well, sort of. He missed the house vote on authorizing $10.5 billion in initial flood relief. That is because he was in Indiana attending a colleague's fund-raiser, staff members said.
Well, at least we know where Denny's priorities are.
One does have to wonder at the very least about the judgement of the Republicans in Congress, to have elected a pair of clowns like Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay to their top two leadership positions.
So now, according to today's Arizona Republic, Bill Clinton said what many people probably thought when they heard Hastert's latest idiocy. When Hastert's remarks were described to him at a forum in Syracuse, New York, Clinton said that it was lucky that he was not present when Hastert made the remark, or 'I'm afraid I would have assaulted him.'
Of course, Clinton has a reputation, well earned, for keeping his temper in check and not blurting out half baked responses, so he was obviously angry to have said this. Clinton, as I alluded to in the last post, worked with other world leaders to organize a quick and successful relief effort in a very similar situation in Mozambique in March of 2000, and he has done a remarkable job of holding his tongue watching the fumbling, painfully slow and foot dragging response by the Bush administration. It has now been almost a week, and finally people in the city are getting real relief (although people in places like Plaquemines and St. Bernard are still waiting.) But I guess Denny's comment was just too much, as it would have been for anyone with a shred of decency.
As for Hastert, according to the Republic article, he is starting to make amends. Well, sort of. He missed the house vote on authorizing $10.5 billion in initial flood relief. That is because he was in Indiana attending a colleague's fund-raiser, staff members said.
Well, at least we know where Denny's priorities are.
One does have to wonder at the very least about the judgement of the Republicans in Congress, to have elected a pair of clowns like Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay to their top two leadership positions.
A model for how it could have been done the right way.
Remember this?
March 2000. A massive airlift followed by a massive international rescue effort minimized casualties in the flooded country of Mozambique. The speed and efficiency with which the airlift and rescue operations were carried out set a model for the world. And the numbers will compare favorably with what is happening (or perhaps I should say, 'not happening') in New Orleans.
The priority was to rescue millions of people from floods that swept entire villages down the raging Limpopo, Save and other rivers. The Limpopo Valley, a rich agricultural area, became an inland sea. More than 700 people died and half a million were displaced. At the height of the disaster the U.N.'s World Food Program was feeding 650,000 people a month.
The United States was one of several countries that took part in the effort. A friend of mine who I went to high school with took part in the operation.
Of course, that was when we didn't snub other countries help, and we had a leader in the white house who took the situation seriously.
March 2000. A massive airlift followed by a massive international rescue effort minimized casualties in the flooded country of Mozambique. The speed and efficiency with which the airlift and rescue operations were carried out set a model for the world. And the numbers will compare favorably with what is happening (or perhaps I should say, 'not happening') in New Orleans.
The priority was to rescue millions of people from floods that swept entire villages down the raging Limpopo, Save and other rivers. The Limpopo Valley, a rich agricultural area, became an inland sea. More than 700 people died and half a million were displaced. At the height of the disaster the U.N.'s World Food Program was feeding 650,000 people a month.
The United States was one of several countries that took part in the effort. A friend of mine who I went to high school with took part in the operation.
Of course, that was when we didn't snub other countries help, and we had a leader in the white house who took the situation seriously.
Black and White
One of my friends on the left side of the blogsphere, Chuck (a sometimes commenter on this board), runs a blog called the Divded States of Bu$hmerica (you can also follow the link at the left side of the screen) in which he speaks with great passion about the things happening right now under George Bush to this great land that we all love and cherish.
Anyway, today he showed quite clearly the racism that is inherent in the way this is all being covered. He had a sequence of pictures from a yahoo slideshow that showed some people taking beverages from a grocery store (you will need to scroll down a ways to find them). One was of a black man carrying a twelve pack of Pepsi and some groceries, and the caption read, "a young man walks through chest deep waters after looting a grocery store on August 30, 2005." The next photo shows two white people, in identically the same position, carrying the same stuff (soda and groceries) and the caption reads, "Two residents wade through chest deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store."
Identical depth of water, virtually identical products, both taken from a grocery store. But if it is taken by black people, it is 'looting' but if it is taken by white people, it is 'finding.'
Now, in fact, I see a very real difference between taking food and drink (required for survival) and taking stuff like TV's. Therefore, I myself would prosecute none of the people in the pictures, and save prosecution for people whose pilfering extended beyond survival mode. However, it is ironic that the coverage is so influenced by the race of the people involved.
Anyway, today he showed quite clearly the racism that is inherent in the way this is all being covered. He had a sequence of pictures from a yahoo slideshow that showed some people taking beverages from a grocery store (you will need to scroll down a ways to find them). One was of a black man carrying a twelve pack of Pepsi and some groceries, and the caption read, "a young man walks through chest deep waters after looting a grocery store on August 30, 2005." The next photo shows two white people, in identically the same position, carrying the same stuff (soda and groceries) and the caption reads, "Two residents wade through chest deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store."
Identical depth of water, virtually identical products, both taken from a grocery store. But if it is taken by black people, it is 'looting' but if it is taken by white people, it is 'finding.'
Now, in fact, I see a very real difference between taking food and drink (required for survival) and taking stuff like TV's. Therefore, I myself would prosecute none of the people in the pictures, and save prosecution for people whose pilfering extended beyond survival mode. However, it is ironic that the coverage is so influenced by the race of the people involved.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Why did President Bush decline foreign aid when people are dying?
Once again, you hear people asking where our 'allies' are, and once again they are wrong.
In fact, twenty-one countries and two treaty organizations have offered humanitarian aid to the United States in response to Katrina.
The list includes Australia, Belgium, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China, Jamaica, Honduras, Greece, Venezuela, the Organisation of American States, NATO, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, South Korea, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. [NOTE: Poland and Italy have since joined the list.]
What is tragic, is that President Bush has declined the aid (except for cash donations). He said,
"I'm not expecting much from foreign nations because we hadn't asked for it. I do expect a lot of sympathy and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country's going to rise up and take care of it."
WHOA! People are out there dying of thirst, starvation and disease. Not just in New Orleans but in outlying areas that we still didn't get into for several days (for example, here is a blog written by a person from St. Bernard parish (on the other side of New Orleans from the accessible side) where he has been describing what has been going on for the past few days. Despite the writer's obvious cyber-residency on the right side of the blogoshpere, it is still an interesting and informative read.
It would be fine to decline the aid if the situation was under control, and there was enough aid for the people who need it, but that just ISN'T THE CASE!! And considering how hard it has been to get anything to places on the far side of New Orleans, but how easy it might have been from the sea, Bush's arrogant denial of the aid, especially Chavez' which was made within hours after the storm hit, probably condemned many people to their death.
Considering that we have a President who has sometimes let emotion and 'payback' trump rational decision-making (I posted on this a few days ago, before the disaster) I have to wonder if it was just that he is 'too proud' to accept help from anyone else.
Meanwhile, this story is buried so the 'unilateralism crowd' will continue to bash the rest of the world for not sending help, blissfully unaware that it was offered and rudely slapped away.
UPDATE: Turns out that President Bush didn't just turn down humanitarian aid from foreign countries, he also turned down help from Chicago.
In fact, twenty-one countries and two treaty organizations have offered humanitarian aid to the United States in response to Katrina.
The list includes Australia, Belgium, Canada, Russia, Japan, France, Germany, Britain, China, Jamaica, Honduras, Greece, Venezuela, the Organisation of American States, NATO, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, South Korea, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. [NOTE: Poland and Italy have since joined the list.]
What is tragic, is that President Bush has declined the aid (except for cash donations). He said,
"I'm not expecting much from foreign nations because we hadn't asked for it. I do expect a lot of sympathy and perhaps some will send cash dollars. But this country's going to rise up and take care of it."
WHOA! People are out there dying of thirst, starvation and disease. Not just in New Orleans but in outlying areas that we still didn't get into for several days (for example, here is a blog written by a person from St. Bernard parish (on the other side of New Orleans from the accessible side) where he has been describing what has been going on for the past few days. Despite the writer's obvious cyber-residency on the right side of the blogoshpere, it is still an interesting and informative read.
It would be fine to decline the aid if the situation was under control, and there was enough aid for the people who need it, but that just ISN'T THE CASE!! And considering how hard it has been to get anything to places on the far side of New Orleans, but how easy it might have been from the sea, Bush's arrogant denial of the aid, especially Chavez' which was made within hours after the storm hit, probably condemned many people to their death.
Considering that we have a President who has sometimes let emotion and 'payback' trump rational decision-making (I posted on this a few days ago, before the disaster) I have to wonder if it was just that he is 'too proud' to accept help from anyone else.
Meanwhile, this story is buried so the 'unilateralism crowd' will continue to bash the rest of the world for not sending help, blissfully unaware that it was offered and rudely slapped away.
UPDATE: Turns out that President Bush didn't just turn down humanitarian aid from foreign countries, he also turned down help from Chicago.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Order from Chaos
Amid the horrific and heartbreaking stories this week from the Gulf Coast region, we have had the complete breakdown of civil order. One report even had Louisiana state police comandeering a bus at gunpoint that was supposed to take hospital patients in order to evacuate people in the BellSouth building. Far more prevalent than that however, have been the images of looting and lawnessness that we have all watched. Worse, rescuers in helicopters, buses and boats have all been forced to turn back because of shots being fired at them. No one in the city seems to have the foggiest idea of where to go to even get rescued, making rescuers jobs that much harder. Many have abandoned hope that they even will be rescued, believing, in the absence of receiving evidence to the contrary, that the nation has turned its back on them. Martial law has been declared but is ignored, and the police and national guard on the scene are overworked and undermanned.
First of all, I have one question. We KNOW where the Louisiana national guard is. In Iraq. So where are the feds? What about those billions of dollars we spent on preparing a 'rapid response' to a major tragedy? This isn't a nuclear attack, but it might as well be. The Homeland Security Department has now had SIX DAYS to get in there with their 'rapid response.' Nada. In fact, they even had about that much more in which Katrina was headed towards the coast and they had time to at least start planning. Still nada.
That said,
I would like to make some proposals about how to get this situation under control. The first is amazingly low tech. With no one knowing what to do, prepare and drop leaflets, similar to those used in WWII. These should be simple but direct. State clearly where the areas where people are to proceed to be rescued. Make it clear that rescue attempts this week have been cut short due to ground fire. I have a gut feeling that if this was made clear, then either those who have been shooting would realize that their own survival was being jeopardized, or the rest of the population there would 'realize it' for them and stand up to them once they realized that they were being themselves jeopardized by these losers. Maybe this is naive, but I believe that information would do a lot to curb the violence. And yes, the vast majority of such leaflets would probably end up as flood debris, but it only takes one to inform a crowd.
The second proposal is, once one or no more than several pick up places have been established, the army (remember, we have martial law) should in fact establish a secure perimeter around it. If they can keep a square mile of central Baghdad secure (the 'green zone') it isn't too much to ask that they can do something similar in New Orleans.
The third proposal is, that anyone caught looting should be immediately charged and locked up, at least until the evacuation is over. Then, we can deal with it on a case by case basis (and there are some who will take issue with me here-- I do see a big difference between someone who is looting bottled water from a supermarket and people pushing a rack full of new suits down the street. Both are wrong, and in the latter case I would say we should press charges but in the former case I think that some compassion should be allowed to temper the demands of justice).
I also would like to propose that the Congress consider emergency legislation to suspend the new bankruptcy laws scheduled to go into effect next month for people with zip codes in affected areas. These people have lost everything (including their incomes) and the spectacle of watching credit card companies or mortgage bankers end up with their homes, or at least the land their homes were on (probably still valuable in an urban area), the only thing of any value at all that they still may have claim to, when they can't make their monthly payments is sickening.
First of all, I have one question. We KNOW where the Louisiana national guard is. In Iraq. So where are the feds? What about those billions of dollars we spent on preparing a 'rapid response' to a major tragedy? This isn't a nuclear attack, but it might as well be. The Homeland Security Department has now had SIX DAYS to get in there with their 'rapid response.' Nada. In fact, they even had about that much more in which Katrina was headed towards the coast and they had time to at least start planning. Still nada.
That said,
I would like to make some proposals about how to get this situation under control. The first is amazingly low tech. With no one knowing what to do, prepare and drop leaflets, similar to those used in WWII. These should be simple but direct. State clearly where the areas where people are to proceed to be rescued. Make it clear that rescue attempts this week have been cut short due to ground fire. I have a gut feeling that if this was made clear, then either those who have been shooting would realize that their own survival was being jeopardized, or the rest of the population there would 'realize it' for them and stand up to them once they realized that they were being themselves jeopardized by these losers. Maybe this is naive, but I believe that information would do a lot to curb the violence. And yes, the vast majority of such leaflets would probably end up as flood debris, but it only takes one to inform a crowd.
The second proposal is, once one or no more than several pick up places have been established, the army (remember, we have martial law) should in fact establish a secure perimeter around it. If they can keep a square mile of central Baghdad secure (the 'green zone') it isn't too much to ask that they can do something similar in New Orleans.
The third proposal is, that anyone caught looting should be immediately charged and locked up, at least until the evacuation is over. Then, we can deal with it on a case by case basis (and there are some who will take issue with me here-- I do see a big difference between someone who is looting bottled water from a supermarket and people pushing a rack full of new suits down the street. Both are wrong, and in the latter case I would say we should press charges but in the former case I think that some compassion should be allowed to temper the demands of justice).
I also would like to propose that the Congress consider emergency legislation to suspend the new bankruptcy laws scheduled to go into effect next month for people with zip codes in affected areas. These people have lost everything (including their incomes) and the spectacle of watching credit card companies or mortgage bankers end up with their homes, or at least the land their homes were on (probably still valuable in an urban area), the only thing of any value at all that they still may have claim to, when they can't make their monthly payments is sickening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)