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
Thursday, September 08, 2005
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.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
We WILL rebuild New Orleans.
We will rebuild. Not only New Orleans, but also the Mississippi coast, and the many smaller cities and towns which people still call home.
Today though, unfortunately, I heard from at least two conservatives that they are against rebuilding. They don't want to spend the money. First a caller on Phoenix talk radio, and then from a right wing blogger that we should abandon New Orleans and other devastated areas to the sea, and one said to let the market determine where people would settle, the other to build it 100 miles inland. Of course, if we give up this fast, will we then abandon Los Angeles after the next really big earthquake? Florida and other low lying areas when they get flooded by hurricanes in the future? Kansas and Oklahoma next time there is a spate of tornadoes?
In contrast, President Bush (one of the few times I agree with him) echoed the words of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and pledged to rebuild the city.
And we should. To simply accept the sacrifice of a major city is ridiculous (would these conservatives have been as quick to say this if, say, terrorists had destroyed a city with a nuclear weapon?)
Now, those who say that New Orleans will never be the same are correct. Let's build it better. Better, and safer. It has been done before.
The Dutch, most of whom live on land that was once the bottom of the sea, know just a little bit about flood control and living below sea level. The first dikes were built as early as 1300, and today, millions of people live below sea level. The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe, and many live in a densely packed mass around Amsterdam and Rotterdam, much farther below sea level than New Orleans is.
In this century, large areas of Holland have flooded twice. Once during World War II, when some dikes were breached both by collateral bombing, and in some cases intentionally by both sides as defensive positions. The second time in 1953, during a major storm.
So, did the Dutch give up and move to the higher areas of the country? No, they did not.
But they did rebuild smarter. Now, they have giant hydraulic seawalls which are designed much like a ship's watertight doors. If one area floods, the seawalls will confine the flood to that part of the country. They also have state of the art pumps, (most of those in New Orleans are years or decades old) and a plan in place, with all necessary equipment, to quickly evacuate the entire population of areas that could be at risk if it becomes necessary.
Putting a plan like what the Dutch have done together, especially the seawalls, would be expensive compared to the meager budgets that the New Orleans district of the Corps of Engineers has been receiving (see my post from three days ago). But compared to the price we will now be paying for not having done something like this, the price is quite cheap. And it should certainly be put into the rebuilding plan. If there is one benefit to be found, it certainly won't be hard to obtain the land to put the seawalls on.
But, I commend President Bush for his statement today that, 'We will rebuild the great city of New Orleans.' And he is right. A far cry from the comment in the link above that:
You will rebuild? No, you won't. At least not if you are smart....I will raise holy hell with my Representatives if they talk about spending federal tax dollars to rebuild...
Oh, and if you personally want to contribute, follow the link on the left side of my page to the DNC site, they have a place there to donate to the Red Cross.
Today though, unfortunately, I heard from at least two conservatives that they are against rebuilding. They don't want to spend the money. First a caller on Phoenix talk radio, and then from a right wing blogger that we should abandon New Orleans and other devastated areas to the sea, and one said to let the market determine where people would settle, the other to build it 100 miles inland. Of course, if we give up this fast, will we then abandon Los Angeles after the next really big earthquake? Florida and other low lying areas when they get flooded by hurricanes in the future? Kansas and Oklahoma next time there is a spate of tornadoes?
In contrast, President Bush (one of the few times I agree with him) echoed the words of Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and pledged to rebuild the city.
And we should. To simply accept the sacrifice of a major city is ridiculous (would these conservatives have been as quick to say this if, say, terrorists had destroyed a city with a nuclear weapon?)
Now, those who say that New Orleans will never be the same are correct. Let's build it better. Better, and safer. It has been done before.
The Dutch, most of whom live on land that was once the bottom of the sea, know just a little bit about flood control and living below sea level. The first dikes were built as early as 1300, and today, millions of people live below sea level. The Netherlands is the most densely populated country in Europe, and many live in a densely packed mass around Amsterdam and Rotterdam, much farther below sea level than New Orleans is.
In this century, large areas of Holland have flooded twice. Once during World War II, when some dikes were breached both by collateral bombing, and in some cases intentionally by both sides as defensive positions. The second time in 1953, during a major storm.
So, did the Dutch give up and move to the higher areas of the country? No, they did not.
But they did rebuild smarter. Now, they have giant hydraulic seawalls which are designed much like a ship's watertight doors. If one area floods, the seawalls will confine the flood to that part of the country. They also have state of the art pumps, (most of those in New Orleans are years or decades old) and a plan in place, with all necessary equipment, to quickly evacuate the entire population of areas that could be at risk if it becomes necessary.
Putting a plan like what the Dutch have done together, especially the seawalls, would be expensive compared to the meager budgets that the New Orleans district of the Corps of Engineers has been receiving (see my post from three days ago). But compared to the price we will now be paying for not having done something like this, the price is quite cheap. And it should certainly be put into the rebuilding plan. If there is one benefit to be found, it certainly won't be hard to obtain the land to put the seawalls on.
But, I commend President Bush for his statement today that, 'We will rebuild the great city of New Orleans.' And he is right. A far cry from the comment in the link above that:
You will rebuild? No, you won't. At least not if you are smart....I will raise holy hell with my Representatives if they talk about spending federal tax dollars to rebuild...
Oh, and if you personally want to contribute, follow the link on the left side of my page to the DNC site, they have a place there to donate to the Red Cross.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Your cell phone is safe-- but is your kids' science class?
As regular readers of this blog are aware by now, I have posted quite a bit on why Intelligent Design, a belief which I personally share (and I am not timid about saying that the 'Intelligent Designer' is in fact, God), is NOT the same thing as science, and therefore should not be taught in science classes until and unless it undergoes the same standards of testing as those scientific theories which are taught(including evolution); that is, a rigorous and ongoing evaluation of both existing and new evidence, including the construction of experiments which can be replicated. Every day, there is more evidence, in the form of DNA linkages, the discovery of fossils, replicatable genetic experiments, and the discoveries of new characteristics and enzymes in existing species, NONE of which contradicts evolution and much of which is in line with what it predicts. Yet, I see none of this with I.D. Its proponents simply want it to be put into the schools as an untested hypothesis.
I had been looking about for a current example of the scientific method, and today's news has a perfect example.
A hypothesis had been formed some years back that cellular phones might be causing brain cancers, based on a number of such cancers found in regular users of cell phones.
So, what was done? Was there a rushed and panicked response to ban cell phones? No. What was done was that a study was begun at the British Institute of Cancer Research. The results are in, and the study has concluded that there is no evidence that cell phones cause brain cancer. Of course the study only examined people who used them for one decade and there will certainly be more studies (as there should be), but the results are pretty convincing that the original reaction was way overblown.
Now, getting back to I.D., to put it in schools without any documented scientific evidence would be akin to having banned cell phones ten years ago with no documented evidence that they were dangerous. That would have been bad science, and so is I.D.
I had been looking about for a current example of the scientific method, and today's news has a perfect example.
A hypothesis had been formed some years back that cellular phones might be causing brain cancers, based on a number of such cancers found in regular users of cell phones.
So, what was done? Was there a rushed and panicked response to ban cell phones? No. What was done was that a study was begun at the British Institute of Cancer Research. The results are in, and the study has concluded that there is no evidence that cell phones cause brain cancer. Of course the study only examined people who used them for one decade and there will certainly be more studies (as there should be), but the results are pretty convincing that the original reaction was way overblown.
Now, getting back to I.D., to put it in schools without any documented scientific evidence would be akin to having banned cell phones ten years ago with no documented evidence that they were dangerous. That would have been bad science, and so is I.D.
An ounce of prevention
Credit: I found the article referred to here on buzzflash.com
Like many across the nation, our family today included the people in New Orleans and surrounding areas of Louisiana and Mississippi in our prayers.
The city of New Orleans tonight lies mostly under water, and this morning there were reports that flood control pumps, some decades old, had failed and a flood control levee had been breached. One can only wonder what would have happend had the city suffered a direct hit, devastation that would very likely have rendered one of America's major cities uninhabitable.
Unfortunately, it must be said, so I will say it here, that we should not forget what President Bush and Republicans in Congress have given the New Orleans district of the Corps of Engineers: massive budget cuts, especially for flood control projects.
In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.
It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said.
I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to....
The House of Representatives wants to cut the New Orleans district budget 21 percent to $272.4 million in 2006, down from $343.5 million in 2005. The House figure is about $20 million lower than the president's suggested $290.7 million budget.
Well, cutting budgets for government projects: it's what Republicans do. And to be sure, the article says that a similar fight last year resulted in some cuts (although in fairness it is hard to see how they could have prevented the current disaster). But it should be pointed out that flood control projects bear the brunt of the cut:
One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president....
The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else.
And the irony is, it doesn't even make economic sense. The damage today is likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars, at least. If New Orleans were to receive a direct hit, the damage could easily be into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet, Republicans in Congress and President Bush aren't even willing to invest a fraction of a percent as much to prevent a re-run of what we saw today.
NOTE: I'm NOT blaming President Bush for the disaster in New Orleans. Obviously, it was hit by a huge hurricane, it is below sea level, and the problems with the flood control system go back decades. However, I am saying that fixing these problems require an investment of tax dollars, that he and Congress haven't made protecting America from natural disasters a priority, and the facts of the matter need to be publicized.
Like many across the nation, our family today included the people in New Orleans and surrounding areas of Louisiana and Mississippi in our prayers.
The city of New Orleans tonight lies mostly under water, and this morning there were reports that flood control pumps, some decades old, had failed and a flood control levee had been breached. One can only wonder what would have happend had the city suffered a direct hit, devastation that would very likely have rendered one of America's major cities uninhabitable.
Unfortunately, it must be said, so I will say it here, that we should not forget what President Bush and Republicans in Congress have given the New Orleans district of the Corps of Engineers: massive budget cuts, especially for flood control projects.
In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.
It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said.
I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to....
The House of Representatives wants to cut the New Orleans district budget 21 percent to $272.4 million in 2006, down from $343.5 million in 2005. The House figure is about $20 million lower than the president's suggested $290.7 million budget.
Well, cutting budgets for government projects: it's what Republicans do. And to be sure, the article says that a similar fight last year resulted in some cuts (although in fairness it is hard to see how they could have prevented the current disaster). But it should be pointed out that flood control projects bear the brunt of the cut:
One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president....
The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else.
And the irony is, it doesn't even make economic sense. The damage today is likely to be in the tens of billions of dollars, at least. If New Orleans were to receive a direct hit, the damage could easily be into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Yet, Republicans in Congress and President Bush aren't even willing to invest a fraction of a percent as much to prevent a re-run of what we saw today.
NOTE: I'm NOT blaming President Bush for the disaster in New Orleans. Obviously, it was hit by a huge hurricane, it is below sea level, and the problems with the flood control system go back decades. However, I am saying that fixing these problems require an investment of tax dollars, that he and Congress haven't made protecting America from natural disasters a priority, and the facts of the matter need to be publicized.
Monday, August 29, 2005
We live in the age of the corporate mercenary army
This weekend I had a conversation with a Republican friend of mine who seemed genuinely surprised that we have mercenaries in Iraq. Of course this is old news for most of us on the left, but it is also obvious (my friend says he gets most of his news form Sean Hannity) that the right isn't apt to report this sort of stuff. It got a brief play in the media after four Blackwater USA 'security contractors' (the preferred term they use) were murdered and their bodies burnt after their convoy was ambushed in Fallujah on March 31, 2004, but then was pretty much dropped by most of the national media. In fact, this had been reported first by Bill Berkowitz almost a month before the Fallujah incident. He focused on their recruiting efforts in Chile and South Africa-- two former dictatorships with armies who specialized in counterinsurgency ops but who now were out of a job. But the four contractors killed in Fallujah were Americans, as have been the majority of the security contractors killed in Iraq (you have to scroll all the way to the right edge of the screen to see job description and employer).
I actually knew about it from a somewhat personal source well before that, although not the full extent of it. Two friends of mine who served with local law enforcement agencies here in Northeastern Arizona before the Iraq war told me about an ad that they had seen circulated among police officers advertising for law enforcement professionals (with prior military experience a plus) who would be willing to work in regions of global conflict to provide security for up to $110,000 (according to the ad-- like most pre-war claims, it was a lie-- most 'security contractors' earn about $40,000-$60,000 in fact).
What has changed is that mercenaries today are no longer 'independent contractors' as they traditionally have been. Because they are now managed and formed into commando units by companies like Blackwater (as well as DynCorp and a few others), it is only necessary to contract with the company. Because rules of engagement for paramilitary forces are not well defined, our government has found them useful in missions that the traditional army might not be able to undertake for political reasons, for example, operations that carry a high risk of civilian casualties, military operations within the borders of the United States or against U.S. citizens, or operations in which it is foreseen that some of the traditional rules of engagement might not apply. If the mercenaries break some of the rules, there is either the benefit of deniability, or the ability to fire the 'security contractors' without admitting guilt.
I actually knew about it from a somewhat personal source well before that, although not the full extent of it. Two friends of mine who served with local law enforcement agencies here in Northeastern Arizona before the Iraq war told me about an ad that they had seen circulated among police officers advertising for law enforcement professionals (with prior military experience a plus) who would be willing to work in regions of global conflict to provide security for up to $110,000 (according to the ad-- like most pre-war claims, it was a lie-- most 'security contractors' earn about $40,000-$60,000 in fact).
What has changed is that mercenaries today are no longer 'independent contractors' as they traditionally have been. Because they are now managed and formed into commando units by companies like Blackwater (as well as DynCorp and a few others), it is only necessary to contract with the company. Because rules of engagement for paramilitary forces are not well defined, our government has found them useful in missions that the traditional army might not be able to undertake for political reasons, for example, operations that carry a high risk of civilian casualties, military operations within the borders of the United States or against U.S. citizens, or operations in which it is foreseen that some of the traditional rules of engagement might not apply. If the mercenaries break some of the rules, there is either the benefit of deniability, or the ability to fire the 'security contractors' without admitting guilt.
Gotta keep that perfect record intact
Once again, the Bush government has taken action against someone who said something they didn't like.
In the latest hit, the Pentagon announced the firing of Bunnatine Greenhouse . Ms. Greenhouse is a senior civilian auditor of military contracts for the Army Corps of Engineers, and last year went public with her concerns about the no-bid contract given to Kellogg, Brown and Root for construction and other services in Iraq. KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton, which Vice President Dick Cheney served as president of before leaving to serve on the Bush ticket. Ms. Greenhouse testified at a congressional hearing that the decision to award the bid to Halliburton was "the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed" in 20 years as a government contract supervisor. Despite initial denials by the White House, Cheney himself was later proven to have coordinated the deal, but which Republicans have swept under the rug by virtue of their control of Congress along with about a half dozen other serious scandals that would have resounded for months if they had occurred in the Clinton administration.
Also from the article on Ms. Greenhouse, As the senior civilian in charge of procurement at the Army Corps of Engineers, Ms Greenhouse developed a reputation as a stickler for proper procedure and won high marks in her performance reviews. Those reviews began deteriorating at almost the same time she began speaking out against the KBR contract, causing her lawyer to accuse the Pentagon of malicious retaliation.
The Joseph Wilson/ Valerie Plame/ Karl Rove scandal aside, does anyone sense a pattern here? Greenhouse follows after Teresa Chambers, fired as National Parks chief after going to the media about how she had been forced to cut back staff at most National Parks because she had not been reimbursed for the funding she had been forced to spend on protecting a few high profile National Monuments since 9/11, there was Sibel Edmonds who was fired after blowing the whistle on the failure of the FBI and the Bush administration to even hire translators who knew the languages of the documents they were supposed to be translating, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who said in a 60 Minutes interview in January 2004 that invading Iraq was discussed in the framework of a decision that had already been made during cabinet meetings very early in the Bush administration, well before 9/11, and was smeared and investigated commencing the next day (the probe ended in March 2004 with a determination of no wrongdoing on the part of O'Neill, but the smears remain out there), and many others (including members of the press) who have gotten on the wrong side of the Bush administration.
Is it possible that in these cases the people involved might have actually deserved the treatment they got? Sure, it is possible, despite the uniformly high marks all of these people got before criticizing Bush policy, but with the ongoing pattern of this (that sooner or later everyone who is in a position to question Bush policy from the inside is fired or otherwise retaliated against on some charge) it seems highly unlikely to just be a coincidence.
Whatever you may think about the Clinton administration, they never engaged in the politics of personal destruction and revenge against those who they angered them the way the Bush administration has (did you ever hear of them firing Monica Lewinsky or any of those other women who claimed that Clinton sexually harrassed them?). Today it is Bunnatine Greenhouse's turn to be fed to the wolves.
In the latest hit, the Pentagon announced the firing of Bunnatine Greenhouse . Ms. Greenhouse is a senior civilian auditor of military contracts for the Army Corps of Engineers, and last year went public with her concerns about the no-bid contract given to Kellogg, Brown and Root for construction and other services in Iraq. KBR is a subsidiary of Halliburton, which Vice President Dick Cheney served as president of before leaving to serve on the Bush ticket. Ms. Greenhouse testified at a congressional hearing that the decision to award the bid to Halliburton was "the most blatant and improper abuse I have witnessed" in 20 years as a government contract supervisor. Despite initial denials by the White House, Cheney himself was later proven to have coordinated the deal, but which Republicans have swept under the rug by virtue of their control of Congress along with about a half dozen other serious scandals that would have resounded for months if they had occurred in the Clinton administration.
Also from the article on Ms. Greenhouse, As the senior civilian in charge of procurement at the Army Corps of Engineers, Ms Greenhouse developed a reputation as a stickler for proper procedure and won high marks in her performance reviews. Those reviews began deteriorating at almost the same time she began speaking out against the KBR contract, causing her lawyer to accuse the Pentagon of malicious retaliation.
The Joseph Wilson/ Valerie Plame/ Karl Rove scandal aside, does anyone sense a pattern here? Greenhouse follows after Teresa Chambers, fired as National Parks chief after going to the media about how she had been forced to cut back staff at most National Parks because she had not been reimbursed for the funding she had been forced to spend on protecting a few high profile National Monuments since 9/11, there was Sibel Edmonds who was fired after blowing the whistle on the failure of the FBI and the Bush administration to even hire translators who knew the languages of the documents they were supposed to be translating, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who said in a 60 Minutes interview in January 2004 that invading Iraq was discussed in the framework of a decision that had already been made during cabinet meetings very early in the Bush administration, well before 9/11, and was smeared and investigated commencing the next day (the probe ended in March 2004 with a determination of no wrongdoing on the part of O'Neill, but the smears remain out there), and many others (including members of the press) who have gotten on the wrong side of the Bush administration.
Is it possible that in these cases the people involved might have actually deserved the treatment they got? Sure, it is possible, despite the uniformly high marks all of these people got before criticizing Bush policy, but with the ongoing pattern of this (that sooner or later everyone who is in a position to question Bush policy from the inside is fired or otherwise retaliated against on some charge) it seems highly unlikely to just be a coincidence.
Whatever you may think about the Clinton administration, they never engaged in the politics of personal destruction and revenge against those who they angered them the way the Bush administration has (did you ever hear of them firing Monica Lewinsky or any of those other women who claimed that Clinton sexually harrassed them?). Today it is Bunnatine Greenhouse's turn to be fed to the wolves.
Is there no decency left in the world? Not on the far right.
Saturday, two soldiers from Tennessee, the latest casualties of our failed policy in Iraq were buried. Protesters showed up at the funeral, claiming the soldiers were killed as punishment for what the United States has done.
What? Were these protesters, who would not even allow the burial of the dead to proceed with dignity, anti-war protesters?
No, in fact anti-war protesters do show respect to the dead, and to the people who are attending funeral services for them.
The protesters were members of an anti-gay church which is claiming that the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq is punishment for the fact that gay people live in America.
The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas, contends that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays.
Rev. Phelps and his congregation (which the article says is mostly related to him) have, of course, because of the sacrifice made by American soldiers during the Revolution, the right to say what they want, no matter how repulsive it is. And they did apparently go through proper channels to get a protest permit.
They had the legal right to do as they did, but this is the height of despicability.
The article goes on to say: The church members carried signs and shouted things such as “God hates fags” and “God hates you.”
And war supporters spend their time condemning Cindy Sheehan for wanting to know if a President who takes month long vacations while Iraq falls to pieces, could spare half an hour.
What? Were these protesters, who would not even allow the burial of the dead to proceed with dignity, anti-war protesters?
No, in fact anti-war protesters do show respect to the dead, and to the people who are attending funeral services for them.
The protesters were members of an anti-gay church which is claiming that the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq is punishment for the fact that gay people live in America.
The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas, contends that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays.
Rev. Phelps and his congregation (which the article says is mostly related to him) have, of course, because of the sacrifice made by American soldiers during the Revolution, the right to say what they want, no matter how repulsive it is. And they did apparently go through proper channels to get a protest permit.
They had the legal right to do as they did, but this is the height of despicability.
The article goes on to say: The church members carried signs and shouted things such as “God hates fags” and “God hates you.”
And war supporters spend their time condemning Cindy Sheehan for wanting to know if a President who takes month long vacations while Iraq falls to pieces, could spare half an hour.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Just a short question
I have had reason to post this on a number of blogs recently, but I just have one question:
The 'intelligent design' hypothesis claims that the world is such a wonderfully complex and diverse place, with such a clockwork perfect interaction between the planet and the organisms on it, that such a beautifully synchronized system could not have come about without an intelligent creator.
Now, I see the beauty and perfection which they see, and I personally agree with proponents of intelligent design that there must have been such a creator, and in fact I believe that the creator is God (although I don't consider my or anyone else's belief to be the same thing as science, as I described on August 3).
I do however have one simple question for people who support 'intelligent design:'
Why aren't more people who see an intelligent designer's hand in the world, environmentalists? What would the 'intelligent designer' think of people who insist that the creator does indeed exist, but then spend a great deal of time and effort making it easier for themselves and others to damage, pollute and destroy what has been created?
Just a simple question, but it is asked in all sincerity, and I would like an answer to it.
The 'intelligent design' hypothesis claims that the world is such a wonderfully complex and diverse place, with such a clockwork perfect interaction between the planet and the organisms on it, that such a beautifully synchronized system could not have come about without an intelligent creator.
Now, I see the beauty and perfection which they see, and I personally agree with proponents of intelligent design that there must have been such a creator, and in fact I believe that the creator is God (although I don't consider my or anyone else's belief to be the same thing as science, as I described on August 3).
I do however have one simple question for people who support 'intelligent design:'
Why aren't more people who see an intelligent designer's hand in the world, environmentalists? What would the 'intelligent designer' think of people who insist that the creator does indeed exist, but then spend a great deal of time and effort making it easier for themselves and others to damage, pollute and destroy what has been created?
Just a simple question, but it is asked in all sincerity, and I would like an answer to it.
It's not an owl habitat, it's Progress, don't you know?
A circuit court judge finally came out and called the Bush administration for violating the endangered species act for a 2002 decision in which "the State of Arizona was granted the right to issue pollutant discharge permits under the Clean Water Act without prior assurance that endangered animals would not be affected." For those of you in Arizona, let me remind you also that 2002 was the last year of the Jane Hull administration-- and no, I'm not a bit surprised that this sort of thing would appeal to Calamity Jane.
What this kind of ruling (hardly a new experience for the Bush administration, the first administration since pollutant standards were first established to actually raise the allowable levels of several pollutants, including Mercury, in the air you breathe and the water you drink) tells us is that there is a qualitative difference in the way progressives and conservatives view the rest of the species on our planet.
We who are progressives believe that it would be an inexcusably selfish act to destroy a species, denying it the right to exist just as we do, denying future generations of the right to share the world as we have it today, and setting ourselves up as Gods, having the power to determine what creatures will live and which will forever perish.
Conservatives, on the other hand, only see endangered species as an obstruction to making a buck.
What this kind of ruling (hardly a new experience for the Bush administration, the first administration since pollutant standards were first established to actually raise the allowable levels of several pollutants, including Mercury, in the air you breathe and the water you drink) tells us is that there is a qualitative difference in the way progressives and conservatives view the rest of the species on our planet.
We who are progressives believe that it would be an inexcusably selfish act to destroy a species, denying it the right to exist just as we do, denying future generations of the right to share the world as we have it today, and setting ourselves up as Gods, having the power to determine what creatures will live and which will forever perish.
Conservatives, on the other hand, only see endangered species as an obstruction to making a buck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
