This is why President Bush and Congress are irresponsible in throwing money at New Orleans with no plan other than political mollification of people too stupid to understand anything beyond today. Won’t it be fun if something like this wipes $200 billion into the Gulf of Mexico in five years, when President Bush is retired in Crawford, Texas?
Everyone is abuzz over this news about the FBI expanding its porn-fighting, based on Congressional mandate and increased direction from Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and FBI Director Robert Mueller. This is what they’re looking for:
Applicants for the porn squad should therefore have a stomach for the kind of material that tends to be most offensive to local juries. Community standards — along with a prurient purpose and absence of artistic merit — define criminal obscenity under current Supreme Court doctrine.
Ignore for the moment the government’s obvious lack of priorities when this is an issue while we’re trying to protect our country from terrorism. I still don’t understand why the federal government is enforcing “community” standards. Aren’t South Beach and Iowa City two distinct communities? Should the federal government be involved in that? I’m sure, like all federal government activities, there’s a logical explanation for why this is pushed to the federal government instead of local governments, but I don’t know what it is. I don’t know if I want to know, either, because it’ll probably make my head hurt. I’d rather drink a Slurpee® really fast.
(More thoughts in this earlier post.)
Sitting on the couch last night, I couldn’t prevent my focus from shifting back and forth. First, the president’s speech. Then my wallet. Back to the president. Wistfully on the contents of my wallet. Open-mouthed at the president. Teary-eyed at my wallet. Defeated at the president.
Should I just give the Treasury pre-approval for open withdrawal from my checking account or do I have to go through the charade of writing the check?
In the comments section of Thursday’s post, my friend Wendy expanded on the blame theme with excellent insight, particularly into the federal versus state/local expectations. Better than summarizing what she wrote, I’m reprinting it here.
————————————————————–
But, as someone who actually lives in a hurricane zone – and has experience with hurricanes in my state … My pointer finger is NOT broken and I’ll be happy to point one of them at the Local/State Government of Louisiana.
It has always been my belief that calling in the FEDS is a last resort. I personally do not want to owe the Feds a damn thing – but that Governor KNEW the scenarios facing her region and as an elected official she had an obligation.
I don’t want the military to come in and declare my city a disaster area and start barking out orders … I don’t want to give them any more power than they absolutely NEED … but I do believe this was an extreme case.
No one predicted the storm surge damage in MS, AL … however, the local/State government in LA – certainly knew what could potentially happen with N’orleans.
And I don’t mean JUST the flooding. I mean the AK47 action as well as the physical violence.
The Governor of the state has control of the National Guard – which I think she ‘called up’ on Sunday – much too late to get everyone in before the storm.
In ’92 with Andrew, the Governor had the National Guard in place PRIOR to the storm reaching land. Death was minimal as was looting and violence.
The Mayor – (unlike my own who actually HAS a plan) – had no plan (or possibly he just had no intention) for getting those people out of there – Knowing the possible scenarios – he made no effort to remove the people or the city’s property –
School buses which could have been used to mobilize the poorest people/ the disabled – were left sitting. One example … helpless people in nursing homes died as a result of his inaction.
I was shocked when I saw all those buses under water in that parking lot and yet, people were left in the city to die?
If the SuperDome was a designated evacuation center – then why the hell was it not fully stocked with supplies for just such an event?
I could go on.
FEMA is called in by the Governor – I believe – and seriously, while their response wasn’t flawless – and it would never be fast enough for any of us – it certainly wasn’t much (if any later) than other disasters.
Other disasters?? What?? We’ve had OTHER disasters since 9/11??
Come closer .. closer … Hurricanes hit all the time. Yes, they do! Category 4s … even! Imagine that.
And unlike Tornados, Fires, Earthquakes and Tsunamis … you’re actually WARNED!!!!
Someone comes on television and says – “Um, the Hurricane is coming … GET OUT!!!”
(I know you know this – but dayum the rest of the country acts like it’s the FIRST DISASTER EVER!!!)
People have actually died since 9/11 from these types of disasters and while the numbers certainly have never reached the inconceivable numbers that Katrina will produce … I do not believe their lives were any less valuable.
So with that … here comes my other pointer finger …
Bank accounts aside/ SAT scores aside …
If you live in a hurricane zone – You need to have a PLAN … and boy this is going to make me sound like a heartless bitch … but, if you live in a fucking soup bowl and a hurricane is headed your way … you need to GET OUT … and if you can’t your City/State Government needs to have a plan to help you get out!!
I believe that this has demonstrated how State/Local government as well as people’s own complacency can be their undoing and THAT is a frightening revelation to the rest of us.
As a result we ALL feel the need to blame someone and who better than GW? He’s such an easy target. He doesn’t make it any easier by not accepting responsibility for the shortcomings of his appointed officials –
I’ve seen the media – and my heart breaks for the elderly, the children and the animals … Those who were unable to help themselves.
I am outraged at people who ‘think’ they’re doing the right thing by ‘faking’ press credentials to get in there and see what’s really going on.
Morons. Do these assholes not realize that there might be reasons they don’t let civilians in there? Maybe – oh I don’t know – because you could get hurt … or maybe you’re an opportunist who may just be trying to loot … or you may just be in the WAY????
You see, way back we had a problem with ‘looky Lou’s’ .. people who just wanted to come in and take pictures and steal things and when they would get hurt – they’d blame the city for not ‘telling them to stay away’. So it’s just easier and actually for your own protection to keep your ass out of there!
More than the supposed and factual ‘mistakes’ that were made during this situation – I’m outraged by the media once again clouding people’s common sense with emotion.
Yes, it is a travesty that we are the richest country in the world and we have this sort of thing happening – but to me … the biggest travesty is that we are the richest country in the world and we have people who did not GET themselves out of harms way!! For whatever reason –
I can almost guarantee that if the Military had rushed right in and taken over – the press would be OUTRAGED that the military had rushed right in and taken over – and therefore the people would have been outraged that the military rushed right in and took over – it’s a catch 22 – it’s all about the spin and it sucks.
So now the question is … are we going to sign our rights away to the Feds because we’re all emotional about the military/FEMA not bailing us out?
Are we willing to allow the military to ‘declare’ our cities disaster zones and just come in and take over? I don’t really want that – but if we give them some sweeping blanket of power in these situations – that may happen.
As for Kennedy – I’m sure he’s probably one of those who believe the storm was caused by the Republicans – just like Jesse Jackson believes GW should be up on a pile of rubble essentially declaring war on ‘Mother Nature.’
ugh.
As opposed to the whacked out Republicans who believe it was a sodom and gomorrah act of god.
ugh.
Then there’s the Michael Moore angle – ‘if we weren’t at war with Iraq this would not have happened.’ ‘If President Bush hadn’t cut the budget for the army corps, blah blah blah’ …
Puh-leeze. Newsflash! Presidents have cut the funding for the past thirty years or so and even if Bush HAD given them more money – the Army corps LAUGHED at the models given to them back in 1999 for the scenario that unfolded in N’Orleans … so who knows WHAT they would have spent that money for.
In a not-really-surprising-when-you-read-the-details move, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff removed FEMA Director Michael Brown from onsite relief efforts pertaining to Hurricane Katrina. Bravo should be in order, but it’s not since Director Brown is still Director Brown instead of Former Director Brown. Better to push the offending mess into the background than to fix it. Lazy, one-armed bachelors have work harder to sweep up potato chip crumbs than the Bush administration works at enforcing any form of accountability. And yet, in something that comes as no surprise, Michelle Malkin wastes no time in praising President Bush. Consider:
Question #1: Does this make President Bush a member of the “bed-wetting right,” too?
Answer: No. It makes him someone who has put accountability over cronyism in a time of crisis. Good for him.
How does it make President Bush “someone who has put accountability over cronyism”? Director Brown is still in charge of FEMA. As Secretary Chertoff stated, Director Brown will “oversee the government’s response to other potential disasters.” I don’t want Director Brown in charge of the government’s response to Hurricane Terrorists Bomb the Fuck Out of an American City. Do Ms. Malkin and the other Bush-apologists who will no doubt come out swinging for their man want Director Brown in charge of the government’s response to that?
But as long as we pat ourselves on the back and pretend like the president listened to our concerns, we can ignore this:
Earlier, Brown confirmed the switch. Asked if he was being made a scapegoat for a federal relief effort that has drawn widespread and sharp criticism, Brown told The Associated Press after a long pause: “By the press, yes. By the president, No.”
Director Brown not only screwed up FEMA’s response to Hurricane Katrina (even if it’s nothing more than creating poor public perception with idiotic statements – idiotic statements in times of crisis worsen said crisis), he appears to have fudged his resume. Does removing him from the current relief effort while keeping him in his position seem like it came from a president “who has put accountability over cronyism”? Anyone? Anyone?
In case anyone is still not convinced, how is this relevant?
Referring to large numbers of poor and black New Orleans residents who were dispossessed by the storm, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said earlier in the week the disaster underscored “the glaring economic disparities facing our citizens.”
“As a nation, we must be sensitive to this inequality, sensitive as we respond to Katrina, and sensitive, too, as we select now justices for the Supreme Court,” he said. “That’s a critical question for Judge Roberts. Can he unite America for the future?”
Because a hurricane caused foreseeable damage, Judge Roberts is now responsible for uniting America? How does Senator Kennedy keep getting elected? This is at least where, if the Democrats had any competent leaders, someone would have muzzled the Senator before he could offer such ammunition to the “they just hate conservatives so I don’t need to listen to them” people. If nothing else, this proves why presidents rarely come from the Senate.
Are you listening, Senator Clinton?
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the race to pin blame on preferred targets began quickly, in a race to seemingly jump ahead of people’s perceptions so that those perceptions could be forged. Facts be damned, of course. There’s plenty of blame to go around, and I hope everyone who failed in this catastrophe ultimately pays the appropriate political price. My biggest fear, though, is that no one will pay.
As the most obvious example (and don’t worry, I’m not going to be one-sided in my criticism), President Bush made supportive comments about FEMA Director Michael Brown. I don’t need to rehash the facts of Mr. Brown’s incompetent handling of his agency’s response to Katrina, but it’s clear that President Bush is off-base. The President appointed an inexperienced, ineffective individual into the agency mandated to respond to the very type of crisis President Bush has repeatedly warned us could happen: the destruction of an American city. In this case, it doesn’t matter that the cause was a hurricane rather than a terrorist weapon. The result is still devastation. President Bush failed at what he promised he’d do and now seems inclined to avoid any accountability for himself or his appointees. Since that’s no different than most other failures in his tenure, an appropriate response should come from the country, whether through its representatives or the represented.
What we’re seeing instead is little more than politics as usual for the last half-decade. (Longer, really, but I’m focusing on President Bush’s time in office for this specific example.) Consider:
In a letter to one Republican, Reid pressed for a wide-ranging investigation and asked: “How much time did the president spend dealing with this emerging crisis while he was on vacation? Did the fact that he was outside of Washington, D.C., have any effect on the federal government’s response?”
Wonderful. Our country faces arguably the worst natural disaster in our nation’s history, the president’s administration botches the federal response, despite years of rhetoric to the contrary, and the best the opposition party can do is to attack the president’s inability to manage public perceptions? Pathetic.
This is a perfect example of why, despite thinking President Bush is mostly incompetent and voting for the other guy twice against him, I’m not a Democrat either. President Bush lacks any ability to imagine how his actions might be perceived. (The other explanation, that he doesn’t care, seems less plausible.) At a time of crisis, he stayed on his ranch and even engaged in a photo-op of him playing a guitar. While people died. Etc., etc. He’s clearly in a cocoon, which is a clear political fault in a time of crisis. But to spread the nonsense that he was “on vacation”, the implied meaning I read into Sen. Reid’s comment not unfounded based on other ramblings I’ve read from the folks who can think of nothing more than hating President Bush? That’s pathetic. The president is “on vacation” but he’s never not the president. He’s never not monitoring what’s going on in the nation. He’s never out of communication range for whatever is necessary. To pretend otherwise is either willful ignorance or blind disregard for reality. Neither is a winning strategy able to convince those who disagree that they should suddenly agree.
Ultimately, I don’t see anything changing after this colossal government failure (federal, state, and local – Democrat and Republican – blah, blah, blah). President Bush showed no intention of holding anyone accountable in his first term. I don’t see that changing. The voters will have to correct this at the ballot box, but since the next meaningful election is still fourteen months away, I have little faith that our collective memories will suffice the next time we pull the ballot lever. Perhaps some people feel safer with half-measures and showmanship, not to mention reduced civil liberties. I don’t. I want to be safer, not just feel safer. I’m not hopeful.
Lance Armstrong is considering an end to his brief retirement, apparently in a bid to clear his name from allegations that he used performance enhancing drugs in 1999. I understand the desire, but really, is it a “comeback” if he retired two months ago? Wouldn’t it be more like an extended vacation? Does no one care about the English language anymore?
Coinciding perfectly with my move into a new house, which requires a different route to work, the train system begins it’s once-every-decade track upgrades. Perfect. Primarily, this has meant that the train proceeds slower than normal, without actual stops between stations. It’s a little frustrating, but I always have a book or a movie, so the annoyance factor is low.
Wednesday, this was not the case. The train stopped once for a signal problem. The delay lasted nearly 30 minutes. But I semi-expect that right now because of the track work. We stopped again a few minutes after the train journeyed past the signal delay. The conductor announced this:
Please do not laugh when I tell you this, but we’re being stopped for a mandatory Federal Railroad Administration efficiency test.
The efficiency test delayed us an additional 20 minutes. Thank you, Uncle Sam.
I’ve taken on the potentially misguided task of refuting liberal media bias claims by partisan hacks over the past few months. I’ve tried to make it clear that I can accept bias in individual media outlets, but for every liberal bias, there’s a corresponding conservative bias. My argument, even when poorly stated, is that bias is bad, regardless of its blue or red tint. The facts are what matters. Anyone who claims otherwise isn’t interested in learning, just propagandizing.
Perusing through the Internets (I’m making the Ha Ha there, people) this morning, I stumbled upon an interesting article relating to the perpetual nonsense that is the media bias argument. Consider:
Pardon me for being either ignorant or naive, but isn’t a reporter’s first responsibility the finding–and publishing–of the truth? And isn’t it at least possible that this drive “to make the world better” is at the core of the media’s current malaise? My point here is that if one goes into a job with a zeal to transform the world, instead of a zeal to tell the world’s stories, isn’t it more likely that one would search for and “find” those stories that serve to support and reinforce one’s own prejudices?
I’m not abandoning my underlying assumption that bad news sells (“if it bleeds, it leads”), but yeah, I think that paragraph highlights a contributing factor. Report on facts with a view of how the world “needs” to be and the reporting will slant to a bias. That’s as true for conservative media outlets as it is for liberal media outlets. Any journalistic notion disappears when facts become soapbox-support.
I may be reaching here, but I consider myself sufficiently intelligent to understand what’s going on. I don’t care about non-stories. Blather on about how America is run by imperialistic, capitalist pigs and I’ll turn away from your news. Shock me with the latest missing pretty blonde and I’ll turn away from your news. Give me the facts because that’s what I want. Then, because media is a business, sell me an extension (news) product, such as interviews, features, or even something radical with a blogging mentality. Give me a reason to stay tuned. Call-in radio shows succeed for more reasons than just the opportunity for listeners to shout “Baba Booey” over the phone.
However, make certain that there’s a difference between the two. The first, I can get anywhere, or better stated, elsewhere. The rest is the part that gets my brain going and makes me a (semi-) participant in the process. Treat me as though I’m intelligent and I might not hate media outlets. Educate me without pandering to a lowest common denominator mentality, or what some blow-hard thinks I should think, I might even stay tuned.
(Hat tip: Donklephant)
