Copyright © 2005 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2005 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings. Email: |
My body count's bigger than YOUR body
count. James Wolcott has done an incisive bit of writing on
the efforts of various groups to swing estimates one way or
another, in an effort to minimize the sense of loss over New
Orleans. Well worth reading.
Blockhead. In a completely unsupported bit of New York Times bashing, Horsefeathers writes:
That's it, that's the entire post. No examples of what might constitute "disappointment" in the Times article. Click through to read the Times story, and what kind of verbiage do you read? "raised hopes," "there's some encouragement," and so on. What on earth made it into their Scotch? And tomorrow, on the fourth anniversary of 9/11, do you think
this site will be observing all those who made it out of the Twin
Towers safely, or focusing on the dead?
Joe Lieberman for President in 2008! Uh, actually, I'm guessing this would be a long shot in light of his intensive! 42 minute grilling! confirmation hearing of Mike Brown to head FEMA. Man, Lieberman really stuck it to Brown on this one! Lieberman's aspirations for the Presidency are now officially
toast (officially in the sense that a baseball team is officially
"mathematically eliminated").
Had Katrina hit in 2004? The "shoe on the other foot" argument gets a lot of play in the polarized world of punditry and blogs — that is, in the form of "can you imagine the reaction from the Right if Clinton had done this?" It's an interesting rhetorical exercise, and with respect to Katrina, the openness with which conservative pundits/bloggers are critical of the President is a ray of sunshine that all is not lost. But here's a different sort: had a hurricane like Katrina landed in 2004, what would have happened? If you think about it, this starts to sound like a lose-lose scenario for Bush. If you think he would have responded more quickly in the heat of a campaign, you're basically saying that in a non-campaign scenario like the present more people might have died, meaning lives in 2005 were lost because politically they didn't matter. On the other hand, had he stayed on the campaign trail in 2004 (remember, it was a tight race) he'd have been exposed to charges that he was more interested in campaigning than performing, and had FEMA acted in 2004 like it did here, Kerry would be President. I'm not suggesting that this hypothetical is very
informative, but it is interesting to speculate how Bush would
have behaved in this situation a year ago.
Such a splendid diversity. One of the
other things Duke Ellington is famous for is having pointed out
that there are only two kinds of music: good music and bad music.
A few weeks ago I bought a used copy of a book of William Klein's
picture from Paris, and in it there's a B&W shot of a group of
musicians assembled for who knows what luminary honorariumiumium
occasion. The shot includes Jean Pierre Rampal, Mstislav
Rostropovich, Elton John, and Seiji Ozawa. Rampal is smiling for
the camera, but Rostropovich and Sir Elton are guffawing about
something completely independent of the camera. You'd love
to know what they're laughing about — is it some old saw
like "we've already established what kind of lady you are, now
we're only negotiating the price"? Or they exhumed Beethoven and
found he was decomposing? — it's just a wonderful shot, so
very different from the famous shot of the jazz musicians in
Harlem. Find it if you can.
Am I wrong on this? You may know by now that FEMA and the Red Cross are distributing debit cards to victims of Hurricane Katrina. I think the value of the FEMA card is $2000 and that of the Red Cross's is $1600. The idea, I guess, is that each family knows best what it needs, as well as to cut through red tape by putting the funds in the hands of the families rather than tying it up in governmental bureaucracy. I'm also sure there's something empowering and confidence building in letting people buy for themselves. Another good. Fair enough, I applaud those ends. What I wonder about, though, is whether we sacrifice too much by disaggregating government purchasing power; that is, when the US government buys blue jeans, it gets a deal due to the quantity it buys; it's governmental purchasing power. For instance, have you ever seen prices in a PX? I admit I'm torn in two directions here — I guess my
perfect world would have the debit cards, but give the families
access to the military PX's, where they can make their own
choices at a lower cost.
What to do about an overreaching
judiciary? I'm sure the Right will be outraged about the
latest tyrannical, impudent moves by a member of the judiciary. I
insist they express their anger. Line up!! A judge has
ignored the recommendations of prosecutors, and handed Sandy
Berger a fine five times
as great as what the prosecution wanted for Berger's crime of
taking classified papers. OK, Right, get those arrows out of your
quivers!
Perhaps you're not clear on why the Hurricane Katrina reactions deserve an independent inquiry. Well, here are two points that perhaps an independent panel could resolve... First, an interview with someone from FEMA on Fox News, transcript courtesy of NRO's The Corner:
Got that basic point? Garrett was saying that the local authorities trumped FEMA. Now let's look at how Media Matters covered the jurisdictional squabble, in correcting Michael Chertoff, head of the Department of Homeland Security (into which FEMA reports):
Would you want to trust the bureaucratic examination to
any panel whose members will be seeking reelection next year?
(You would? Tell me how that investigation went into whether or
not the White House abused intelligence on Iraq in making its
case for war.)
Information clamp-down. Suffering in
the polls, and knowing that Katrina hasn't helped the President,
there's a new move under way to spare your beautiful minds from confronting the
reality of all the deaths. Remember how US coverage of the war in
Iraq shied away from the blood and reality, compared to
international news networks? Same thing. The Bush Administration
wants to suggest a
"different" reality.
Oh: so now it's a "personal attack"? From today's White House press briefing, this exchange with Scott McClellan:
"Personal attacks"? What on earth is so personal about the characterization of what Reid said? "Questioning whether the President's Texas vacation impeded any kind of relief efforts." That's personal? Heck no, of course it isn't, it's a healthy question to ask. And what Reid actually said doesn't sound so personal to me, either:
In the business world (the world our MBA President comes from) such basic questions get asked all the time. Nothing wrong with it. Is McClellan suggesting that even such basic questions about job performance aren't appropriate? Well, yes, he is. Thou shalt not ask the hard questions about
what went wrong. Clearly, the President wants a thorough
investigation guaranteed to absolve him of all responsibility;
that's just the kind of investigation he likes. Don't question
whether or not the President screwed up, that would be the "blame
game." No, it would not a demonstration of a belief in
accountability. Because the principle of accountability doesn't
apply to the President. Don't you understand?
Thou shalt not dis the Prez. I'm not
sure what President Bush has to do with the campaign for
Manhattan Borough President, but candidate Brian Ellner decided
to position Bush as the naked emperor in his ad, and while it was
accepted by 15 stations, the local Fox station said ixnay and refused to carry it.
Catch-up ball. From today's White House press briefing:
"The President is interested in solving problems." Personally, I find that an interesting line. If you'll recall, one of the reasons we're supposedly in Iraq is because the President anticipated a problem, and didn't want to wait for the "smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The President's problem solving regarding Katrina would have been far better if it had happened ten days ago: when Katrina cut across South Florida and was revving itself up in the Gulf of Mexico, everybody and his brother knew it would be trouble for the Gulf Coast once it headed north. (To be honest with you, I don't think my family in Palm Beach and St. Lucie counties have access to any government secrets). Proactivity was the way to solve the problem, not by holing out at press appearances to garner support for the war in Iraq or prescription drug plans; can you imagine what shape the people of New Orleans might be in if Bush had applied the same level of proactivity to their situation as he did in invading Iraq? I mean, sure, the local authorities didn't do all they might have, but have you read anything to indicate that Bush or Chertoff or anyone in the administration asked the local authorities what their plans were a couple weekends ago? Hell, can you remember what Richard Clarke wrote about the Administration's somnolence in 2001, despite all the chatter, despite the August 6 PDB? McClellan is clearly spinning every which way he can today, and it doesn't sound good for progress. When he said that the federal government had declared a state of emergency beforehand, that's not true: a state of emergency had been declared, but it wasn't in anticipation of Katrina, it was as follow-up to a previous problem. And McClellan's reminder that the storm was of unprecedented magnitude? Unimportant: if something is anticipated (as it was by everyone but the White House), the lack of "precedence" doesn't excuse the days of chickens running around without heads. CORRECTIONS: Yes, plural. One, the White House did declare a state of emergency before Katrina struck
the Gulf Coast. Not that it matters, but I had been thinking of a
declaration regarding Cindy. And, Bush did talk to the Governor
of Louisiana before Katrina made landfall. What they spoke
about, I don't really know. Nonetheless I regret my errors.
What was your Labor Day like? I ask
because according to our hosts there was very little boating
traffic on New York's Lake Seneca, compared to other years.
Undoubtedly some of it was due to the high price of gasoline (we
paid about $3.60 per gallon for regular unleaded for the car),
but I don't know how much it was due to that. I wonder if
sympathy for the victims of Katrina held people back from their
normal celebratory moods. Any thoughts?
Bush's very special Affirmative Action program. Well, I'm gone for a mere three days, and William Rehnquist has gone to his well deserved rest. And what does Bush do? He nominates Roberts for Chief Justice, upping the ante on this week's hearings. Astonishing, isn't it? I mean, there were enough questions as it were, what with the deluge of papers released just last weekend (oops! look what we found! another late Friday document dump! aw, shucks!), requiring triage analysis on the behalf of the Republic (don't forget, this is your Supreme Court, not his) — but now Bush wants him to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice? This guys resume is as long as your index finger, and he's supposed to ascend to Chief Justice? Does anyone want to ask what the hell is going on? Well, what's going on is that Bush doesn't think there are enough underqualified people in government such as himself. It's an affirmative action program, if you will. Kind of like picking Bernie Kerik out of a crowd to head Homeland Security, quite possibly the second most powerful position on the planet. And while we don't want to generalize from Kerik's sordid c.v. and think for even a minute that Roberts' is as unsavory, isn't there room to question the President's judgment here? Of course there is. And it's called the "advise and
consent" role of the Senate. And it's up to Arlen Specter, head
of the judiciary committee, to put the brakes on this: I'm sorry,
Mr. President, but you're asking for way too much on a
first date. (And by the way, Senate, if you go all the way,
there's no way he's going to respect you in the morning.
It'll be take take take.)
How Presidential! (Yeah, I thought I'd closed shop too, but until we're on the road tomorrow morning, I guess I'm not really dead yet. I feel like taking a walk...) Do you remember the initial reactions to Bush after 9/11? How, when he went before the nation, the accepted wisdom that in his speech to America he'd swept away all questions regarding the legitimacy of his Presidency? How it seemed as if he'd risen to the occasion, and WAS READY TO LEAD THE NATION FORWARD! (Hooray!!) And that was after a mere nine months in office!! Keep that thought in mind, okay? (thinking... thinking...) (thinking... leader then, now let's add more years of experience...) (okay, it's 2004, and it's time to think about whether to keep him or go to Kerry... Well, gee, Bush is the incumbent, and we know how well he guided us through those dark days after 9/11...) (Oh what the well, let's go with a proven winner...) So: now that you've got those recollections and emotions back in short term memory, think about them in terms of the lowered expectations you had in 2001. Did his post-9/11 performance change your expectations? And whether or not they did, does an additional four years' experience raise the bar? That is, do you ask more from a President in his fifth year than you did in his first? Very good. Shall we think about what the President said? "The results are not acceptable." Pretty much sums it up, in my book. If you feel the same way,
you can let the White House know here. Seeing as how the
government is under your employ, and this being a democracy,
you'd be a fool not to.
Closed for Labor Day weekend. Back
Tuesday.
What can a War President teach us about an Emergency President? Uh, let's go to the wayback machine (hey, it's Labor Day weekend, and we're about to shut down for a few days as it is). Please read this assessment I made last September of how badly Bush performed post 9/11 as a War President; it's all about how slow he is to learn the lessons and put real plans in place. His failure to act responsibly on the lessons of 9/11 is a message to us on what we should have expected in other arenas. If you've been reading the news and other blogs, you know that the feds were warned that we faced a likely catastrophe in New Orleans from a hurricane, and that Bush not only made a poor choice to head FEMA, but then proceeded to slash its budget over the years. You can't squeeze blood from a stone, and that's the position
Bush is in, trying to get an agency he himself gutted to do more.
Isn't it nice that he could act like "I'm just hearing this for
the first time" today with this statement that the efforts so far
are entirely unacceptable?
Those left behind... If you haven't read it, Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow is a helluva book, well worth the effort it might take you to get through. It opens with a nightmare in the head of the character Pirate Prentice; there's an evacuation going on, with all the drunks, beggars, old people and so on; only instead of going to safety, they're going into an ever deeper darkness. Pynchon writes...
Pynchon, by the way, was fond of hidden anagrams in his characters' names. "Pirate Prentice" is an anagram for "preterite panic." "Preterite" is usually considered a grammatical term, but as you can read in this Wikipedia entry, Like V., [Gravity's Rainbow] contains a wealth of references to science and technology, and both books dwell upon the "preterite" or passed-over elements of American society. It's a good thing America isn't really the way Pynchon wrote
about it, yes?
So what the hell happened with our intelligence efforts pre-9/11? This, from today's New York Times:
And, addressing the issue about the so-called "wall" and whether or not it stopped the Pentagon from sharing its information with the FBI...
Obviously this whole Able Danger thing is a developing story.
I'm glad I've held back on extensive discussion. When you think
about all the bandwidth that's been chewed up prematurely in the
rush to express an early opinion, you have to think hard about
all that chaff you read and thought was wheat.
Gone native? Tonight on CNN, Anderson Cooper lashed into Senator Mary Landrieu with a rare fury, over the inability of the federal government to respond more quickly to Katrina's carnage. (Video here.) Cooper seemed to be pushing hard for mea culpas and a post mortem too early, I think; there's plenty of reason to speculate about how much of this is due to the Bush Administration having ignored the looming threat (Kevin Drum has a very valuable time line). At this point, with Bush having foolishly said this morning that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," really, I hear so many echoes of prior mistakes. (I can't wait to hear the next defense: b-b-but FEMA never said the threat was imminent! Or, we took that to be a historical perspective!) I do think this will get investigated; okay, I'd better rephrase that, since the Bush Administration isn't really given to retrospection and looking for improvements — let me say I'm sure there's no way they'll do it effectively now. And trying to do it now will get in the way of rescue efforts. (This was not the case with 9/11, an instantaneous tragedy that allowed for the examination, an examination which was stonewalled by Bush et al for so long. If that's the case here, later, there's room for anger, but for now let's keep the teamwork going. There will be time enough for recriminations and Medals of Freedom later.) I kinda think Cooper was behaving like a normal human who'd
been enmeshed in the tragedy day in and day out; it is
incomprehensible that it should take so long, and I suspect
Cooper reflected the frustration of those around him.
|
|