August 31, 2005

Did Bush's Iraq Policy Contribute to the New Orleans Catastrophe?

The short answer, based on articles published in recent years by the New Orleans Times-Picayune: Yes.

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."
- Editor & Publisher
George Bush is not responsible for natural disasters. He is responsible, however, for presidential decisions that threaten our country's security and the well-being of its citizens.

In 2003 the president and his gang of chicken hawks plunged the country into a preemptive war -- an unforgivable mistake with an altogether predictable outcome. Not only did he needlessly and foolishly sacrifice thousands of lives in an unjustified war and poorly planned occupation, he squandered our country's resources with a foreign misadventure that makes the United States less safe at every imaginable level, from fighting terrorism to coping with a crisis like Hurricane Katrina.

Making an unavoidable disaster worse, many National Guard units from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and other states, along with their equipment and resources, are deployed to the avoidable disaster of Iraq. Guardsmen in Iraq include policemen, firemen, medical personnel and other professionals with skills and organizational experience needed in their own devastated communities. Tragically, they are unavailable to assist their own families and neighbors in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina or any other emergency at home.


As the White House public relations machine goes into overdrive to convince us that the aw shucks president is a competent and caring man, we must not overlook this fact: George Bush's presidency is itself a national disaster, and no amount of PR can change that.

August 30, 2005

The Ethics of Iraq

Peter Daou provides some interesting contrasts between supporters and opponents of the Iraq War. Here are a few quotes from his essay:

War hawks squeal about America-haters and traitors, heaping scorn on the so-called �blame America first" crowd, but they fail to comprehend that the left reserves the deepest disdain for those who squander our moral authority. The scars of a terrorist attack heal and we are sadder but stronger for having lived through it. When our moral leadership is compromised by people draped in the American flag, America is weakened. The loss of our moral compass leaves us rudderless, open to attacks on our character and our basic decency. And nothing makes our enemies prouder. They can't kill us all, but if they permanently stain our dignity, they've done irreparable harm to America.

The antiwar critique of Iraq is that it is an immoral war and every resulting death is a wrongful one. Opponents of the war view the invasion and occupation as a dangerous and shameful violation of international law. Iraq saps our moral strength and the sooner we leave the better. Opposing the invasion on the grounds that the administration lied its way into it, they see every subsequent death, American or foreign, as an ethical travesty and a stain on America's good name.

Yet to many of Bush�s supporters, anything short of �victory� is a weakening of America in the eyes of its enemies. They believe we are "taking the fight to the enemy," with the word 'enemy' defined so over-broadly as to conflate Iraq and the attacks of September 11th. It�s the �kicking ass and taking names� mentality, moral justifications be damned. Revenge for being attacked is rationale enough. Material strength trumps moral strength.

Faced with the disintegration of the original rationale for war, Bush and his supporters are scrambling to find the elusive moral ground to undergird America�s presence in Iraq. But when you�re on the record invading a country because it was a grave threat and the threat never materializes, you�re left with little but a means-ends argument to justify it. In the eyes of the war�s opponents, Bush and his apologists are mired in an ethical swamp trying to justify the mess they created. Judging from recent polls, what they�ve come up with so far is inadequate.

While bumper-sticker patriotism may have anodyne effects on Bush and his followers, the retroactive ethical justifications for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are flimsy at best. And for so many on the left, the undermining of America's moral strength under this administration is more of a "grave and gathering danger" to America than Saddam Hussein ever was.
The complete essay and debate that follows are here: Daou Report

Kerensky97, an Iraq War veteran and one of my favorite bloggers, made these comments in
An Eye Opener:
I�ve even been told by �friends� that they can�t believe that I �hate America so much� based solely on the fact that I think the war is wrong and we need to get Bush out of office ASAP to prevent damaging the country more. This comment was said knowing full well that I had served in the Iraq war while he refused to join up at all citing, �You�d have to be crazy to join the military. Others should go, I can do more good here.� Doing more good apparently means staying home and making as much money as possible while bad mouthing anything that�s not a far right belief....

Sadly, many people believe material superiority trumps moral superiority, greed trumps all, and the hint of making money, even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and livelihoods, will cause many to abandon their morals.
Bonus video clip: A lame attempt of Donald Rumsfeld, following the US invasion of Iraq, to lie his way out of the administration's previous justifications for war: Face the Nation

Rumsfeld denies making statements implying an "immediate threat" from Iraq in 2003. So, minus such a threat -- or even its suggestion, as he now claims -- why was his administration so hell-bent on rushing into war?


Was it because they knew the UN inspectors would never find stockpiles of WMD no matter how long they looked, that Saddam had no viable and active program to build nuclear weapons, and no link to 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, his sworn enemy -- and the golden opportunity to stampede the American people into war, following the 9/11 attack, would pass unfulfilled if they they did not seize the moment?

Rumsfeld on the Environment

St. Louis: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned Monday that procedures designed to protect the environment can sometimes jeopardize U.S. troops and should be balanced against military needs.

August 28, 2005

Would you donate your body to science?

I'm considering it.

Lynn Romrell, executive director of the Gainesville-based Florida Anatomical Board, says donating a body to benefit future generations is an act "about as altruistic as anything I can imagine."

Only about 400 Floridians each year -- fewer than two-tenths of 1 percent of those who die in the state -- donate their full bodies to science, according to the organization that oversees the collection and distribution of cadavers for medical use.

The reasons people give for not donating their bodies include religious custom, aversion to thinking about death, funeral directors' discouragement and possible disrespect for the cadaver:
Though reputable funeral homes accommodate donors' plans, academic officials say some funeral directors exaggerate the hardships of donation because burial is more profitable for them.
Big surprise there.

Some potential donors are scared away by tales of medical students clowning around with cadavers, but medical schools strongly discourage such behavior. Dr. Christopher Phelps, chair of the Department of Anatomy at the University of South Florida's College of Medicine, says everyone who works with cadavers at USF must sign a pledge to treat the bodies with respect.
Well then. If my future on earth goes according to plan, this once perfect specimen (some would say "past perfect") will be old, decrepit and very dead before arriving in the lab for its final exhibition. So if the class clown cuts the tension, or whatever, at my body's expense, I'll probably be laughing right along with him (then haunting his dreams, of course). Bottom line: If ya can't take a joke, don't let'em poke.
Phelps says USF traditionally ends each school year with a ceremony for the cadavers, complete with poetry readings and the placing of flowers at the foot of a tree. The students also give the anonymous bodies a title: "our silent teachers."
Next Question. Would you donate your body for public exhibition? My own answer: maybe... probably... if I knew it would be used like the ones in this exhibition:

Ignoring controversy and the disapproval of the state Anatomical Board, hundreds of people lined up Thursday to see "BODIES: the Exhibition," a display of specially preserved cadavers and body parts at the Museum of Science and Industry.


"I've never seen anything like it in my life," said Joe Poquette of Lakeland, who visited the exhibition with his mother, stepfather, wife Debbie, and their 4-year-old son, Trent. "It's a learning experience. I don't feel there's anything unethical at all. I feel people would bring their kids in to see what happens in the human body."

Just pose me in front of my old computer monitor where I can surf the giant internets in the sky forever.

More links . . .

Just the ticket...Vienna, please.

Scores of naked or scantily clad people wandered the museum, lured by an offer of free entry to "The Naked Truth," a new exhibition of early 1900s erotic art, if they showed up wearing just a swimsuit -- or nothing at all.

With a midsummer heat wave sweeping much of Europe, pushing temperatures into the mid-90s Fahrenheit (mid-30s Celsius) in Vienna, the normally staid museum decided that making the most of its cool, climate-controlled space would be just the ticket to spur interest in the show.

Peter Weinhaeupl, the Leopold's commercial director, said the goal was twofold -- help people beat the heat while creating a mini-scandal reminiscent of the way the artworks by Gustav Klimt, Egon Schiele, Oskar Kokoschka and others shocked the public when they first were unveiled a century ago.

"We wanted to give people a chance to cool off, and bring nakedness into the open," he said. "It's a bit of an experiment. Egon Schiele was a young and wild person in his day. He'd want to be here."

August 27, 2005

Lake Morton



Typical summer view of my neighborhood at sunset.
Photo from Lakeland Ledger

Thought for today

Knowledge is the antidote to a blind faith that causes one person to accept another person's right to speak for God.

-Inspired by comments by oddjob on BlondeSense

August 20, 2005

Jeb! Bush: "Why am I not believable?"

Seriously, Jeb! What a question, coming from a bush...

Republican Convention, 1988:

"...And The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and all I can say to them is 'Read my lips: No new taxes.'"
-George H. W. Bush, 1988

A decade later:

Pastor Mark Craig started preaching about duty, about how Moses tried to resist God's call, and the sacrifice that leadership requires. And as they sat there, Barbara Bush leaned over to the son who has always been most like her and said, "He's talking to you, George."

"I never dreamt about being president... It hasn't been part of my life's game plan. All of a sudden, people start talking to me about the presidency..."
-George W. Bush, 1999

Five years later, November 2004: George ii is preparing for his second term as president. And little brother "Jeb!" dreams only of retirement for himself...

Bush reiterated that he was not going to run for the US Senate in 2006, had no designs on the 2008 presidential race and was getting tired of the question.

Asked whether he might change his mind, the exasperated governor responded, "No! Why am I not believable on this subject? This is driving me nuts."

"I'm not running for the United States Senate in 2006, and I'm not running for president in 2008."
-Jeb Bush, 2004

Fast forward to August 2005:

Seventeen months before he leaves office, Jeb Bush and some of his most loyal supporters are preparing a public relations offensive to promote the governor's record on reforming Florida's education system.

Bush allies last month quietly incorporated the Foundation for Florida's Future, a nonprofit group that will concentrate on touting Bush's record on schools. It's a relaunch of a public policy foundation that preceded his 1998 gubernatorial campaign, but this time is organized to be a potentially potent political advocacy group.

It is structured not just as a nonprofit organization, but as a so-called "527" organization that can raise unlimited donations to tout positions or attack a candidate or idea.

Mandy Fletcher, a former Bush-Cheney presidential campaign staffer, is the part-time executive director of the new foundation. She acknowledged that given the speculation about Gov. Bush's presidential aspirations, some people would see the foundation formally re-created in July as a vehicle to keep his profile high after leaving office.

"The governor was saying the other day it wouldn't be called the Foundation for Florida's Future if this was some sort of 'exploratory thing' for national office," she said.
-"Bush's allies promote legacy," St. Petersburg Times Online

Well, that settles it then... 'cause you can always trust a Bush.

*****

Now here's something I can believe:


It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you're a bush...

"You know, it doesn't matter. If he wins, it'll be great. If he doesn't, we still have a life."
-Laura Bush, June 1999

"I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy,'' he (the president) said when asked about bike riding while a grieving mom (Cindy Sheehan) wanted to speak with him.

"And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so.''
-George W. Bush, August 2005

Now watch me while I flip this bike.


August 10, 2005

Katherine Harris: Some Call Her Esther

Bartow, Florida: "U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a hometown audience Tuesday that she's braced for an uphill fight to unseat U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson in the 2006 election. Harris greeted a Bartow crowd of roughly 200 shortly after 5 p.m., having begun her inaugural campaign tour seven hours earlier in Sarasota...." Lakeland Ledger
Ms. Harris's roots are over here in my neck of the woods -- "Imperial" Polk County. One of her first cousins is state senator J. D. Alexander of Lake Wales. Her father is chairman of Citrus and Chemical Bank, with ten locations in Polk County, and her grandfather was the late Ben Hill Griffin, Jr., a citrus and cattle baron. Florida sports fans are familiar with the University of Florida's Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, named for him.

Following Griffin's death, feuds and lawsuits over his multi-million dollar estate pitted family against family. For some reason, sisters and their brother and spouses and cousins all seem to distrust each other mightily. The latest suit (to my knowledge) was settled by a federal court's ruling against the Harris family in 2003. Read about it in "Katherine the Great: America's new Queen?"

So..., apparently the Bush gang wants to elbow Katherine out of the race for a stronger candidate. Too bad: she many not be all that concerned with their druthers. If she manages to win the Republican nomination, the Bushites have little choice but to support her in the general election. If she beats Nelson, they take some credit. If she loses, well, she was a weak candidate so it won't be their fault (what a concept for a Bush, huh).


The Sarasota Herald Tribune offers a light-hearted piece -- including stunning pictures to assist you with the color combinations, "Harris' makeup isn't the issue; her making up stuff is the issue."
"U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris blew the lid off of this one, and I'm sure glad she did. It is brave of her, as this is clearly a case of a victim being gutsy enough to accuse those who have wronged her.

"And even with Harris so unexpectedly making her makeup a topic five years later, her makeup still isn't the real issue. It is, once again, credibility. It is the way she sometimes just says things no matter how silly or how disconnected from fact, and doesn't seem to realize it."
Mr. Lyons' conclusion:

"My advice: Harris should worry way less about how she looks and pay much more attention to what she says."

Our country deserves better