Month: September 2005

Nice Speech, But We Need Action

by

by hilzoy I thought the President gave a good speech. The trouble is, a speech isn’t what’s needed. Neither, for that matter, are more trips to the Gulf coast. What we need is some sign that the President meant what he said when he took responsibility for the failures in the federal government’s response to … Read more

Once a Nazi, Always a Nazi?

by

by Edward Now I feel foolish. I had stood up to the folks, many of them liberals, who criticized the new Pope when he was installed. I openly insisted they not call him "Pope Rat" and asked them to appreciate that although he had been a member of the Nazi party as a youth that … Read more

Tom Delay Has Gone Stark Raving Mad

by

by hilzoy Really, what other explanation is there for this? “House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an “ongoing victory,” and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget. Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans’ choice to borrow money … Read more

Katrina: Delays

by

by hilzoy Via TPM, a very interesting article from Knight-Ridder: “As thousands of hurricane victims went without food, water and shelter in the days after Katrina’s early morning Aug. 29 landfall, critics assailed Brown for being responsible for delays that might have cost hundreds of lives. But Chertoff – not Brown – was in charge … Read more

EEEUUWWW!

by

by Charles Somehow, I don’t think this Chinese cosmetics company will fully disclose the ingredients on its jars of face cream.  The Guardian: A Chinese cosmetics company is using skin harvested from the corpses of executed convicts to develop beauty products for sale in Europe, an investigation by the Guardian has discovered. Agents for the … Read more

Another Surprise

by

by hilzoy

I have not written anything about the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, mostly because I didn’t have anything interesting to say about it. When the nomination was first announced, I was pleasantly surprised. As I read further, I was a bit dismayed by some of the things he said, and especially what seemed to me to be a somewhat dismissive attitude towards the interests of women and minorities. But, fundamentally, I thought that while under any other President I can think of, I would have to think hard about his nomination and might well oppose it, under this President I had to hope he was confirmed, since virtually anyone else Bush is likely to nominate would be worse. The fact that seems genuinely to care about the law weighs a lot with me, and I felt no confidence whatsoever that if he were defeated, Bush would nominate someone else who shared that concern.

Or, in short: he was better than I had feared, and about as good as I could have hoped for, but that isn’t saying all that much.

But this is better than I had expected:

“Judge John G. Roberts Jr. testified today, as he was pressed for his views on legalized abortion, that there is nothing in his Catholic faith that would prevent him from adhering to settled law on the bitterly divisive issue. (…)

Mr. Specter, who supports the right to abortion, had been expected to question the nominee aggressively on the issue, and he did. And while Judge Roberts did not wholeheartedly embrace the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision or the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, he did signal that he would at least have to think long and hard before moving to upset them. He cited the principle of “stare decisis,” a Latin term meaning to stand by the thing decided, in stating that the Roe ruling was “settled as a precedent of the court.”

“So as of ’92, you have a reaffirmation of the central holding in Roe,” Judge Roberts recalled as Mr. Specter began the questioning. “That decision, that application of the principles of stare decisis is, of course, itself a precedent that would be entitled to respect under those principles.”

The nominee gave cautious answers, citing the difficulty of giving specific answers to hypothetical questions. But as a general principle, he said, he believes in “the importance of settled expectations,” that ordinary citizens as well as lawyers should be able to rely on the predictability and stability of settled law.

But not always. Although overturning precedent can be “a jolt to the legal system,” he said, it is sometimes right and necessary. He cited the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954, which outlawed public school segregation and in so doing overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of the 19th Century that had upheld “separate but equal” facilities. (…)

Mr. Specter questioned the nominee about a memorandum he wrote in 1981, while a lawyer in the Reagan administration, in which he referred to the “so-called right to privacy.”

The senator wanted to know if the wording indicated that Judge Roberts was lukewarm to the concept of a right to privacy, or if in fact he believed that privacy was a right embodied in the Constitution.

“Senator, I do,” the judge replied. He said that right was spelled out in the First and Fourth Amendments, protecting free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches, as well as the lesser-known Third Amendment, protecting homeowners against having soldiers quartered in their homes against their will. (…)

As for whether a president could “authorize” unlawful torture, Judge Roberts said, “I believe that no one is above the law.” “

*** Update:
WaPo“

“Roberts was asked about his statement in a 2003 Senate hearing, when he was seeking confirmation as a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and said he regarded Roe v. Wade as “the settled law of the land.”

“Well beyond that, it is settled as a precedent of the court entitled to respect under the principle of stare decisis ,” Roberts said. (…)

Roberts said he agrees that “the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.” He said it was “fair” to say he does not hold the view today that was reflected in a 1981 memo, when he was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration and skeptically referred to a “so-called” right to privacy.”

Footnote below the fold, for Sebastian (and anyone else)

Read more

Surprise!

by

by hilzoy AP: “Federal Emergency Management Agency director Mike Brown said Monday he has resigned “in the best interest of the agency and best interest of the president,” three days after losing his onsite command of the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. “The focus has got to be on FEMA, what the people are trying to … Read more

September 11, 2005

by

It is, once again, a stunningly beautiful day here in New York City, this September 11th. Folks are making their way through the streets, Sunday paper and a coffee in hand, walking their dogs, pushing strollers, riding bikes, holding hands, and turning their faces upward to soak up the rays of the glorious September sun. … Read more

Clearing Some Backlog

by

This is the quintessential iceberg post, since virtually all of it is submerged below the fold.  It’s long, rambling, self-analyzing and probably not considered a "feel-good" piece.  You’ve been warned.

(Update at the end)

Read more

Fafnir to the Rescue

by

OK, so it’s cold comfort that Michael Brown had to leave the Gulf Coast because "other challenges and threats remain around the world" but never fear, Fafnir’s here. With his "Do-It-Yourself Emergency Management Guide," the savvy Sri Lankan saves the day: Today we’re gonna show you how to get through a major disaster just usin … Read more

Did Bush Know?

by

Behind-the-curtain statement by a Redstate editor:  "Bush knew Gilligan was sick and he didn’t lift a finger."  What say an open thread?

Moral Values

by

by hilzoy From UPI: “Police from surrounding jurisdictions shut down several access points to one of the only ways out of New Orleans last week, effectively trapping victims of Hurricane Katrina in the flooded and devastated city. An eyewitness account from two San Francisco paramedics posted on an internet site for Emergency Medical Services specialists … Read more

Good News and Better News Friday

by

The good news is that FEMA Director Michael Brown is being relieved of his role in overseeing the recovery efforts for Hurricane Katrina: Amid harsh criticism of federal relief efforts, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff announced Friday that Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is handing over Hurricane Katrina relief duties to … Read more

The Amazing Self-Refuting Talking Point

by

by hilzoy From the Washington Post: “The Republican National Committee sent allies a list of “talking points,” including: “It’s disappointing that while President Bush has focused his administration’s entire efforts towards saving lives and helping the victims of Katrina, there are those who are using this tragedy to score cheap political points.”” This is actually … Read more

Barring The Red Cross From New Orleans

by

by hilzoy The Red Cross has been barred from entering New Orleans. The Red Cross’ web site says this: “The state Homeland Security Department had requested–and continues to request–that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into … Read more

Brown: Worse And Worse…

by

by hilzoy

I have to write this quickly: I just checked Amygdala, and Gary hasn’t posted on this yet!!! I can scarcely believe it: if I type very quickly, I might possibly get it up first. But you should visit his site anyways.

There’s yet another story about Michael Brown, this one from Time. Apparently he padded even more of his already dubious resume. Excerpts:

“Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management, according to his bio posted on FEMA’s website, was “serving as an assistant city manager with emergency services oversight.” The White House press release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla., from 1975 to 1978 “overseeing the emergency services division.” In fact, according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of Edmond, Brown was an “assistant to the city manager” from 1977 to 1980, not a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. “The assistant is more like an intern,” she told TIME. “Department heads did not report to him.” Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to his boss. “Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative assistant. He was a student at Central State University,” recalls former city manager Bill Dashner. “Mike used to handle a lot of details. Every now and again I’d ask him to write me a speech. He was very loyal. He was always on time. He always had on a suit and a starched white shirt.”

In response, Nicol Andrews, deputy strategic director in FEMA’s office of public affairs, insists that while Brown began as an intern, he became an “assistant city manager” with a distinguished record of service. “According to Mike Brown,” she says, “a large portion [of the points raised by TIME] is very inaccurate.””

I saw an interview with one of the reporters who filed this story on CNN, and she said that the municipal records of Edmonds show him as an assistant to the city manager for the entire time he worked there.

“Brown’s lack of experience in emergency management isn’t the only apparent bit of padding on his resume, which raises questions about how rigorously the White House vetted him before putting him in charge of FEMA. Under the “honors and awards” section of his profile at FindLaw.com — which is information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their offices—he lists “Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University”. However, Brown “wasn’t a professor here, he was only a student here,” says Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State University). “He may have been an adjunct instructor,” says Johnson, but that title is very different from that of “professor.” Carl Reherman, a former political science professor at the University through the ’70s and ’80s, says that Brown “was not on the faculty.” As for the honor of “Outstanding Political Science Professor,” Johnson says, “I spoke with the department chair yesterday and he’s not aware of it.” Johnson could not confirm that Brown made the Dean’s list or was an “Outstanding Political Science Senior,” as is stated on his online profile.

Speaking for Brown, Andrews says that Brown has never claimed to be a political science professor, in spite of what his profile in FindLaw indicates. “He was named the outstanding political science senior at Central State, and was an adjunct professor at Oklahoma City School of Law.””

Outstanding Senior, Outstanding Professor: what’s the difference?

“Under the heading of “Professional Associations and Memberships” on FindLaw, Brown states that from 1983 to the present he has been director of the Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond. But an administrator with the Home, told TIME that Brown is “not a person that anyone here is familiar with.” She says there was a board of directors until a couple of years ago, but she couldn’t find anyone who recalled him being on it. According to FEMA’s Andrews, Brown said “he’s never claimed to be the director of the home. He was on the board of directors, or governors of the nursing home.” However, a veteran employee at the center since 1981 says Brown “was never director here, was never on the board of directors, was never executive director. He was never here in any capacity. I never heard his name mentioned here.” (…)

Brown’s FindLaw profile lists a wide range of areas of legal practice, from estate planning to family law to sports. However, one former colleague does not remember Brown’s work as sterling. Stephen Jones, a prominent Oklahoma lawyer who was lead defense attorney on the Timothy McVeigh case, was Brown’s boss for two-and-a-half years in the early ’80s. “He did mainly transactional work, not litigation,” says Jones. “There was a feeling that he was not serious and somewhat shallow.” Jones says when his law firm split, Brown was one of two staffers who was let go.”

When the reporters get through fact-checking Brown’s background, I suspect it will turn out that he spent his entire adult life huddled in a tiny room somewhere, pacing around and around, muttering: ‘I am the Outstanding Political Science Professor! I can practice family law! I am the Director of an obscure nursing home! It’s just that God and I are keeping it all our little secret for now. But one day everyone will have to listen to me for a change!’

*** Update below the fold.
*** And another update as well.

Read more

Michael Brown: It Just Gets Worse

by

by hilzoy

Via TPM: It turns out that Michael Brown’s background is even less substantial than we thought — and that’s saying something. From The New Republic:

“The real story of Brown’s meteoric rise from obscurity is far more disturbing, as well as a good deal more farcical. It’s clear that hiring Brown to run FEMA was an act of gross recklessness, given his utter lack of qualifications for the job. What’s less clear is the answer to the question of exactly what, given Brown’s real biography, he is qualified to do. “

More below the fold.

Read more

FEMA Rocks!

by

by hilzoy So you might have been wondering: did we just throw gazillions of dollars at the Department of Homeland Security and get nothing for our money but those ludicrous color-coded threat levels? Gentle reader: I too once worried about this, but thanks to the inimitable Ezra Klein, I am not worried any more. For … Read more

The Blame Game

by

by hilzoy

Via Atrios:

“Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children and community are the commitments that set us free.

Our public interest depends on private character, on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness, on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which give direction to our freedom.

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone.

I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility, to pursue the public interest with courage, to speak for greater justice and compassion, to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.”
— George W. Bush
***

Matt Yglesias has a very good post:

“The Blame Game: A brief comment on the subject of this game, which, apparently, it’s a bad idea to play. First off — it’s not a game. Assigning blame is a deadly serious matter. It’s also integral to any sort of viable social practice. The criminal justice system relies on assigning blame to various people and punishing them. So does the civil tort system, and so does the non-criminal regulatory system. So, for that matter, does any kind of coherent business or non-profit enterprise — when mistakes are made, you need to decide who’s to blame for them, and ensure that the culpable are sanctioned. If you don’t identify and punish the blameworthy, then people will have no reason to try to do their jobs correctly.

Politics is the same way. There’s a very serious principle-agent problem associated with public policy — the interests of government officials tend to diverge quite sharply from those of the citizens they’re supposed to be serving. This is why dictatorships tend, in practice, to ill-serve their citizens and be beset by corruption, malgovernment, and all kinds of other problems. In democracies we try, through elections and the ability of elected officials to fire their subordinates, to align those incentives. The way that works is that when bad things happen, people are supposed to blame someone, and then elect someone else to replace him. For that to do any good, you need to “play the blame game,” which is to say find out who’s actually responsible.”

Matt is absolutely right. And since thinking about blame, responsibility and guilt is part of my day job (a fact which, oddly enough, has never gotten me eliminated from a jury pool during voir dire), I thought I’d add a few things. And to try to eliminate any confusion arising from the mixed motives people might have in blaming others, I want to start with what we are doing when we blame ourselves.

Read more

Four Hypocrisies and a Wedding

by

Here’s what I don’t understand about gay-marriage opponents. If gay marriage comes about via the courts, as in Massachussetts, they’re off demanding the heads of those "activist judges" saying that only through legislation can a social contract so significant be changed. But now that the California legislature has approved gay marriage, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger … Read more

“What Are We Doing Here?”

by

by hilzoy From the Salt Lake City Tribune, via TPM: “Not long after some 1,000 firefighters sat down for eight hours of training, the whispering began: “What are we doing here?” As New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin pleaded on national television for firefighters – his own are exhausted after working around the clock for a … Read more

Moving Forward and Boiling it Down

by

by Edward

The debate as to who is politicizing Katrina more, the GOP or Dems, (as if politicizing a tragedy were something brand new or unique to either party…I mean, seriously folks…let’s check in with reality here) will rage on, mostly because it gives folks license to unleash either direction under cover of righteousness. SSDD.

In addition to helping the folks still in harm’s way in the Gulf Coast, however, there remains a very important issue that continues to keep me up at night. Andrew Sullivan boiled it down it best:

Would you want Michael Brown to be FEMA head if al Qaeda attacked a major city with chemical weapons? This isn’t about politics. It’s about a functional government in wartime.

Red, Blue, and Purple all be damned. Seriously. Brown must go. Who replaces Brown becomes infinitely more important than who replaces Sandra Day O’Connor in real, immediate terms, and deserves the entire administration’s best efforts. For the record, though, as CMatt pointed out in the "At All Levels" bloodletting thread:

Unfortunately, on the fire-Brown-now front, it appears the next two people in line to lead FEMA are even less qualified than Brown.

So this is going to take some real competence in choosing. We’re told constantly that we’re at war. Vanity appointments like Brown are unforgivable during wartime. Start the search to replace him, now, please, for the sake of the people living in the places most likely to be attacked (like my city).

Read more

Politicizing Katrina

by

by hilzoy Does this count? “Under the command of President Bush’s two senior political advisers, the White House rolled out a plan this weekend to contain the political damage from the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. It orchestrated visits by cabinet members to the region, leading up to an extraordinary return visit by Mr. Bush … Read more

Katrina Again

by

by hilzoy Washington Post“ “With much of central New Orleans finally cleared of hurricane refugees, search teams widened operations Sunday to outlying streets, moving house to house with orders to evacuate all remaining residents from the city. Determined to reestablish order, police shot several people and killed at least two after gunmen opened fire at … Read more

Cause And Effect

by

by hilzoy Cause: As I wrote yesterday, Michael Brown, the Director of FEMA, was hired despite a lack of any disaster relief or (successful) management experience by his college roommate, and promoted to be FEMA’s director for reasons that are, to me, completely unclear. When you put unqualified people in jobs, it’s completely predictable that … Read more

Rehnquist Dies

by

CNN “Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who quietly advanced the conservative ideology of the Supreme Court under his leadership, died Saturday evening. He was 80.” Discuss.

Post Without A Name

by

by hilzoy

I am still feeling more or less flattened by the devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. However, in odd moments, I have begun reading the articles about the background story: the defunding of FEMA, the excuses of various officials, the general cluelessness of the people who were supposedly in charge, and the offers of aid delayed for days by paperwork or even turned down. In anticipation of the time when I can write about this, I want to say this:

Criticizing the administration’s response to this or any other disaster is not ‘politicizing’ it. There are, I think, two ways of politicizing something. One is to drag politics into a discussion where it does not belong. Thus, if I decided to make a big issue out of Laura Bush’s birthday party, that would be ‘politicizing’ it. I can’t imagine in what possible world criticism of the administration’s response to a catastrophe would count as ‘politicizing’ in this sense.

The other way is to use something to score cheap political points. Criticism of the administration’s response to Katrina only counts as ‘politicizing’ if that criticism is motivated by partisanship, rather than by genuine outrage. Criticism of people as ‘politicizing’ the disaster is, fundamentally, a criticism of their character: it means either that they have allowed partisanship to skew their judgment, so that they overstate their criticisms, or that their motives are not grief, outrage, and anger, but a desire to score political points.

This is important. If all criticism of the administration were out of bounds, we would have no way of registering any of its failures. And people who dismiss all criticism as scoring political points prevent themselves from any serious examination of this administration’s record. By conflating people who believe the administration has fallen short because they take every opportunity to slam George Bush with people who hold the same belief because they have examined the evidence and concluded that it is true, they spare themselves the trouble of actually thinking about George Bush’s record, or about the possibility that some of his critics might be right.

Below the fold: one of the things that prompted this.

Read more

Jabbor Gibson

by

by hilzoy (h/t Gary) Here’s the story of a hero: “Thousands of refugees of Hurricane Katrina were transported to the Astrodome in Houston this week. In an extreme act of looting, one group actually stole a bus to escape ravaged areas in Louisiana. About 100 people packed into the stolen bus. They were the first … Read more

Rebuild

by

by Charles

My memory is muddy what’s this river that I’m in?
New Orleans is sinking man and I don’t wanna swim
—Tragically Hip, 1989

I’ve said it before, I’m saying it now, and I’ll probably say it again when he utters something stupid (and he will):  Dennis Hastert is a Speaker of the House who should not speak in public.

It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that’s seven feet under sea level, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said of federal assistance for hurricane-devastated New Orleans.

Although he later corrected himself, Dennis Hastert is a fool, and George Friedman’s words could not make the foolishness clearer:  New Orleans is a geopolitical prize.  Some excerpts:

Read more

Oh Dear God.

by

by hilzoy CNN: “As police and National Guard troops struggled to restore order Thursday in New Orleans, emergency teams suspended boat rescue operations because conditions in the flooded city were too dangerous, rescuers said. The instructions to stand down came during a meeting with officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. CNN’s Rick Sanchez reported … Read more

A long-overdue recommendation

by

by Slartibartfast A couple of weeks ago I hopped a link over to The Ergosphere, and liked what I saw.  Engineer-Poet makes arguments for various energy economies to supplant the current gasoline economy, and makes them in a highly quantitative fashion.  If this sort of thing blows your skirt up, check him out.  EP doesn’t … Read more

Human Filth Speaks!

by

by hilzoy

Glug, glug, glug.

(Sorry; couldn’t resist.)

I have not been thinking about who, if anyone, is responsible for the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Whenever I find myself on a web page that has anything to do with those questions, I save the link and move on. I just can’t begin to think about that yet.

However, I did follow a link in comments to this post by Thomas at RedState. Since he is from Louisiana, I’ll give him a pass on the rhetoric: I don’t get bent out of shape by what people say two days after large chunks of their home state have been destroyed. But it did make me think: maybe now would be a good time to lay out, in general, the kinds of criticisms I think might be in order and the kinds I don’t, precisely because I haven’t read any of the relevant articles and I really don’t know what they contain, other than what one can glean from the headlines. I have no idea at all what the facts are (which is why, at various points in this post, I’ll probably find myself saying: I don’t know if this is true, but suppose it is… — I really don’t know. This is not disingenuous at all.) Because I have no idea which criticisms, if any, I will end up thinking have some merit, I can’t really skew things one way or the other.

First of all, while of course no one should slant their assessment for political purposes, it can’t be inappropriate for anyone ever to criticize the government’s preparedness or response to this catastrophe. The possibility that exactly this sort of catastrophe would strike New Orleans was not exactly unforeseen. I first read about it years ago, and have been hoping against hope that someone, somewhere, was looking out for New Orleans: shoring up the levees, starting to replenish the wetlands, and so forth. And if I, who am not responsible for emergency preparedness, knew about this, surely someone in the federal government knew as well.

If any criticism of government preparedness for a disaster is forever out of bounds once the disaster happens, then we can never figure out what our mistakes are and learn from them. Obviously, this would be awful: the last thing on earth we should do is doom ourself to ignorance on the crucial question: what can we do to minimize the possibility that anything like this will ever happen again? Moreover, it makes no more sense to me to say that our government’s success or failure at preparing for an entirely predictable catastrophe is somehow not an appropriate topic of conversation than it would make sense to rule out discussion of an administration’s foreign policy or environmental record. This is exactly the sort of thing we should think about in assessing an administration’s record. If we were as well prepared as we should have been, obviously whoever is responsible for that deserves credit. And if not, whoever is responsible for that deserves blame, absent some compelling story about other, even more urgent priorities, which, just now, I have a hard time imagining.

On the other hand…

Read more