Other than extreme partisans or idiots, it should be clear to everyone that there have been failures at every level in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, including FEMA and Bush. Mayor Ray "dont-blame-me-for-anything" Nagin and Governor Kathleen "when-and-how-should-I-ask-for-help" Blanco are equally culpable, if not more so.
This has been one of the most disappointing events in my lifetime, and there are loads of examples pointing to things most of us have known for decades about this country: the cowardice and failure of people in "public service" to plan for anything beyond their watch; the attentiveness of politicians in an election year contrasted with their unconcern when not up for re-election; the culture lawlessness a citizenry acquires when personal responsibility is zoned out and it's-not-your fault platitudes become the norm; the idiocy of not paying attention to obvious environmental problems in the name of progress...I could, of course, go on.
You can easily ascribe which ostrich holes one party or the other will stick their heads into, which is again a problem in itself: no one speaks for me, no one speaks for you, no one seemingly speaks for America. Most politicians only speak for themselves and their "base." Until we quit electing career politicians and start electing true public servants we will continue to have severe problems in crisis situations. 9/11 was different in a sense, because we actually came together as a country. With respect to New Orleans, all there seems to be is finger-pointing and Soviet-style blame-passing.
Since I try to follow my own advice of give solutions, don't just point out the problems, here goes:
1) Shoot the looters and the roaming gangs. Period. They're bad for the country and they're not going to be the ones rebuilding.
2) Ask for the resignation of FEMA Director Michael Brown. If he won't give it, fire him. This is not all his fault, but he's not blameless, and there are times that a leader makes a change to restore confidence to workers and constituents. FEMA isn't like being the ambassador to Sweden, or some other non-important cushy post; appoint someone with a job history of crisis management, not someone who needs a political favor.
3) Bush needs to apologize for the failure of FEMA and not split hairs about it. However, since lots of people seem to want to blame the federal government for not bailing them out all along, the federal government gets to have a very heavy hand in restoring the city. As in:
3a) Put Bernard Karik (or another corruption-reducing big-city police chief ) in charge of restoring the New Orleans police force. Fire the current idiot police chief who can't even speak the English language or accept any share of the blame. The idea is to permanently change the image of the NOPD.
3b) Create an enterprise zone to encourange re-development of the area that will be in place for a minimum of 5 years.
3c) Send the Army Corp of Engineers in to rebuild the levees AND reclaim the wetlands; they get to set the parameters after sending a contingency to The Netherlands to look at how people actually build dikes & seawalls that work. Houses and businesses in the former wetlands will have to be eliminated. (This is when eminent domain is not only acceptable but necessary.) That will upset both environmentalists and industrialists. Too bad.
3d) Impose 90 days of martial law. If you're in the city and out past sundown, you get arrested. If you resist, you get shot. That will hasten the evacuation a bit.
4) Tourism must be restored, and the first place to start is by imposing new rules on the French Quarter. It needs to be a safe place to bring your family. Mardi Gras will never be the same, but again...too bad. If you're that hard up for debauchery, go to Vegas and spend your money on gambling or a prostitute. At least you aren't likely to get rolled.
5) Create a new slogan for the city. No more "Big Easy." I don't have a name (nor am I qualified to come up with one), but it should harken to the history, the people, or the natural beauty. There are plenty of places to head with this (jazz, cajun, creole cooking, blues, the delta), but it needs a new feel and a new direction that isn't rotten and sodden.
6) Offer discounted (or even at-cost) housing to anyone who left the city and wants to come back to rebuild. This will take care of whatever insurance doesn't cover and/or encourage people to rebuild even better structures. In return, participants must sign up to work for the reconstruction of the city for a minimum period (2 years seems good). There will be lots of positions needed: construction workers, office workers, logistics people, even low-skill jobs like clean-up crews. Bottom line, if you're serious about working, the jobs will be there for you. If they are not completely filled up by people who were displaced, offer the same deal to outsiders so as to repopulate the city with fresh blood.
As bad as this situation is, here is a golden opportunity to improve an entire city, while showing the rest of the world as well as U.S. citizens what America can do when crisis strikes. Anything less is unacceptable.
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
This Land is NOT Your Land
As has been said, the United States is an idea. We are not held together by common ethnic backgrounds, geographical similarities, or even a connected reason for leaving our homelands to come here. What binds us together as a nation are a few basic ideas: the right to own property, the personal freedom to succeed or fail at whatever we choose, and the expectation of living without undue interference from our government. So when the Supreme Court rules that a developer in New London, Connecticut can take people’s homes to develop a shopping center, I have to ask: what is going to continue to keep us united as Americans? How many more slaps in the face of this magnitude can we as citizens take?
(To read the actual judicial ruling, opinions and dissenting opinions, go to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108.)
To put this in perspective, how easy is it to leap from a developer clearing out some lower income people in a blighted neighborhood (as the current story coming out of New London goes) to seizing and bulldozing homes in a growing area simply to make it easier to develop? And by the way, who in their right mind has ever counted on construction companies to use reason? These are the same people who have the temerity to mow down forests and eliminate acres of natural habitats so that they don’t have to build around those pesky trees.
Worried about corruption in politics? How tempting will it become for developers to line the pockets of politicians in exchange for carte blanche to do what they want? If it's legal to push people off of their land for "economic reasons" the ethics become increasingly fuzzy. And since this is more likely to happen in growing areas how will you give people a fair market value for their properties?
Let’s pretend this is happening in an upside-down real estate market such as Los Angeles. How do you take someone who paid $95,000 for their 2-bedroom home 25 years ago, bulldoze it, and expect them to find a place to live in the same market where you can no longer get that same house in a safe neighborhood for under $950,000? Not to mention the emotional wrenching of forcing someone off of their land. It brings to mind pictures of Tevye in ‘Fiddler On the Roof’ when his Russian “friend” is telling them they have to leave.
There has been a steady erosion of personal civil liberties over the past 30 years, and surprisingly many of them have come during Republican administrations and from a conservative-leaning court. If this is conservative politics, then I wish no part of it. I expect conservatives to try to chip away at my civil liberties by restricting abortion, allowing cops to beat my ass for no good reason, and to force me to worship their god. I certainly don’t expect them to protect me from myself by making me wear a seat belt or ride a motorcycle with a helmet; I don’t expect them to tax the holy hell out of my business; and I don’t fathom them allowing people to take my land for questionable reasons. Yet, all of this has happened under the administrations of Bush Sr. & Jr.
I expect Democrats to be wacky and lean towards a socialistic communal utopia. I expect conservatives to be wacky and lean towards “every person for themselves.” That’s ok; they kind of balance each other out. But they both have to exist; otherwise, there is no balance. Therefore, if this is the new brand of conservatism, then kiss America the Idea goodbye.
Something can be done. Now is the time for Americans to overrule the Supreme Court by pressing their state and federal representatives to pass laws restricting the scope of eminent domain.
(To read the actual judicial ruling, opinions and dissenting opinions, go to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108.)
To put this in perspective, how easy is it to leap from a developer clearing out some lower income people in a blighted neighborhood (as the current story coming out of New London goes) to seizing and bulldozing homes in a growing area simply to make it easier to develop? And by the way, who in their right mind has ever counted on construction companies to use reason? These are the same people who have the temerity to mow down forests and eliminate acres of natural habitats so that they don’t have to build around those pesky trees.
Worried about corruption in politics? How tempting will it become for developers to line the pockets of politicians in exchange for carte blanche to do what they want? If it's legal to push people off of their land for "economic reasons" the ethics become increasingly fuzzy. And since this is more likely to happen in growing areas how will you give people a fair market value for their properties?
Let’s pretend this is happening in an upside-down real estate market such as Los Angeles. How do you take someone who paid $95,000 for their 2-bedroom home 25 years ago, bulldoze it, and expect them to find a place to live in the same market where you can no longer get that same house in a safe neighborhood for under $950,000? Not to mention the emotional wrenching of forcing someone off of their land. It brings to mind pictures of Tevye in ‘Fiddler On the Roof’ when his Russian “friend” is telling them they have to leave.
There has been a steady erosion of personal civil liberties over the past 30 years, and surprisingly many of them have come during Republican administrations and from a conservative-leaning court. If this is conservative politics, then I wish no part of it. I expect conservatives to try to chip away at my civil liberties by restricting abortion, allowing cops to beat my ass for no good reason, and to force me to worship their god. I certainly don’t expect them to protect me from myself by making me wear a seat belt or ride a motorcycle with a helmet; I don’t expect them to tax the holy hell out of my business; and I don’t fathom them allowing people to take my land for questionable reasons. Yet, all of this has happened under the administrations of Bush Sr. & Jr.
I expect Democrats to be wacky and lean towards a socialistic communal utopia. I expect conservatives to be wacky and lean towards “every person for themselves.” That’s ok; they kind of balance each other out. But they both have to exist; otherwise, there is no balance. Therefore, if this is the new brand of conservatism, then kiss America the Idea goodbye.
Something can be done. Now is the time for Americans to overrule the Supreme Court by pressing their state and federal representatives to pass laws restricting the scope of eminent domain.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
MEDIA BIAS IS ULTIMATELY YOUR PROBLEM
I’m probably the last person on earth to read Bernie Goldberg’s “Bias.” What is striking to me is how little real information I’ve gleaned from it. The anecdotes are funny, the bias is both real and sad, but I’ve constantly found myself saying “Well…duh!” Perhaps the only eye-opener is the degree to which the majority of journalists can’t see that they are completely out of touch with mainstream America.
What amazes me more is how most of my liberal friends can’t see how biased journalism is. To them, the Wall Street Journal is a right-wing nut collection and Fox News is downright evil. But somehow, CNN is fair. National Public Radio is centrist. The New York Times is a voice of authority and reason. They'll start commentary with “I was reading in the Boston Globe this morning and it said…”, without it even crossing their minds that maybe, just maybe, there’s a serious agenda behind the story.
As for the conservatives and their new Bible, talk radio, all I can say is that while I disagree with the vitriol and some of the short-sighted “all big media is evil” speak, they at least should be applauded for coming out up front and admitting their political leanings and objectives. I find the Sean Hannitys and Bill O’Reillys of the world to be unlistenable, but you can’t say they’re misleading the listener by acting as if they’re objective, and I respect that a lot more than Maureen Dowd or Peter Jennings trying to convince me that they have any inkling of objectivity. However, that doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh et al should be your information source, because it's just as short-sighted and ludicrous when someone starts with "Rush was talking about..."
If we are truly going to be an informed society, then it is incumbent upon us to start holding the media’s feet to the fire. Since I don’t expect any major news organization to suddenly start hiring capable reporters & commentators of the other side or even true centrists (since they all think they ARE centrist), then we must actually start pulling news from a variety of sources, even ones we might disagree with initially. If all you’re reading is the Hartford Courant or the Indianapolis Star, and all you’re watching is the local & network news, then it’s time to broaden your horizons a bit. A few suggestions, all of which are online in part or in full:
-The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com). They are pro-business, and they are definitely conservative when it comes to world politics. However, they are still New York City journalists, and there is a lot more liberalism in their slant than most people realize.
-U.S. News and World Report. (www.usnews.com ) Possibly the single best print publication in America when it comes to balanced reporting. Gloria Borger, Michael Barone, John Leo, Mortimer Zuckerman and Lou Dobbs are regular columnists. It doesn’t get much more diverse politically than that without retaining extremists.
-The Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com). Yes, Matt does lean conservative. However, there are regular links to Maureen Dowd, Dick Morris, Helen Thomas and other liberals, as well as the BBC and the major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.).
-NPR (www.npr.org) – They’re liberal and yes, they have an agenda. But they do try hard to present both sides of the story and they keep alive what liberalism is supposed to be about, instead of the elitist version that is currently practiced by the Democratic Party, the Bay Area, and the entire northeast corridor.
The Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com) – Liberal by Midwest standards, conservative by coastal standards. Enough said.
What amazes me more is how most of my liberal friends can’t see how biased journalism is. To them, the Wall Street Journal is a right-wing nut collection and Fox News is downright evil. But somehow, CNN is fair. National Public Radio is centrist. The New York Times is a voice of authority and reason. They'll start commentary with “I was reading in the Boston Globe this morning and it said…”, without it even crossing their minds that maybe, just maybe, there’s a serious agenda behind the story.
As for the conservatives and their new Bible, talk radio, all I can say is that while I disagree with the vitriol and some of the short-sighted “all big media is evil” speak, they at least should be applauded for coming out up front and admitting their political leanings and objectives. I find the Sean Hannitys and Bill O’Reillys of the world to be unlistenable, but you can’t say they’re misleading the listener by acting as if they’re objective, and I respect that a lot more than Maureen Dowd or Peter Jennings trying to convince me that they have any inkling of objectivity. However, that doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh et al should be your information source, because it's just as short-sighted and ludicrous when someone starts with "Rush was talking about..."
If we are truly going to be an informed society, then it is incumbent upon us to start holding the media’s feet to the fire. Since I don’t expect any major news organization to suddenly start hiring capable reporters & commentators of the other side or even true centrists (since they all think they ARE centrist), then we must actually start pulling news from a variety of sources, even ones we might disagree with initially. If all you’re reading is the Hartford Courant or the Indianapolis Star, and all you’re watching is the local & network news, then it’s time to broaden your horizons a bit. A few suggestions, all of which are online in part or in full:
-The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com). They are pro-business, and they are definitely conservative when it comes to world politics. However, they are still New York City journalists, and there is a lot more liberalism in their slant than most people realize.
-U.S. News and World Report. (www.usnews.com ) Possibly the single best print publication in America when it comes to balanced reporting. Gloria Borger, Michael Barone, John Leo, Mortimer Zuckerman and Lou Dobbs are regular columnists. It doesn’t get much more diverse politically than that without retaining extremists.
-The Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com). Yes, Matt does lean conservative. However, there are regular links to Maureen Dowd, Dick Morris, Helen Thomas and other liberals, as well as the BBC and the major news outlets (ABC, CBS, NY Times, Boston Globe, etc.).
-NPR (www.npr.org) – They’re liberal and yes, they have an agenda. But they do try hard to present both sides of the story and they keep alive what liberalism is supposed to be about, instead of the elitist version that is currently practiced by the Democratic Party, the Bay Area, and the entire northeast corridor.
The Chicago Tribune (www.chicagotribune.com) – Liberal by Midwest standards, conservative by coastal standards. Enough said.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
INAUGURATION OBSERVATIONS
Ahhh, the 2nd Bush term. Panacea if you’re a hard-core Republican, the end of the world if you’re a hard-core Democrat. Almost like the 2nd Clinton term in reverse.
Watching the inauguration yesterday was an interesting character study. The behaviors and images shown may not tell the whole story, but they do shed light into a few likely future and past politicians:
Hillary Clinton – Could she have looked more bored? It was quite obvious that at best she was taking mental Cliff’s notes. It was as if she felt too smart to be there and besides, what would that evil man at the podium have to say of note anyway? To all of you Bush haters who think Hillary is a savior, examine your criticisms of Bush’s personality and tell me where Hillary’s style is going to be an improvement. You may not wish to believe it, but she’s unelectable and will bring the Dems down further nationally if she’s nominated. Or as the former Indianapolis city treasurer diplomatically told me today, “She’ll definitely ensure a big turnout.” And he wasn’t talking about Democrats.
Bill Clinton – A study in contrast from his wife. Say what you will about him, but as he hung on every word Bush had to say. Not because he may have agreed, but because he understood: the place, the reason for the message, the gravity of what Bush is dealing with. A prediction: unlike what I previously believed, Bill Clinton will continue to grow in stature as an ex-president.
Rudy Giuliani – He was visibly freezing, but also paying close attention. Rudy seems to be unpretentious (for a New Yorker), and no-nonsense. He’ll tell you what he thinks, but he’s extremely smart, and his mannerisms at the inauguration say the same thing. He’s my early pick to win the GOP nomination.
John McCain – Looked confident and statesman-like. Quite electable on the national stage. If I only believed that the RNC would actually fund him I’d have more confidence in his chances. But I don’t think the conservative wing of the Republican Party will allow it, and that’s too bad. He deserves a shot. Note to Republicans: quit paying undue attention to the religious right. They will be your albatross, just as the fringe groups are to the Democrats.
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter – They both looked like ministers, especially Jimmy, as if the weight of the day was all they felt along with compassion for the man behind the microphone. Side note: I know she’s at least in her 70s, but Rosalynn looks like 55. What is she eating? Or not eating?
Watching the inauguration yesterday was an interesting character study. The behaviors and images shown may not tell the whole story, but they do shed light into a few likely future and past politicians:
Hillary Clinton – Could she have looked more bored? It was quite obvious that at best she was taking mental Cliff’s notes. It was as if she felt too smart to be there and besides, what would that evil man at the podium have to say of note anyway? To all of you Bush haters who think Hillary is a savior, examine your criticisms of Bush’s personality and tell me where Hillary’s style is going to be an improvement. You may not wish to believe it, but she’s unelectable and will bring the Dems down further nationally if she’s nominated. Or as the former Indianapolis city treasurer diplomatically told me today, “She’ll definitely ensure a big turnout.” And he wasn’t talking about Democrats.
Bill Clinton – A study in contrast from his wife. Say what you will about him, but as he hung on every word Bush had to say. Not because he may have agreed, but because he understood: the place, the reason for the message, the gravity of what Bush is dealing with. A prediction: unlike what I previously believed, Bill Clinton will continue to grow in stature as an ex-president.
Rudy Giuliani – He was visibly freezing, but also paying close attention. Rudy seems to be unpretentious (for a New Yorker), and no-nonsense. He’ll tell you what he thinks, but he’s extremely smart, and his mannerisms at the inauguration say the same thing. He’s my early pick to win the GOP nomination.
John McCain – Looked confident and statesman-like. Quite electable on the national stage. If I only believed that the RNC would actually fund him I’d have more confidence in his chances. But I don’t think the conservative wing of the Republican Party will allow it, and that’s too bad. He deserves a shot. Note to Republicans: quit paying undue attention to the religious right. They will be your albatross, just as the fringe groups are to the Democrats.
Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter – They both looked like ministers, especially Jimmy, as if the weight of the day was all they felt along with compassion for the man behind the microphone. Side note: I know she’s at least in her 70s, but Rosalynn looks like 55. What is she eating? Or not eating?
John Kerry - Gracious but extremely tense. Only Al Gore, on the podium as the outgoing Vice-President at the last inauguration and in full glare of the cameras, could have been in a worse spot. Teresa should have suggested he not show up to this one.
Jenna and Barbara Bush – I’d like to see them replace Paris & Nicole on “The Simple Life.” Seriously, they seem imbued with a great mix of confidence borne out of both worldliness and youthful ignorance; Jenna seems to possess it in spades. As with all presidential children, it will be interesting to see where they end up in a few years.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION - BLOG MORE
It’s amazing how much havoc the holidays can wreak on your everyday routines. ‘Tis way past time to get back to my regular postings.
Watching a new Indiana state administration (Mitch Daniels) and a returning national administration (George W. Bush) already has me looking ahead to 2008. Some early predictions:
-Hillary Clinton is unelectable. If the Democrats wish to re-take the White House they must find someone who can win in the Republican strongholds, like Evan Bayh. I must say though, even being from Indiana, there is something about Bayh that makes me question whether he’s actually presidential material. But he is a Democrat who can win in normally Republican country. Unlike John Edwards, who had zero influence even in his own home state (as was also the case with Al Gore), Bayh would likely take Indiana and swing Ohio over to the Democrats, which would almost assuredly win the race.
-The game is no different for Republicans, even with the apparent success in the last election. The country is almost white-knuckling over how conservative it’s become. A centrist candidate would have wiped the mat with Bush, and only the provincialism of the Democrats kept any real candidates from even getting into the game. It will take a Republican who can grab the center. Since I don’t believe that John McCain will actually get the financial support from the GOP coffers (for lots of obvious reasons), look for someone like Rudy Giuliani. If Giuliani merely holds the current “red states” and takes New York out of the Dems column (which he would) it would a 62-point electoral vote swing…a landslide. One downside of Giuliani: I doubt that he has national coattails.
In my home state of Indiana, big changes are afoot. Mitch Daniels has come in with the same vigor and mandate for change as Ronald Reagan did some 24 years ago. The difference in Daniels case is that he must break the pattern of behavior of Indiana residents borne out over the past 200 years: provincialism, distrust of outsiders, resistance to new industries, and self-deprecation. (Or, to use one phrase, Hayseed Hoosierism.) I have no doubt that he can do it, though, as I watched Evan Bayh shift the mindset for 8 years, only to be undone by the tragically late-but-still-incompetent good-ole-boy Frank O’Bannon. For those outside of Indiana this might be a sideshow for you to watch. If Daniels is able to re-make the economy of this state, as I believe he will, it will mold new-style Republicans out of previously staunch Democratic areas and industries. This, in turn, will catch the attention of the GOP and become a model for economic and political growth across the country. IF…Daniels is successful.
On a personal side note, I met now-embattled Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell some 20 years ago. My stepfather was the chair of a Cincinnati community cable TV company, and Blackwell and Jerry Springer (yes, the Jerry Springer) came to this very small gathering to preside over their awards show, and I'm sure they weren't compensated for their time. If they were, it couldn't have been much. I found them both to be personable and very giving of their time. This from two politicians on opposite sides of the aisle who were then the most recent Cincinnati ex-mayors. I have no moral or conclusion to the story, other than to be fascinated by the paths their lives have since taken.
Go Colts.
Watching a new Indiana state administration (Mitch Daniels) and a returning national administration (George W. Bush) already has me looking ahead to 2008. Some early predictions:
-Hillary Clinton is unelectable. If the Democrats wish to re-take the White House they must find someone who can win in the Republican strongholds, like Evan Bayh. I must say though, even being from Indiana, there is something about Bayh that makes me question whether he’s actually presidential material. But he is a Democrat who can win in normally Republican country. Unlike John Edwards, who had zero influence even in his own home state (as was also the case with Al Gore), Bayh would likely take Indiana and swing Ohio over to the Democrats, which would almost assuredly win the race.
-The game is no different for Republicans, even with the apparent success in the last election. The country is almost white-knuckling over how conservative it’s become. A centrist candidate would have wiped the mat with Bush, and only the provincialism of the Democrats kept any real candidates from even getting into the game. It will take a Republican who can grab the center. Since I don’t believe that John McCain will actually get the financial support from the GOP coffers (for lots of obvious reasons), look for someone like Rudy Giuliani. If Giuliani merely holds the current “red states” and takes New York out of the Dems column (which he would) it would a 62-point electoral vote swing…a landslide. One downside of Giuliani: I doubt that he has national coattails.
In my home state of Indiana, big changes are afoot. Mitch Daniels has come in with the same vigor and mandate for change as Ronald Reagan did some 24 years ago. The difference in Daniels case is that he must break the pattern of behavior of Indiana residents borne out over the past 200 years: provincialism, distrust of outsiders, resistance to new industries, and self-deprecation. (Or, to use one phrase, Hayseed Hoosierism.) I have no doubt that he can do it, though, as I watched Evan Bayh shift the mindset for 8 years, only to be undone by the tragically late-but-still-incompetent good-ole-boy Frank O’Bannon. For those outside of Indiana this might be a sideshow for you to watch. If Daniels is able to re-make the economy of this state, as I believe he will, it will mold new-style Republicans out of previously staunch Democratic areas and industries. This, in turn, will catch the attention of the GOP and become a model for economic and political growth across the country. IF…Daniels is successful.
On a personal side note, I met now-embattled Ohio Republican Ken Blackwell some 20 years ago. My stepfather was the chair of a Cincinnati community cable TV company, and Blackwell and Jerry Springer (yes, the Jerry Springer) came to this very small gathering to preside over their awards show, and I'm sure they weren't compensated for their time. If they were, it couldn't have been much. I found them both to be personable and very giving of their time. This from two politicians on opposite sides of the aisle who were then the most recent Cincinnati ex-mayors. I have no moral or conclusion to the story, other than to be fascinated by the paths their lives have since taken.
Go Colts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
