There is a new recovery plan for New Orleans that is smaller and more realistic than all the other ones . The funding for it is possible, but the money is not a sure thing. The biggest chunk, $324 million, depends on Congress’s agreeing to waive Louisiana’s share of federally financed disaster recovery projects. President Bush is against forgiving this 10 percent match, which is mandated under the law, but the idea of a waiver — as was provided to New York after the Sept. 11 attacks and to Florida after Hurricane Andrew — has strong support in Congress. One wonders if Bush really wants New Orleans to recover. The federal money he promised has just begun to trickle in, 19 months after he promised it. The longer we wait the harder and less likely recovery is and Bush is making us wait. Its hard to distinguish between intention and incompetence in his behavior.
The new recovery plan is appealing. It centers recovery on old markets, on which the city was built in the first place. The plan mixes incentives for private investment with public works such as libraries and clinics.
Condo development has taken off here. Donald Trump is building one of several large towers for condo/hotel/apartment/retail use. Existing buildings are being converted into condo use at an amazing pace. Where are the buyers? The real estate market here is fairly flat now.
We have been promised a boom in New Orleans and maybe the new plan will stimulate it. Maybe the trickle of federal money will turn into a stream. The city has the potential to turn into a boom town. Then all the condos would be filled and the city would spring back to life.
It could happen.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
The emerging Republican minority
Yesterday I wrote about the alternative reality of those whose only news source is the Republican echo chamber that's composed of Fox news, conservative talk radio, right wing churches, and politicians.
Now this construct is beginning to disintegrate. People are connecting the dots and the picture that emerges is one of an incompetent and corrupt administration. This is not being revealed by Democrats. The new Democratic congress has only just begun. This is a result of Republican stumbling. There is much more to be revealed. I've seen enough to know that there are more scandals to come and that the worst is yet to come. This is just the beginning. The truth about the Bush administration is coming out now because the media has finally rediscovered journalism. At last they ask probing questions and insist on answers, not evasions. Its coming out because the Democrats have rediscovered their spine and are pushing back. Some Republicans are fed up and speaking out and there will be more in the future. Most of all, Katrina was a big wake up call for the public and they saw the incompetence on TV. Then Iraq worsened and Bush lost support.
What happens to the carefully spun right wing fantasy now? Some of that 30% who still believe what they hear from Rush Limbaugh must be getting disillusioned. I don't think they will change their attitudes. I think they will blame the politicians and cling to their mean spirited ideology. I think many of them will drop out of politics for a time.
The nation is shifting back to the left. There are signs of this all across the culture of the country. The 30% are slowly being left behind and left out. We are on the edge of an emerging long term Republican minority.
Now this construct is beginning to disintegrate. People are connecting the dots and the picture that emerges is one of an incompetent and corrupt administration. This is not being revealed by Democrats. The new Democratic congress has only just begun. This is a result of Republican stumbling. There is much more to be revealed. I've seen enough to know that there are more scandals to come and that the worst is yet to come. This is just the beginning. The truth about the Bush administration is coming out now because the media has finally rediscovered journalism. At last they ask probing questions and insist on answers, not evasions. Its coming out because the Democrats have rediscovered their spine and are pushing back. Some Republicans are fed up and speaking out and there will be more in the future. Most of all, Katrina was a big wake up call for the public and they saw the incompetence on TV. Then Iraq worsened and Bush lost support.
What happens to the carefully spun right wing fantasy now? Some of that 30% who still believe what they hear from Rush Limbaugh must be getting disillusioned. I don't think they will change their attitudes. I think they will blame the politicians and cling to their mean spirited ideology. I think many of them will drop out of politics for a time.
The nation is shifting back to the left. There are signs of this all across the culture of the country. The 30% are slowly being left behind and left out. We are on the edge of an emerging long term Republican minority.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Alternative reality
When spin replaces analysis, the result is a distorted world view. The alternative reality conveyed by the Republican media -- Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk -- has created a Republican activist base that is genuinely not reality-based, and from which the current generation of Republican politicians is disproportionately drawn. The message from these sources has been designed to serve the moment's political needs of the White House.
I know a couple of people who learn all they know about current events from Fox and conservative talk radio. The relentless drumbeat of political spin with no alternative has left them intellectually isolated. They simply cannot imagine anything other than the party spin.
You can hear the same thoughts repeated by the conservative echo machine of Fox, talk radio and politicians. You can even hear the same exact words and even the same tone of voice. Its truly creepy. These are people who seem to have lost the ability for independent thinking.
The people I know who are such clones are sincere. They truly believe the White House spin, regardless of how ridiculous. Their reality is divorced from objective reality. I wonder if there is a medical diagnosis for this.
I wonder what the treatment would be.
I know a couple of people who learn all they know about current events from Fox and conservative talk radio. The relentless drumbeat of political spin with no alternative has left them intellectually isolated. They simply cannot imagine anything other than the party spin.
You can hear the same thoughts repeated by the conservative echo machine of Fox, talk radio and politicians. You can even hear the same exact words and even the same tone of voice. Its truly creepy. These are people who seem to have lost the ability for independent thinking.
The people I know who are such clones are sincere. They truly believe the White House spin, regardless of how ridiculous. Their reality is divorced from objective reality. I wonder if there is a medical diagnosis for this.
I wonder what the treatment would be.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Urban angst
I've been caught in the claws of the US Postal Service monster. A "computer glitch" changed my address without my knowledge. All my mail was sent to this new address, which is an empty store front with a mail drop in the door. As I write this, I have bills and other mail sitting there, on the floor of an empty building. I went to the post office and got my address changed back to what it should be. Now I'm trying to contact the owners of the building so I can get in and retrieve that mail. To exacerbate this, some entities request notification of change of address and the post office duly notified them. I discovered this aspect when my water bill somehow came to the coffee shop instead of either of the addresses in question. The shop address is nowhere on the bill. The water company here changed my address (from correct to the wrong one) on their records. I straightened that out and probably will be wrestling with this monster and its sharp claws for a long time to come.
I got home and found a post card from the post office welcoming me to my new home. It was addressed to a park across the street from where I live. The letter carrier recognized my name and delivered it to me. Great. Wonderful. I feel like a character in a Kafka novel.
I am not making this up.
I got home and found a post card from the post office welcoming me to my new home. It was addressed to a park across the street from where I live. The letter carrier recognized my name and delivered it to me. Great. Wonderful. I feel like a character in a Kafka novel.
I am not making this up.
Come to think about it
I've written in this blog in the past about language usage. Someone who says, "It was like, you know, ummm" has not communicated anything. If tennis shoes and tacos are "awesome" then you have no language left to describe a great work of art. We use words to think with and if we are sloppy in our use of words, we will be sloppy in our thinking.
Now I want to turn to another misuse of language. This time its politicians (another favorite complaint). We need to be especially clear in our thinking about what we hear from these people. The best example of double talk is the language of Mr. Bush. He talks of victory and defeat as if we were in a classic World War II war. We have already lost in Iraq and yet he continues to speak of victory there. Finally some are speaking up and calling his hand on this. I'd like a reporter to ask him what victory in Iraq is. How will we know when he's achieved his victory in his war?
He and his people gave us a weakening of environmental standards they called the clean air act. They degraded our natural resources and called it the healthy forest act. They shifted the income tax burden to favor the super rich and called it tax reform. Clearly this these are people whose language is intended to mislead. We should be wary of them.
Sometimes reality and public will combined to force Bush to drop some of his Orwellian language. You never hear "stay the course" anymore. I don't think he's still using "cut and run" either.
The point in that earlier post was that we need to think critically because we can't take at face value what politicians tell us. We are used to thinking critically when we buy a car and we need to be equally as curious and analytical when we consider an idea.
Now I want to turn to another misuse of language. This time its politicians (another favorite complaint). We need to be especially clear in our thinking about what we hear from these people. The best example of double talk is the language of Mr. Bush. He talks of victory and defeat as if we were in a classic World War II war. We have already lost in Iraq and yet he continues to speak of victory there. Finally some are speaking up and calling his hand on this. I'd like a reporter to ask him what victory in Iraq is. How will we know when he's achieved his victory in his war?
He and his people gave us a weakening of environmental standards they called the clean air act. They degraded our natural resources and called it the healthy forest act. They shifted the income tax burden to favor the super rich and called it tax reform. Clearly this these are people whose language is intended to mislead. We should be wary of them.
Sometimes reality and public will combined to force Bush to drop some of his Orwellian language. You never hear "stay the course" anymore. I don't think he's still using "cut and run" either.
The point in that earlier post was that we need to think critically because we can't take at face value what politicians tell us. We are used to thinking critically when we buy a car and we need to be equally as curious and analytical when we consider an idea.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Back to the left
In an earlier post I wondered if the country was drifting to the political left. Certainly Democrats did well in recent elections - but I did not know if that was a reaction to Bush or a return to liberal principles and policies. I've lifted a bit from Paul Krugman's excellent analysis in revisiting this subject.
A report from the Pew Research Center now shows a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage. Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it. Consider, for example, the question of whether the government should provide fewer services in order to cut spending, or provide more services even if this requires higher spending. According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Interestingly, the big increase in disgruntlement over rising inequality has come among the relatively well off — those making more than $75,000 a year. Indeed, even the relatively well off have good reason to feel left behind in today’s economy, because the big income gains have been going to a tiny, super-rich minority. It’s not surprising, under those circumstances, that most people favor a stronger safety net — which they might need — even at the expense of higher taxes, much of which could be paid by the ever-richer elite.And in the case of health care, there’s also the fact that the traditional system of employer-based coverage is gradually disintegrating. It’s no wonder, then, that a bit of socialized medicine is looking good to most Americans.So what does this say about the political outlook? It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But at this point it looks as if we’re seeing an emerging Republican minority. After all, Democratic priorities — in particular, on health care, where John Edwards has set the standard for all the candidates with a specific proposal to finance universal coverage with higher taxes on the rich — seem to be more or less in line with what the public wants. Republicans, on the other hand, are still wallowing in nostalgia — nostalgia for the days when people thought they were heroic terrorism-fighters, nostalgia for the days when lots of Americans hated Big Government. Many Republicans still imagine that what their party needs is a return to the conservative legacy of Ronald Reagan. It will probably take quite a while in the political wilderness before they take on board the message of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comeback in California — which is that what they really need is a return to the moderate legacy of Dwight Eisenhower.
A report from the Pew Research Center now shows a precipitous decline in Republican support. In 2002 equal numbers of Americans identified themselves as Republicans and Democrats, but since then the Democrats have opened up a 15-point advantage. Part of the Republican collapse surely reflects public disgust with the Bush administration. The gap between the parties will probably get even wider when — not if — more and worse tales of corruption and abuse of power emerge.But polling data on the issues, from Pew and elsewhere, suggest that the G.O.P.’s problems lie as much with its ideology as with one man’s disastrous reign.For the conservatives who run today’s Republican Party are devoted, above all, to the proposition that government is always the problem, never the solution. For a while the American people seemed to agree; but lately they’ve concluded that sometimes government is the solution, after all, and they’d like to see more of it. Consider, for example, the question of whether the government should provide fewer services in order to cut spending, or provide more services even if this requires higher spending. According to the American National Election Studies, in 1994, the year the Republicans began their 12-year control of Congress, those who favored smaller government had the edge, by 36 to 27. By 2004, however, those in favor of bigger government had a 43-to-20 lead.And public opinion seems to have taken a particularly strong turn in favor of universal health care. Gallup reports that 69 percent of the public believes that “it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage,” up from 59 percent in 2000.The main force driving this shift to the left is probably rising income inequality. According to Pew, there has recently been a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who agree with the statement that “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Interestingly, the big increase in disgruntlement over rising inequality has come among the relatively well off — those making more than $75,000 a year. Indeed, even the relatively well off have good reason to feel left behind in today’s economy, because the big income gains have been going to a tiny, super-rich minority. It’s not surprising, under those circumstances, that most people favor a stronger safety net — which they might need — even at the expense of higher taxes, much of which could be paid by the ever-richer elite.And in the case of health care, there’s also the fact that the traditional system of employer-based coverage is gradually disintegrating. It’s no wonder, then, that a bit of socialized medicine is looking good to most Americans.So what does this say about the political outlook? It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future. But at this point it looks as if we’re seeing an emerging Republican minority. After all, Democratic priorities — in particular, on health care, where John Edwards has set the standard for all the candidates with a specific proposal to finance universal coverage with higher taxes on the rich — seem to be more or less in line with what the public wants. Republicans, on the other hand, are still wallowing in nostalgia — nostalgia for the days when people thought they were heroic terrorism-fighters, nostalgia for the days when lots of Americans hated Big Government. Many Republicans still imagine that what their party needs is a return to the conservative legacy of Ronald Reagan. It will probably take quite a while in the political wilderness before they take on board the message of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comeback in California — which is that what they really need is a return to the moderate legacy of Dwight Eisenhower.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
A walk in the park
I live in the uptown part of New Orleans and yesterday about dusk I went to Audubon Park for a walk. There is a track that's divided down the middle with one side for cyclists and the other for pedestrians. It sits under ancient and majestic oaks and it was crowded yesterday. The students from Tulane and Loyola across the street were moving fast, pounding the ground with their roller blades and their feet. Young couples were walking more slowly with babies and dogs in tow. An elderly man was bent over and stopped at every bench to rest. There were little groups of friends walking and chatting. The bicycles were nearly silent in their lane but there was the low mummer of wheels and words along the track.
Looking at the expensively dressed and cheerful people you'd never know there was another New Orleans. You would not guess that across town there are miles of ruined homes and businesses. The people on the track may rarely think about the people who lived in the devastation of the flooded areas who have not yet recovered. Yet, they are both parts of the same whole. One cannot be separated from the other. The universality of loss makes brothers and sisters of us all here.
The differences are only of degree.
Looking at the expensively dressed and cheerful people you'd never know there was another New Orleans. You would not guess that across town there are miles of ruined homes and businesses. The people on the track may rarely think about the people who lived in the devastation of the flooded areas who have not yet recovered. Yet, they are both parts of the same whole. One cannot be separated from the other. The universality of loss makes brothers and sisters of us all here.
The differences are only of degree.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
New Orleans in the summer
Its almost summer in the city again. For now, we're still leaving the doors open and the AC off at the shop for most of the day. Summer in New Orleans is an ordeal. We live in a humid, tropical climate. Life slows down to a stupor in such oppressive heat. The weak work ethic nearly collapses. The parties start later at night, when its less hot. Only the tourists and the hustlers stalk the streets of the French Quarter.
I like the summer. I like the smells and the sounds of summer. I like cool, loose clothing and the lethargic pace. The rhythm of the city slows and slows. The soundtrack of our lives is softer and more mellow. The jazz and the drinks are cool but not much else is.
I lived for a year (2004) in Alaska. I never lingered on their icy sidewalks. Here, I linger to smell a flower or admire a building. I linger to catch the flow of life in New Orleans in the summer.
I like the summer. I like the smells and the sounds of summer. I like cool, loose clothing and the lethargic pace. The rhythm of the city slows and slows. The soundtrack of our lives is softer and more mellow. The jazz and the drinks are cool but not much else is.
I lived for a year (2004) in Alaska. I never lingered on their icy sidewalks. Here, I linger to smell a flower or admire a building. I linger to catch the flow of life in New Orleans in the summer.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Why I'm a liberal
Why are you a conservative? Why are you a liberal?
OK, I'll go first.
I'm a liberal because:
OK, I'll go first.
I'm a liberal because:
- I believe that all life is interconnected
- I believe that there is an innate dignity in every human
- I believe in the power of love
- I believe that there are lessons worth learning in all the world's great religions
- I believe that the Christian Bible is a beautiful, but not magical book and that Jesus was a great teacher but not any more devine than the rest of us
- I believe in a higher power who weeps when we suffer
Those beliefs form a world view that inexorably leads to liberal politics. In another post I'll trace back from liberal policies to this belief system.
I can't speak for Conservatives. I've found some false premises and sloppy logic in my conversations with them and I would love to find a conservative who can sit with me and explain why he is a conservative. From what I know, it is a dim view of human nature and a literal and selective interpretation of the bible that leads to conservative politics. I sometimes suspect racism is involved. I often hear a mean spirited quality that I don't understand.
So these are some of the reasons why I'm a liberal.
Your turn.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Terrorism now and then
Last night I went to see a really bad movie, "300". Don't go! I wish I'd read reviews of it before I impulsively jumped in the car and went to the theater. On the other hand, the popcorn was delicious.
In the movie, there were massed armies and heroic warriors. I thought about our "war on terrorism" (since the movie allowed plenty of time for my mind to wander from the action on the screen). We have approached this as a traditional war with massed armies, air support, and a military victory as the goal.
We need to rethink that model. The concept of "war" needs to be replaced. We had a war on poverty, on drugs, on crime and we still have poverty, drugs, and crime. A war on terrorism will suffer the same fate. Terrorism is too vague. Terrorism is a tactic used by the enemy, not the enemy. The enemy we face has more heads than Hydra and we need a multi-faceted response. This enemy is more like organized crime than a nation.
We need to spend time studying who is attacking us and why. We need a better understanding of these extremists. Members of congress don't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shite and they are making decisions for us. Once we've gotten a good understanding of the issues, we need a more creative approach to removing the causes. We need both the carrot and the stick.
We need an international agency or an extension of one - such as NATO. We need an international agency to combine police forces, diplomats, military special forces, spy agencies, aid agencies, and more. We are making things worse now and we need to get out of Iraq as best we can and start over.
In the movie, the 300 warriors were slaughtered by hoards of Persians. Persia is the historical name of Iran.
In the movie, there were massed armies and heroic warriors. I thought about our "war on terrorism" (since the movie allowed plenty of time for my mind to wander from the action on the screen). We have approached this as a traditional war with massed armies, air support, and a military victory as the goal.
We need to rethink that model. The concept of "war" needs to be replaced. We had a war on poverty, on drugs, on crime and we still have poverty, drugs, and crime. A war on terrorism will suffer the same fate. Terrorism is too vague. Terrorism is a tactic used by the enemy, not the enemy. The enemy we face has more heads than Hydra and we need a multi-faceted response. This enemy is more like organized crime than a nation.
We need to spend time studying who is attacking us and why. We need a better understanding of these extremists. Members of congress don't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shite and they are making decisions for us. Once we've gotten a good understanding of the issues, we need a more creative approach to removing the causes. We need both the carrot and the stick.
We need an international agency or an extension of one - such as NATO. We need an international agency to combine police forces, diplomats, military special forces, spy agencies, aid agencies, and more. We are making things worse now and we need to get out of Iraq as best we can and start over.
In the movie, the 300 warriors were slaughtered by hoards of Persians. Persia is the historical name of Iran.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Governor who??
John Breaux announced he would not run for Governor if Blanco ran for re-election. (he is very much a loyal party man and would not run against a sitting Democratic Governor) Now Blanco announces she won't run for re-election, thereby clearing the way for Breaux. I have a picture of Democratic party leaders sitting down with Blanco and promising her something nice if she drops out of the race. Her poll numbers are really low and he has enough clout to get her an incentive to get out of his way. If a Democrat wins the presidency, watch for her to be named Ambassador to the Vatican. Its the job Lindy Boggs had and there would be some poetry to naming another strong Louisiana woman to the post.
The Morality of War
We are not fighting the same war we started when we invaded Iraq. Bush speaks of victory, as if it was a possible outcome. We have already lost the war we started. Now, as best I can tell, we are fighting to get out without making our exit cause even more problems than if we stay.
There is a moral dimension to any war. I would argue that the war is and was imoral. There are some who argue that our intentions of removing a mass murderer and promoting democracy were moral. Even if we grant purity of intentions, this is shallow moral reasoning. We should judge morality in three dimensions -- intentions, means and consequences -- and this war fails on the last two counts. Imagine that I offer to drive your child home after a party. I ignore the slick road conditions, drive too fast, skid off the road and your child is killed. I can plead good intentions of trying to get your child home quickly, but by my neglect of appropriate means and the full range of possible consequences produces a catastrophe that is not excusable even if I had good intentions. To defend this (or any future war) on the basis of the moral clarity of our intentions is impoverished one-dimensional moral reasoning. Whatever the president's motives, his inadequate attention to means and the full range possible consequences makes this an unjust and immoral war.
We are diminished as a great nation by waging an immoral war.
There is a moral dimension to any war. I would argue that the war is and was imoral. There are some who argue that our intentions of removing a mass murderer and promoting democracy were moral. Even if we grant purity of intentions, this is shallow moral reasoning. We should judge morality in three dimensions -- intentions, means and consequences -- and this war fails on the last two counts. Imagine that I offer to drive your child home after a party. I ignore the slick road conditions, drive too fast, skid off the road and your child is killed. I can plead good intentions of trying to get your child home quickly, but by my neglect of appropriate means and the full range of possible consequences produces a catastrophe that is not excusable even if I had good intentions. To defend this (or any future war) on the basis of the moral clarity of our intentions is impoverished one-dimensional moral reasoning. Whatever the president's motives, his inadequate attention to means and the full range possible consequences makes this an unjust and immoral war.
We are diminished as a great nation by waging an immoral war.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Bla, Bla, Bla
I've given up on almost all of TV news and public affairs shows. The people there are blinded by the internal political jockeying of Washington DC insiders. They huff and puff and smile with smug certainty without adding much at all to what we know and understand. Uggg!
I watched Meet the Press yesterday. Richard Perle and Tom DeLay were on. Why these two aren't too discredited to make it onto the national stage is a mystery to me. Richard Perle was a primary architect of the war against Iraq. Every one of his predictions about this war was wrong. Why is he being taken seriously now? Tom DeLay's opinions are not even rational. He is a radical right wing extremist. Can't Meet the Press find credible people whose thoughts are reasonable and rational?
The two people representing the left side of the spectrum held their own more than I've seen in years. At last they standing up for what they believe.
I wish TV would offer more than just the "debate" model. I'd be interested in seeing experts without an ax to grind. That kind of dispassionate analysis is available on public television, but there is only a tiny amount.
The model of dueling extremists isn't helpful. Fox news is guilty of this a lot. It produces a lot of heat without much light. One nut on the left and another nut on the right does not add up to any meaningful discussion of issues. Of course, they are not there to shed light on national issues. They are there to sell advertising. We know that and we should not take them seriously.
On the Meet the Press I saw, participants were largely allowed to get away with ridiculous statements without being challenged. That's not journalism; its more like stenography.
I watched Meet the Press yesterday. Richard Perle and Tom DeLay were on. Why these two aren't too discredited to make it onto the national stage is a mystery to me. Richard Perle was a primary architect of the war against Iraq. Every one of his predictions about this war was wrong. Why is he being taken seriously now? Tom DeLay's opinions are not even rational. He is a radical right wing extremist. Can't Meet the Press find credible people whose thoughts are reasonable and rational?
The two people representing the left side of the spectrum held their own more than I've seen in years. At last they standing up for what they believe.
I wish TV would offer more than just the "debate" model. I'd be interested in seeing experts without an ax to grind. That kind of dispassionate analysis is available on public television, but there is only a tiny amount.
The model of dueling extremists isn't helpful. Fox news is guilty of this a lot. It produces a lot of heat without much light. One nut on the left and another nut on the right does not add up to any meaningful discussion of issues. Of course, they are not there to shed light on national issues. They are there to sell advertising. We know that and we should not take them seriously.
On the Meet the Press I saw, participants were largely allowed to get away with ridiculous statements without being challenged. That's not journalism; its more like stenography.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
..........and the wave goes on........
I like yesterday's post so much I'm going to wait until Monday to change the subject so it runs for 2 days before sliding back to the rear of the line.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Riding the wave of New Orleans culture
There is a unique combination of cultural elements that come together to make New Orleans what it is. Without this cultural gumbo we would just be Memphis – but with better food and mosquitoes.
You see, there is a seductive mystery that sucks you in and gets into your blood and never leaves you alone. If you get it, you are ruined for life in any respectable town. You know in your heart you can’t live anywhere else. Its the big easy. It explains pot holes and parties. Both result from our loose grasp of boundaries.
This is an edgy town. Part of that is its feudal social structure. We have almost no middle class. There is a thin white layer on top and a low paying service industry underneath. (That may be changing post Katrina.) African Americans have considerable political power but little economic power. The middle class (of whatever color) is what provides stability and tax revenue to a city. Here, we have neither. We are an edgy town.
Maybe it’s the heat and humidity. Maybe it’s our lax mores. Whatever the reason; there is a noisy, almost frantic quality riding on top of an insouciant charm in neighborhood bars and restaurants all over town. The relaxed rhythms of the city contrast to the edgy quality. We ride along this crazy wave, waiting for the next happening.
You see, there is a seductive mystery that sucks you in and gets into your blood and never leaves you alone. If you get it, you are ruined for life in any respectable town. You know in your heart you can’t live anywhere else. Its the big easy. It explains pot holes and parties. Both result from our loose grasp of boundaries.
This is an edgy town. Part of that is its feudal social structure. We have almost no middle class. There is a thin white layer on top and a low paying service industry underneath. (That may be changing post Katrina.) African Americans have considerable political power but little economic power. The middle class (of whatever color) is what provides stability and tax revenue to a city. Here, we have neither. We are an edgy town.
Maybe it’s the heat and humidity. Maybe it’s our lax mores. Whatever the reason; there is a noisy, almost frantic quality riding on top of an insouciant charm in neighborhood bars and restaurants all over town. The relaxed rhythms of the city contrast to the edgy quality. We ride along this crazy wave, waiting for the next happening.
Friday, March 16, 2007
The Clinton defense
If all else fails, conservatives blame Bill Clinton. Its a sure sign they are in trouble.
Now they are claiming that he fired all the US Attorneys and it was an effort to protect a congressman from Illinois from being prosecuted. That isn't true and the congressman was prosecuted and sent to jail. New presidents always receive letters of resignation from prior political appointees. But - when the president fires a carefully selected group of his own U.S. attorneys in the middle of his second term for reasons that appear to be political, that's different from what Clinton (and Reagan) did. The difference is not in the rule that allowed Bush and Clinton and Reagan to dismiss U.S. attorneys -- which is that those appointees serve at their pleasure -- but in the reasons behind their actions.
As we try to find out why they were fired, the White House starts telling lies about it. Can't these people just tell the truth? Doesn't look like it.
Now they are claiming that he fired all the US Attorneys and it was an effort to protect a congressman from Illinois from being prosecuted. That isn't true and the congressman was prosecuted and sent to jail. New presidents always receive letters of resignation from prior political appointees. But - when the president fires a carefully selected group of his own U.S. attorneys in the middle of his second term for reasons that appear to be political, that's different from what Clinton (and Reagan) did. The difference is not in the rule that allowed Bush and Clinton and Reagan to dismiss U.S. attorneys -- which is that those appointees serve at their pleasure -- but in the reasons behind their actions.
As we try to find out why they were fired, the White House starts telling lies about it. Can't these people just tell the truth? Doesn't look like it.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
A day in the city
I've changed the pictures on the left side. If you scroll down, first you'll see a couple of shots from last Easter's Bunny Hop. That's an Easter Bonnet contest and I took this picture in the shop as contestants were taking a break. Under it are a couple of guys who worked for me at the time. Further down I've posted pictures of what's across the street from the shop. The church of St. Peter and St. Paul is now empty. On the corner diagonally across from the shop is that house with the gaudy paint job.
Colorful paint is typical of houses in New Orleans and especially in the Marigny. The Caribbean influences are clear. Its hard to be a rigid, uptight and judgemental person when you paint your house hot pink.
I noticed two Mardi Gras flags still up - one on a home and one on a business. Most of us have switched over to the city flag. I suppose most cities have an official flag - but I wonder how many people in other cities fly them on flag poles from their homes. I don't remember seeing it anywhere else. You see the New Orleans flag flying all over town. The fleur de Lis is ubiquitous. Its testimony to our love of our city and our sense of identity as New Orleanians. Its used on our foot ball team and our flag. Its been tattooed on people and painted on buildings and road signs. Its an ancient design, associated with the Bourbon dynasty of French royalty. I've posted one on the top on the left.
My Mardi Gras flag is folded and carefully put away and now the city flag with the fleur de lis flies proudly over my coffee shop.
Colorful paint is typical of houses in New Orleans and especially in the Marigny. The Caribbean influences are clear. Its hard to be a rigid, uptight and judgemental person when you paint your house hot pink.
I noticed two Mardi Gras flags still up - one on a home and one on a business. Most of us have switched over to the city flag. I suppose most cities have an official flag - but I wonder how many people in other cities fly them on flag poles from their homes. I don't remember seeing it anywhere else. You see the New Orleans flag flying all over town. The fleur de Lis is ubiquitous. Its testimony to our love of our city and our sense of identity as New Orleanians. Its used on our foot ball team and our flag. Its been tattooed on people and painted on buildings and road signs. Its an ancient design, associated with the Bourbon dynasty of French royalty. I've posted one on the top on the left.
My Mardi Gras flag is folded and carefully put away and now the city flag with the fleur de lis flies proudly over my coffee shop.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Looking for political junkies
I'm trying to get a series of forums going at the coffee shop. My idea is to have someone who supports each candidate come to engage in a conversation about the campaigns. I'd like to hear other people's views about issues of the day and the merits of the candidates.
I'm also interested in the state of politics in general. Is there a leftward drift in the country? Have conservatives sold their soul to Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.? Why is someone a conservative or a liberal? What is it you believe that leads you to conclude that conservative or liberal policies are best? ("just because" isn't a good answer!) Are the labels still meaningful?
I don't want it to turn into bitch sessions about Bush. I want us to be more forward looking.
I'm also interested in the state of politics in general. Is there a leftward drift in the country? Have conservatives sold their soul to Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.? Why is someone a conservative or a liberal? What is it you believe that leads you to conclude that conservative or liberal policies are best? ("just because" isn't a good answer!) Are the labels still meaningful?
I don't want it to turn into bitch sessions about Bush. I want us to be more forward looking.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
How to elect a president
We can make democracy work better. As we approach the presidential campaign we can do better than we did in the last two. This draws on thinking by Paul Krugman about electing our presidents.
Over the last six years we’ve witnessed the damage done by a president nominated because he had the big bucks behind him, and elected (sort of) because he came across well on camera. We need to pick the next president on the basis of substance, not image. This time, we need to ask the right questions and insist on answers.
You can go to the candidates' web sites and see if these questions are answered.
First, what do they propose doing about the health care crisis? All the leading Democratic candidates say they’re for universal care, but only John Edwards has come out with a specific proposal. The others have offered only vague generalities — wonderfully uplifting generalities, in Mr. Obama’s case — with no real substance.
Second, what do they propose doing about the budget deficit? There’s a serious debate within the Democratic Party between deficit hawks, who point out how well the economy did in the Clinton years, and those who, having watched Republicans squander Bill Clinton’s hard-won surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and a feckless war, would give other things — such as universal health care — higher priority than deficit reduction. Mr. Edwards has come down on the anti-hawk side. But which side are Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on? I have no idea.
Third, what will candidates do about taxes? Many of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Should they be extended, in whole or in part? And what do candidates propose doing about the alternative minimum tax, which will hit tens of millions of middle-class Americans unless something is done?
Fourth, how do the candidates propose getting America’s position in the world out of the hole the Bush administration has dug? All the Democrats seem to be more or less in favor of withdrawing from Iraq. But what do they think we should do about Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Pakistan? And what will they do if the lame-duck administration starts bombing Iran?
The point of these questions isn’t to pose an ideological litmus test. The point is, instead, to gauge candidates’ judgment, seriousness and courage. How they answer is as important as what they answer. Although this focuses on the Democrats, Republican candidates shouldn't be let off the hook. In particular, someone needs to make Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have become the Republican front-runner, stop running exclusively on what he did on 9/11.
Over the last six years we’ve witnessed the damage done by a president nominated because he had the big bucks behind him, and elected (sort of) because he came across well on camera. We need to pick the next president on the basis of substance, not image. This time, we need to ask the right questions and insist on answers.
You can go to the candidates' web sites and see if these questions are answered.
First, what do they propose doing about the health care crisis? All the leading Democratic candidates say they’re for universal care, but only John Edwards has come out with a specific proposal. The others have offered only vague generalities — wonderfully uplifting generalities, in Mr. Obama’s case — with no real substance.
Second, what do they propose doing about the budget deficit? There’s a serious debate within the Democratic Party between deficit hawks, who point out how well the economy did in the Clinton years, and those who, having watched Republicans squander Bill Clinton’s hard-won surplus on tax cuts for the wealthy and a feckless war, would give other things — such as universal health care — higher priority than deficit reduction. Mr. Edwards has come down on the anti-hawk side. But which side are Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on? I have no idea.
Third, what will candidates do about taxes? Many of the Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Should they be extended, in whole or in part? And what do candidates propose doing about the alternative minimum tax, which will hit tens of millions of middle-class Americans unless something is done?
Fourth, how do the candidates propose getting America’s position in the world out of the hole the Bush administration has dug? All the Democrats seem to be more or less in favor of withdrawing from Iraq. But what do they think we should do about Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Pakistan? And what will they do if the lame-duck administration starts bombing Iran?
The point of these questions isn’t to pose an ideological litmus test. The point is, instead, to gauge candidates’ judgment, seriousness and courage. How they answer is as important as what they answer. Although this focuses on the Democrats, Republican candidates shouldn't be let off the hook. In particular, someone needs to make Rudy Giuliani, who seems to have become the Republican front-runner, stop running exclusively on what he did on 9/11.
The wretched excess of the Bush administration
The unfolding scandal over the firing of US Attorneys is a public example of a systemic problem in the Bush administration. The White House has pulled the strings of federal agency firings for political reasons since Bush took office. Here in New Orleans we saw the results of that in FEMA performance. The director ("heckofa job, Brownie") was totally unqualified and that is not at all unusual. It isn't just US Attornys or FEMA directors. Its happened throughout government. Professionals have been replaced by unqualified political hacks. In order to get the good jobs in Iraq reconstruction, applicants had to affirm that they were pro-life. Young men and women with no relevant experience whatsoever were given high level jobs in Iraq because of political connections.
This has happened to an extent never seen before. Normally a new President will appoint his own people to the top couple of levels of government. Bush has wiped out whole department's bases of experience.
The political implications of policy and program decisions are now paramount. An obvious result is the dumbing down of the federal government. We have seen the loss of competence over and over. Another result is that the majority of people are not represented. Messrs Bush and Rove cater to the radical right in ways large and small. It is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a government of, by, and for fat cat lobbyists and extremist right wing religious leaders. Wall Street is represented well - at the expense of Main Street.
Mr. Bush is not bold. He is reckless. He is not conservative. He is imprudent. He is not moderate. He is excessive and his excesses are wretched.
This has happened to an extent never seen before. Normally a new President will appoint his own people to the top couple of levels of government. Bush has wiped out whole department's bases of experience.
The political implications of policy and program decisions are now paramount. An obvious result is the dumbing down of the federal government. We have seen the loss of competence over and over. Another result is that the majority of people are not represented. Messrs Bush and Rove cater to the radical right in ways large and small. It is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a government of, by, and for fat cat lobbyists and extremist right wing religious leaders. Wall Street is represented well - at the expense of Main Street.
Mr. Bush is not bold. He is reckless. He is not conservative. He is imprudent. He is not moderate. He is excessive and his excesses are wretched.
Monday, March 12, 2007
In hell with the IRS
Last October I filed my 2005 income tax return and was due a refund. After I sent off the return, I moved and filed a change of address with the post office. The post office got the refund check but sent it back to the IRS. After lots of frustrating phone calls I filed a change of address with the IRS. Then they almost got it right. They sent my refund check to a non existent address. Then they required me to file a change of address form from the non existent address to my actual address. All this time I'm advised to fax in the forms, but their fax number is so busy its faster to send it by snail mail.
I still don't have my refund check and have no idea when I'll get it. The IRS records do show they owe me the money. I'm about to file my return for 2006 without having gotten the refund from 2005. I've spent hours and hours on the phone and faxing. Its a good thing I don't owe them or I'd be in jail by now!
I still don't have my refund check and have no idea when I'll get it. The IRS records do show they owe me the money. I'm about to file my return for 2006 without having gotten the refund from 2005. I've spent hours and hours on the phone and faxing. Its a good thing I don't owe them or I'd be in jail by now!
Thinking about thinking
Think of buying a used car. You go in with a healthy dose of skepticism. You ask lots of questions and test the validity of the answers. If the salesman says it was driven by a little old lady who rarely used it, you don't just accept that - you look at the odometer.
Here's a dictionary defination of critical thinking: "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"
We need to engage in critical thinking in order to avoid being fooled by those who would sell us an object or an idea. I hear people making decisions based on emotion instead of reason. We make decisions based on how we feel about something or someone instead of what we think. We substitute feeling for thinking and often don't realize it.
The trick is to ask questions. Lots of them. If you find yourself frustrated and upset because of slow traffic, ask why. Why is slow traffic bad? What bad result will there be? Will the delay in your plans cause some serious loss - or merely inconvenience? Is the consequence of slow traffic worth the degree of your frustration?
Looked at another way; Why shouldn't the traffic be slow? Suppose you are on Decatur St. in the French Quarter on a Saturday afternoon. Its full of tourists (thanks goodness) and cars inch along. The traffic should be slow and its irrational to think it should not be. Much of our upset feelings result from irrational thinking. "Should" and "ought to" cause more problems than they solve.
Back to critical thinking. First we need to distinguish between thinking and feeling and know when we are doing the one and not the other. We need to recognize the difference between emotion and reason. Then, when we are using our brains to think - we need to do it critically.
I've seen people who were very good problem solvers. People with good analytical skills who could reason through a problem to a logical conclusion. Then I've seen those same people become upset at getting a traffic ticket when they knowingly parked in a "no parking" area.
OK, its a little example - not a big deal. But if you extrapolate from that to buying a car it gets expensive. It would be a shame to check the odometer, ask good questions, weigh and test the answers and then decide based on the color of the car.
Here's a dictionary defination of critical thinking: "the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion"
We need to engage in critical thinking in order to avoid being fooled by those who would sell us an object or an idea. I hear people making decisions based on emotion instead of reason. We make decisions based on how we feel about something or someone instead of what we think. We substitute feeling for thinking and often don't realize it.
The trick is to ask questions. Lots of them. If you find yourself frustrated and upset because of slow traffic, ask why. Why is slow traffic bad? What bad result will there be? Will the delay in your plans cause some serious loss - or merely inconvenience? Is the consequence of slow traffic worth the degree of your frustration?
Looked at another way; Why shouldn't the traffic be slow? Suppose you are on Decatur St. in the French Quarter on a Saturday afternoon. Its full of tourists (thanks goodness) and cars inch along. The traffic should be slow and its irrational to think it should not be. Much of our upset feelings result from irrational thinking. "Should" and "ought to" cause more problems than they solve.
Back to critical thinking. First we need to distinguish between thinking and feeling and know when we are doing the one and not the other. We need to recognize the difference between emotion and reason. Then, when we are using our brains to think - we need to do it critically.
I've seen people who were very good problem solvers. People with good analytical skills who could reason through a problem to a logical conclusion. Then I've seen those same people become upset at getting a traffic ticket when they knowingly parked in a "no parking" area.
OK, its a little example - not a big deal. But if you extrapolate from that to buying a car it gets expensive. It would be a shame to check the odometer, ask good questions, weigh and test the answers and then decide based on the color of the car.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Political Sunday
I missed posting yesterday. Somehow, that day just slid from Friday to Sunday and I barely noticed. Too bad - I really do like Saturdays.
I've been thinking about the presidential election again. (I'm such a political junkie.) At this point it looks like a Democrat will win the White House. Here's a scenario for you to consider:
President: Obama or Edwards
V.P.: Richardson (he has loads of relevant experience )
Sect'y of State: Joe Biden
Sect'y of Defense: Wesley Clark
I'm assuming Biden's senate seat is safe. It wouldn't do to loose a senate seat in populating the cabinet.
You may notice the absence of the name Clinton anywhere. She's young enough to wait to graduate from the Senate and she is doing a good job there. Bill is doing fine as is. I don't much like the air of inevitability about her and don't want to see it rewarded.
If Obama looses he can stay in the Senate. If Edwards looses he would make a fine Sect'y of HHS. He has the most detailed and well thought out health care plan of any candidate.
Locally, I heard that John Breaux is considering a run for Governor. He may be Louisiana's most talented politician and he has impeccable credentials in Washington, with both parties. He'd be a formidable candidate. His experience is all legislative and not executive, but I still think he'd be a strong governor and a big asset in N.O. recovery.
I've been thinking about the presidential election again. (I'm such a political junkie.) At this point it looks like a Democrat will win the White House. Here's a scenario for you to consider:
President: Obama or Edwards
V.P.: Richardson (he has loads of relevant experience )
Sect'y of State: Joe Biden
Sect'y of Defense: Wesley Clark
I'm assuming Biden's senate seat is safe. It wouldn't do to loose a senate seat in populating the cabinet.
You may notice the absence of the name Clinton anywhere. She's young enough to wait to graduate from the Senate and she is doing a good job there. Bill is doing fine as is. I don't much like the air of inevitability about her and don't want to see it rewarded.
If Obama looses he can stay in the Senate. If Edwards looses he would make a fine Sect'y of HHS. He has the most detailed and well thought out health care plan of any candidate.
Locally, I heard that John Breaux is considering a run for Governor. He may be Louisiana's most talented politician and he has impeccable credentials in Washington, with both parties. He'd be a formidable candidate. His experience is all legislative and not executive, but I still think he'd be a strong governor and a big asset in N.O. recovery.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Incompetence and Sloppy Thinking
While giving a visitor a tour of the city yesterday I was reminded of how abandoned we have been by the federal government. I'd gotten used to seeing the many signs of Katrina but those signs could have been erased by now. Our recovery could have started promptly and been moving along rapidly. I suspect some of the delay is intentional by people who don't want poor blacks to return or who disapprove of our loose ways. I think most of it is a result of politics and incompetence. Politically, we are the victims of a perfect trifecta of failure - federal, state and city. The incompetence of the federal storm response is staggering but not surprising in light of the federal conduct of the war in Iraq or the care of wounded veterans. The Bush administration seems so fixated on political imagery and ideology that the simple pragmatism of getting the job done takes a back seat.......way back.
They have gotten away with a lot because of a lack of critical thinking on the part of the public. I'm going to return to that term, critical thinking, in the next few days. For now I want to point out that we think with words. If our language is sloppy our thinking will be too. For instance, I hear (and I confess, use) the word, "awesome" applied to everything from tennis shoes to tacos.
Here is the dictionary definition of the word, awe: "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God; in awe of great political figures."
If you find a hamburger awesome, what word do you use to describe your reaction to a great work of art? You wouldn't put a hamburger in the same category as God.
When we hear Mr Bush tell us something such as "Stay the course." we need to think critically about it. We need to ask what that means, and why. We need to think analytically and clearly. If our language and thinking are more precise, we will arrive at more accurate conclusions.
Not much is truly awesome.
They have gotten away with a lot because of a lack of critical thinking on the part of the public. I'm going to return to that term, critical thinking, in the next few days. For now I want to point out that we think with words. If our language is sloppy our thinking will be too. For instance, I hear (and I confess, use) the word, "awesome" applied to everything from tennis shoes to tacos.
Here is the dictionary definition of the word, awe: "an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God; in awe of great political figures."
If you find a hamburger awesome, what word do you use to describe your reaction to a great work of art? You wouldn't put a hamburger in the same category as God.
When we hear Mr Bush tell us something such as "Stay the course." we need to think critically about it. We need to ask what that means, and why. We need to think analytically and clearly. If our language and thinking are more precise, we will arrive at more accurate conclusions.
Not much is truly awesome.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Guardian Angels
Last night at the shop Western Regional Director Robert McClintick and another Guardian Angel came to speak. (http://www.guardianangels.org/) There was a good turn out and a lot of support expressed. They are recruiting and training local folks and you can make contact with them through the shop. Any age or gender is welcome and there are lots of ways to be involved - not just street patrol.
The street outside my shop looks so peaceful. Its hard to see it as a potential crime scene, but it has to be thought of that way. Right now birds are feasting in the feeder hung in the pear tree and dog owners are strolling up and down the street, exercising their pets. Its a warm and lazy afternoon. The Guardian Angels will make their unique contribution to maintaining our streets as safe places to loaf on warm and lazy afternoons.........and to walk on without fear at any hour. Should there be an incident that the NOPD can't get to, they are well trained and effective.
The street outside my shop looks so peaceful. Its hard to see it as a potential crime scene, but it has to be thought of that way. Right now birds are feasting in the feeder hung in the pear tree and dog owners are strolling up and down the street, exercising their pets. Its a warm and lazy afternoon. The Guardian Angels will make their unique contribution to maintaining our streets as safe places to loaf on warm and lazy afternoons.........and to walk on without fear at any hour. Should there be an incident that the NOPD can't get to, they are well trained and effective.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Julio Gallo - Larry, Mo and Curley
Julio Gallo has died. My hero. Hearty Burgundy was a cheap and well made wine on which I floated through college. Thunderbird came along on every picnic and tubing trip. My board game, Risk, had red Gallo wine stains on it and so did a lot of my clothes in those days.
Then it was wine stained Risk boards - now its the very real Risk of our country being run by Larry, Mo, and Curley.
Tom Friedman points out that, from the start, the Bush team has tried to keep the Iraq war “off the books” both financially and emotionally. As Larry Diamond of Stanford’s Hoover Institution said: “America is not at war. The U.S. Army is at war.” The rest of us are just watching, or just ignoring, while the whole fight is carried on by 150,000 soldiers and their families."
In an interview last Jan. 16, Jim Lehrer asked President Bush why, if the war on terrorism was so overwhelmingly important, he had never asked more Americans “to sacrifice something.” Mr. Bush gave the most unbelievable answer: “Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.” Sacrifice peace of mind watching TV? What kind of crazy thing is that to say?
Leadership is about enabling and inspiring people to contribute in time of war so the enemy has to fight all of us — not insulating the public so the enemy has to fight only a few of us.
Then it was wine stained Risk boards - now its the very real Risk of our country being run by Larry, Mo, and Curley.
Tom Friedman points out that, from the start, the Bush team has tried to keep the Iraq war “off the books” both financially and emotionally. As Larry Diamond of Stanford’s Hoover Institution said: “America is not at war. The U.S. Army is at war.” The rest of us are just watching, or just ignoring, while the whole fight is carried on by 150,000 soldiers and their families."
In an interview last Jan. 16, Jim Lehrer asked President Bush why, if the war on terrorism was so overwhelmingly important, he had never asked more Americans “to sacrifice something.” Mr. Bush gave the most unbelievable answer: “Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.” Sacrifice peace of mind watching TV? What kind of crazy thing is that to say?
Leadership is about enabling and inspiring people to contribute in time of war so the enemy has to fight all of us — not insulating the public so the enemy has to fight only a few of us.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Katrina and Walter Reed, Politics and Books
The contractor hired by the Bush administration to help with Katrina recovery was so incompetent it couldn't even deliver ice in the immediate aftermath of the storm. Surprise, surprise! Its the same outfit that has the contract for out patient services at Walter Reed. It was formed after Bush took office by former executives of Haliburten. How long will it take us to be free from these evil men?
There are a couple of new programs at the shop. When there are enough people, I'll call a meeting. You could sign up for both if you like. I expect to meet at the shop on weekday evenings. Here's info on each:
THOSE WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT
I’m going to start an ongoing series of forums focused on the presidential race. I’m going to try to get someone to represent each candidate and I’ll moderate a regular discussion of the events of the race.
I see this as a way to get better informed and to hear a variety of opinions and viewpoints. I expect there would be a lively and entertaining discussion as well.
If you’re interested, leave word with the barista. Let me know how to contact you (email, phone or both) and if you have a candidate you particularly like, let me know that too. Please specify that it’s the political forum you’re interested in.
BOOK CLUB
I'm looking for a few people to start a book club. We could all read the same book, or we could pick a topic and each person would read something of his own choosing. We could expand it into a broader discussion group for movies, performances, etc. I'm currently reading, "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. What's your current or recent book choice?
If you're interested, please leave word with the barista. Let me know how to contact you (email, phone or both) and specify that its the book club you're interested in.
There are a couple of new programs at the shop. When there are enough people, I'll call a meeting. You could sign up for both if you like. I expect to meet at the shop on weekday evenings. Here's info on each:
THOSE WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT
I’m going to start an ongoing series of forums focused on the presidential race. I’m going to try to get someone to represent each candidate and I’ll moderate a regular discussion of the events of the race.
I see this as a way to get better informed and to hear a variety of opinions and viewpoints. I expect there would be a lively and entertaining discussion as well.
If you’re interested, leave word with the barista. Let me know how to contact you (email, phone or both) and if you have a candidate you particularly like, let me know that too. Please specify that it’s the political forum you’re interested in.
BOOK CLUB
I'm looking for a few people to start a book club. We could all read the same book, or we could pick a topic and each person would read something of his own choosing. We could expand it into a broader discussion group for movies, performances, etc. I'm currently reading, "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward. What's your current or recent book choice?
If you're interested, please leave word with the barista. Let me know how to contact you (email, phone or both) and specify that its the book club you're interested in.
Monday, March 5, 2007
The failure of Ms. Clinton
I'm so disappointed in Hillary. The questions about her Iraq war vote have not gone away because she has not answered.
The issue is not that Mrs. Clinton voted for the war authorization in 2002 or that she refuses to call it a mistake in 2007. Those are footnotes. The larger issue is judgment, then and now. Take her most persistent current formulation on Iraq: “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.” It’s fair to ask: Knew what then? Not everyone was so easily misled by the White House’s manipulated intelligence and propaganda campaign. Some of her fellow leaders in Washington — not just Mr. Obama out in Illinois, not just Al Gore out of power — knew plenty in the fall of 2002. Why didn’t she? Bob Graham, then Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, was publicly and privately questioning the W.M.D. intelligence. So was Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Hagel warned that the war was understaffed, that an Iraq distraction might cause Afghanistan “to go down again” and that the toppling of Saddam could be followed by chaos. Joe Biden convened hearings to warn of the perils of an ill-planned post-Saddam Iraq.Some of these politicians ended up voting to authorize war exactly as Mrs. Clinton did (Senators Hagel and Biden). Some didn’t. But all of them — and there were others as well — asked tougher questions and exerted more leadership. John Edwards, by the way, did not: he was as trigger-happy about speeding up the war authorization then (“The time has come for decisive action”) as he is gung-ho about withdrawal now, despite being an Intelligence Committee member when Mr. Graham sounded alarms about the Bush administration’s W.M.D. claims. Another fair question is what Mrs. Clinton learned once the war began. Even in the summer of 2003 — after the insurgency had started, after the W.M.D. had failed to materialize, after the White House had retracted the president’s 16 words about “uranium from Africa,” more than two months after “Mission Accomplished” had failed to end major combat operations — she phoned a reporter at The Daily News, James Gordon Meek, to reiterate that she still had no second thoughts about the war. (Mr. Meek first wrote about this July 14, 2003, conversation in December 2005.) Was that what this smart woman really believed then, or political calculation? Either way, she made a judgment, and she will not be able to spend month after month explaining it away to voters with glib, lawyerly statements.
The issue is not that Mrs. Clinton voted for the war authorization in 2002 or that she refuses to call it a mistake in 2007. Those are footnotes. The larger issue is judgment, then and now. Take her most persistent current formulation on Iraq: “Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn’t have been a vote and I certainly wouldn’t have voted that way.” It’s fair to ask: Knew what then? Not everyone was so easily misled by the White House’s manipulated intelligence and propaganda campaign. Some of her fellow leaders in Washington — not just Mr. Obama out in Illinois, not just Al Gore out of power — knew plenty in the fall of 2002. Why didn’t she? Bob Graham, then Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, was publicly and privately questioning the W.M.D. intelligence. So was Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Hagel warned that the war was understaffed, that an Iraq distraction might cause Afghanistan “to go down again” and that the toppling of Saddam could be followed by chaos. Joe Biden convened hearings to warn of the perils of an ill-planned post-Saddam Iraq.Some of these politicians ended up voting to authorize war exactly as Mrs. Clinton did (Senators Hagel and Biden). Some didn’t. But all of them — and there were others as well — asked tougher questions and exerted more leadership. John Edwards, by the way, did not: he was as trigger-happy about speeding up the war authorization then (“The time has come for decisive action”) as he is gung-ho about withdrawal now, despite being an Intelligence Committee member when Mr. Graham sounded alarms about the Bush administration’s W.M.D. claims. Another fair question is what Mrs. Clinton learned once the war began. Even in the summer of 2003 — after the insurgency had started, after the W.M.D. had failed to materialize, after the White House had retracted the president’s 16 words about “uranium from Africa,” more than two months after “Mission Accomplished” had failed to end major combat operations — she phoned a reporter at The Daily News, James Gordon Meek, to reiterate that she still had no second thoughts about the war. (Mr. Meek first wrote about this July 14, 2003, conversation in December 2005.) Was that what this smart woman really believed then, or political calculation? Either way, she made a judgment, and she will not be able to spend month after month explaining it away to voters with glib, lawyerly statements.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Eating borscht after the Ididerod
The great dog sled race, The Ididerod, runs from Anchorage, in south central Alaska, to Nome on the western Bering Sea coast. Each team of 12 to 16 dogs and their musher cover over 1150 miles in 10 to 17 days - over ice fields, glaciers and mountains in a vast wilderness. They arrive at the finish days apart and in the village of Nome, someone watches for the teams to arrive and rings a bell when they come into sight. Then the whole town turns out to welcome them. Day or night, the citizens of Nome stop what they are doing and flock to the finish line to cheer for every team. Just finishing this race is worth a hero's welcome. It starts today for 2007 and in 2004 I was there at the starting line.
There was amazing excitement generated by thousands of dogs barking and yelping and leaping forward in their harnesses and by men running around in the blowing snow trying to assemble their teams.
I stood in the cold, stamping my feet to keep warm huddled with the other spectators. If you scroll down you'll see a picture of one team rounding the corner on Cordova St, where I lived. There's another picture of a team leaping away from the starting line.
We bought Alaska from Russia and there is still a Russian influence there. When I finished watching the race I looked around and found a Russian Tea Room behind me. I went in and it was empty except for an elderly woman who spoke no English. I pointed and gestured and got a steaming bowl of borscht. (its a Russian soup made with beets, cabbage, potatoes, other vegetables and with sour cream) As I was eating the rest of her family came in from watching the Ididerod start up and they sat with me while I finished my soup. I returned to visit the family and eat borscht off and on for the rest of my year in Alaska.
There was amazing excitement generated by thousands of dogs barking and yelping and leaping forward in their harnesses and by men running around in the blowing snow trying to assemble their teams.
I stood in the cold, stamping my feet to keep warm huddled with the other spectators. If you scroll down you'll see a picture of one team rounding the corner on Cordova St, where I lived. There's another picture of a team leaping away from the starting line.
We bought Alaska from Russia and there is still a Russian influence there. When I finished watching the race I looked around and found a Russian Tea Room behind me. I went in and it was empty except for an elderly woman who spoke no English. I pointed and gestured and got a steaming bowl of borscht. (its a Russian soup made with beets, cabbage, potatoes, other vegetables and with sour cream) As I was eating the rest of her family came in from watching the Ididerod start up and they sat with me while I finished my soup. I returned to visit the family and eat borscht off and on for the rest of my year in Alaska.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Tourists and Public Safety
There are two new events coming soon at the shop.
First is a public forum to gather information to support the development of a real and virtual tourism product in the downtown neighborhoods. You can be a part of this exciting project to put us on the tourist map without being over-run by tourists. Its from 6:30pm to 8:00pm TOMORROW, Sunday March 4th.
Second, is a meet and greet with the Guardian Angels (http://www.guardianangels.org/). They are now walking our neighborhoods in their red berets. Come to the shop and meet them and find out their mission and what we can expect. Its at 6pm on Wednesday March 7th.
First is a public forum to gather information to support the development of a real and virtual tourism product in the downtown neighborhoods. You can be a part of this exciting project to put us on the tourist map without being over-run by tourists. Its from 6:30pm to 8:00pm TOMORROW, Sunday March 4th.
Second, is a meet and greet with the Guardian Angels (http://www.guardianangels.org/). They are now walking our neighborhoods in their red berets. Come to the shop and meet them and find out their mission and what we can expect. Its at 6pm on Wednesday March 7th.
Friday, March 2, 2007
ooops!
The post I wrote for today wound up under the one from yesterday. The next post down is "Dowd, Snow & Gore" and its the one that's supposed to be for today. I don't see a way to move it up so its out of order.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Guardian Angels
We have the usual NOPD, the State Police, the National Guard, and now the Guardian Angels. Our problems with crime are hard to even think about. Where do you start? So much contributes to our dire crime problem. In some ways New Orleans had slid into being a rude city before Katrina. Service in some parts of town was negligent to missing. Unless you are a tourist or only go into upscale stores and shops, you are confronted with rudeness. Traffic and general civic behavior is rude. I think its a low level symptom of the syndrome that breeds crime. I'm not sure quite what the Guardian Angles do but I plan to find out and report back here.
I see teams of two walking around the coffee shop. Right after the public outrage over the murder of Helen Hill, the NOPD was told to get out of their cars and on foot in the neighborhood. That didn't last long. Soon they were back in their cars. Now we have these folks in their red berets and they are walking the streets. The only thing I've heard about them was very positive. They came across a drug deal and stuck with the dealers while calling the cops.
I have the idea that they are helpful and do coordinate with local police. I hope so. We need something to get the crime under control and maybe they can help.
I see teams of two walking around the coffee shop. Right after the public outrage over the murder of Helen Hill, the NOPD was told to get out of their cars and on foot in the neighborhood. That didn't last long. Soon they were back in their cars. Now we have these folks in their red berets and they are walking the streets. The only thing I've heard about them was very positive. They came across a drug deal and stuck with the dealers while calling the cops.
I have the idea that they are helpful and do coordinate with local police. I hope so. We need something to get the crime under control and maybe they can help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
