New Orleans and Barely Disguised Glee

One of POD's favorite correspondents has a number of well meaning, but frankly rather misguided, friends. And they send the POD's FC (FC) lots of strange e-mail. Many of these call for the Boycott of the Washington Post because it has refused to turn its self into the liberal version of Fox News, insisting on maintaining a proper degree of objectivity and tempering its very harsh negative comments of the administration with a degree of fairness. As I have noted before, this is why the Post is one of the most important and influential papers in the World. And, as the liberal agenda is the correct one and is supported by the facts, ultimately a fair and objective paper like the Post is going to help the liberal cause. Normally the best solution is to ignore these people, but this time he has far overstepped the line, and the POD wants him to know that he did. (Not that he reads, or is even aware of the POD, but if he is, I am more than happy to publish more of his comments...)

The FC's friend (with friends like these, your cause really doesn't need an enemy), recently blow up again at the post. This time at the editorial linked below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701943.html

He said:
Here again the Post fails to hold Bush for his most egregious failures - i.e., his lies. Also, note the throwaway criticism of "Bush's [unidentified] political opponents." Who the hell is acting with "barely disguised glee?"If the Post were not biased, if it were truly "fair and balanced," it would have demanded Bush's impeachment long ago. For those not convinced, I offer this question. Has the Post been as critical of Bush for his deadly cravenness, incompetence, and cupidity as it was of Bill Clinton for his sexual dalliances?

My comments:
The Post editorial is quite damming in its negative comments of Bush. Certainly it does not blame him (directly) for the Hurricane, but it calls him out on the carpet for real and substantial problems, while not specifically attacking him for rhetorical errors. And ultimately the rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. And while it may reflect the callous and unfeeling attitudes of the President, it is not conduct.

The editorial does, as it should, acknowledge that the blame should not only fall on Bush's doorstep. While certainly not acting as badly as the "fair and balanced" Fox News timeline of the disaster would suggest, it is clear that they local authorities are not blameless in this disaster.

But this is not the "real" problem with the FC's F's comments. The FC's F goes on to say "Who the hell is acting with 'barely disguised glee?" and suggests that this is a throwaway criticism of the Presidents opponents. Perhaps it is. But it is certainly fair. If the FC's F were to stand in front of the mirror, he would quickly see one of these very opponents of the President experiencing "barely disguised glee". He is enjoying the fact that the country has suffered another major disaster that has been aggravated by the conduct of the President.

And then we get to the heart of the problem. The equation of the President's conduct with impeachable conduct. Is Bush evil? Yes. Is Bush incompetent? Yes. Has he lied to the American People? Yes. Has he committed a high crime or misdemeanors even under the overbroad test used against Clinton? No. The tool of impeachment is very powerful and should never be used except under extraordinary circumstances. It is not a vote of "no confidence" of the type in parliamentary systems and should not be used as a "do over" when one party controls the legislature and the other the executive. The impeachment of Clinton was a very foolish action. It greatly expanded the standard for impeachable acts to include conduct which had nothing to do with being President. It has permanently damaged the Presidency by allowing almost any criminal act form the basis for impeachment. But my misguided liberal friends, now want to further expand the standard to include incompetence and making wrong decisions. And by doing so, no President would ever be safe from impeachment, and we would further descend into the anarchy and confusion of the parliamentary system with its votes of no confidence.

What we liberals should be doing is continuing to condemn the President for his conduct, work to help make the refugees feel accepted where they go (although, as noted the other day on wait wait don't tell me on NPR, you really can't call them refugees because they haven't had a place of refuge), and work toward changing the make up of the Next Congress. If we pull together, we can get control back of the House and Senate and the White House. And then we can have our internal fights over which personification of Bart Simpson is correct.
"

Looting? Part 2 of Hurricanes, Floods and Man's Inhumanity to Man

Its difficult to imagine the disaster that has befallen New Orleans. And although some very hard and legitimate questions may need to be asked down the road, this is not the time and place for these questions. That being said, some of the things that are going on need comment.

Looting:

Society is often judged by the way that it acts in a crises. And if this is the case, then at least a portion of the population in New Orleans has failed the test. The press reports are becoming clearer and clearer that the stores and businesses in New Orleans that survived Katarina are falling victim to looters. And it is also clear that at least some individuals are also taking advantage of the situation to resolve long standing disputes with the authorities.

Let's start with the Looters. In my mind the Looters break down into two categories -- the "Good" Looters and the "Bad" Looters. The "good" looters are those people who, for a wide variety of reasons, found themselves in New Orleans after the hurricane (whether or not they were to blame for being there is an issue for another day) and found themselves in life threatening conditions. They responded by looting what they needed for survival.. be it food or water. In such circumstances, I think most of us would have reacted in that fashion.

But the "Bad" looters took this to another level. They justified themselves with the "all crimes are the same" mentality of the mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing "guidelines" (ie Handcuffs). Once they saw the "good" looting, they moved on to the next step... the looting either for the "fun" of looting or the looting of items which have no applications for immediate survival (such as the Jewelry being taken in the French Quarter) . And once this barrier was broken, the rest of the societal rules went away.

But the worst are those who are robbing vehicles on the way to deliver supplies to hospitals and who are shooting at helicopters and other vehicles trying to evacuate others.

I really do not know what can be done. My viscera says, announce that people have 24 hours to get to any number of designated locations for evacuation and that anyone not at a location by that time will be considered to be an armed felon in the process of committing a dangerous crime with a firearm and liable to be shot. My brain says that this is wrong... but in my gut.....

The Astrodome? Prt 1 of Hurricanes, Floods and Man's Inhumanity to Man

Its difficult to imagine the disaster that has befallen New Orleans. And although some very hard and legitmate questions may need to be asked down the road, this is not the time and place for these questions. That being said, some of the things that are going on need comment.

Part I.. Superdome to the Astrodome?

Who in the heck is the moron behind this decision. It is crystal clear that people need to be gotten out of the Superdome as quickly as possible. From all reports, it is sheer hell. But why in the world would you want to bus them a long distance in order to put them into another stadium. The Astrodome has water and bathrooms. It has some temperature control It has the limited ability to serve food due to the closed concession stands (but what is left since it was mothballed). It has seats. It doesn't have recreation facilities, it doesn't have showers, and it has, at best, improvised beds. No one is thinking very well.

Consider:

There are still numerous summer camps and retreat centers all around the United States. Most of them closed for the year last week. Are they long term solutions? No. But they are superb short term solutions. They have beds, showers, bathrooms, recreation facilities, mess halls, electricity and water. They can hold in comfort until the cold weather some of the victims... and to the extent that they are in the South and/or are winterized, they can hold people for a much longer period of time. And many of these are run by churches or charitible or community organizations that would welcome a chance to serve. Up near me, for example, is George Williams College in Williams Bay Wisconsin. A very large facility run by the YMCA. It has a large number of "winterized" rooms and a even more non-winterized cabins. It has large and well equipped dining halls. It claims to hold 600 people and, no doubt, in an emergency, could hold more. But it shouldn't need to. There are numerous other retreat centers and camps all across the country that could hold thousands of people.

And once those are exhausted:

There are closed military bases all around the US that have not yet been placed into alternate uses and there are empty buildings at other bases and barracks. Send some of the overflow there.

And once those are exhausted:

There are various parts of the country that have "part time" or "seasonal" hotels. Many of these facilities have closed, or are closing in the next few days. They can be put into service.

In sum, there are lots of ways to solve the problem.