Political Rantings
Predicting the Disaster
Wednesday, September 7th, 2005Here’s an absoultely astounding article (Hat tip to Steve Walsh) about what “might” happen to New Orleans if a large hurricane hit it. The article was written in October of 2001:
The boxes are stacked eight feet high and line the walls of the large, windowless room. Inside them are new body bags, 10,000 in all. If a big, slow-moving hurricane crossed the Gulf of Mexico on the right track, it would drive a sea surge that would drown New Orleans under 20 feet of water. “As the water recedes,” says Walter Maestri, a local emergency management director, “we expect to find a lot of dead bodies.”
Chilling…
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on Predicting the Disaster
Blame Bush First
Saturday, September 3rd, 2005This is not about George W. Bush or his policies. This is about how people respond to a major hurricane and devastating flood. Before I continue, a quick note to those who think the first two sentences are bullshit: This is not about George W. Bush or his policies. This is about how people respond to a major hurricane and devastating flood. If you still don’t believe me, do us both a favor and stop reading now.
What’s going on in New Orleans right now is terrible on dozens of different levels. Just to name a few:
- Atlantic hurricanes have been growing in strength for the last 30 years, and are expected to continue growing for the next 20-30.
- One of these huge hurricanes made landfall in several populated areas on the Gulf Coast, including a major city that is below sea level.
- That city had no practical plan for evacuating all of its citizens in case of emergency, particularly for those who were most in need of help.
- The infrastructure designed to keep the city from flooding was deemed inadequate forty years ago, and no one has done enough about it to this day.
- The various local, state, and federal agencies that typically provide help in these situations appear disorganized, ineffective, and slow.
- Some of the victims are hampering the efforts of the few rescuers that are there by doing things like firing guns at supply helicopters, robbing crippled hospitals at gunpoint, burning down buildings and then shooting at the firemen, and raping women in temporary shelter facilities.
With all this going on, I have noticed a predominant theme in the news coverage, blogging, political speeches and victims’ statements thus far: President Bush is to blame. For everything. He is an incompetent, uncaring, racist, Jesus freak and he is personally responsible for all that has happened. New Orleans will be “his Waterloo.”
This concerns me greatly.
First of all, much of what we’re talking about here are long-term problems that have been ignored by local, state, and federal government officials for decades. Global warming, for instance, which some say has increased the temperature of the ocean and increased the strength of hurricanes, has been a political football for more than twenty years. The disrepair of the New Orleans levee system was first identified in 1965. New Orleans has had decades to formulate an evacuation plan, and had several days of warning before Katrina made landfall to put it into action. Nonetheless, global warming is Bush’s fault because he didn’t sign the Kyoto accords, the levee system is Bush’s fault because he cut funding for the latest round of levee rebuilding, and the people trapped in New Orleans right now are Bush’s fault because he layered FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security and nominated an old college buddy to run it.
Now, lest you start doubting the first two sentences of this post again, allow me to be clear: Bush bears some responsibility for each of these things. But he doesn’t deserve sole responsibility. Many who have come before him, and many who are in leadership positions right now, should be held accountable as well. But commenters of every stripe have been focusing on the president.
When Hurricane Andrew ripped through Florida in 1992, FEMA was harshly criticized for its response, some people were scorned for scamming helpless victims, and the insurance companies were absolutely crucified (we haven’t even reached that point with Katrina yet). Through it all, though, I have no memory of people lambasting Bill Clinton. Yes, the buck stops with the president, but the problems people were having were directly related to the actions of others, and it was those people who bore the brunt of the criticism (justified or otherwise).
So what has changed? Why the need to pin everything and anything on George W. Bush? To be honest, I think there’s an unbelievable hatred for the man. I think it began with the 2000 election, strengthened through 9/11 and the War on Terrorism, and crested mightily with the invasion of Iraq. Those who hate him do so with such a white-hot passion that they cannot possibly believe themselves to be in the minority. They cannot accept that any sane person would not hate him, nor are they willing to believe that he is responsible for anything positive in the world (or, as is the case here, not responsible for anything negative).
These are the people that some have referred to as the “Blame America First” crowd. Now that the bad news is a domestic, natural disaster rather than a foreign policy question, it occurs to me that they are actually the “Blame Bush First” crowd.
This is a bad sign for our country. Much as Watergate lifted the “nod and wink” attitude of the press and the public that John F. Kennedy enjoyed, this willingness to “Blame <whoever the president happens to be> First” threatens to poison our national dialogue for years to come. We’re stripping away yet another layer of logical debate and respect for our leaders, and we’re doing it in a world where our internal squabbles are increasing played out on the world stage.
This is a great country. It’s one of a very few in the world where one can criticize the leadership freely, publicly and without fear of retribution. There was a time where this gave us a great sense of pride and freedom in our nation. Over the past decade or so (one could argue that this attitude began with Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky), this right we hold so dear has been hijacked and used to make us feel less free, less secure, and less invested in seeing our government and our nation succeed.
The President, whoever he/she may be, will always have enemies. If those enemies feel free to indiscrimately paint him/her as the cause for all evil and strife in the world, we will all suffer the consequences. We absolutely must find a way to hold the president accountable for his/her mistakes, without clouding the argument with hyperbole that serves only to heap more shit on the pile in hopes that it will increase the stink.
God Bless America. God Bless the people of New Orleans. And yes, dammit, God Bless the President of the United States.
Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »
The Five Hour Immigration Window
Wednesday, August 24th, 2005As that guy on Everybody Loves Raymond used to say, “Holy Crap!” How come I didn’t hear about this when it happened?
A virus caused the U.S. Customs computer system used to process passengers arriving on international flights to shut down for several hours Thursday [August 18th], leaving long lines of impatient travelers, officials said.
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said the virus impacted computer systems at a number of airports, including those in New York, San Francisco, Miami, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas and Laredo, Texas.
The worst delays appeared to be at Miami International Airport, where as many as 2,000 people waited to clear immigration, airport spokesman Marc Henderson said.
At New York’s airports, customs officials processed passengers by hand during the shutdown. In Los Angeles, they used backup computer systems to keep passengers moving.
I can see the future news article now: “The terrorists entered the country by shutting down the immigration computers last August, and then using the confusion and lack of access to centrally stored no-fly lists to sneak through customs undetected. At the time, officials believed the shutdown was due to an otherwise harmless computer virus.”
Shudder…
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on The Five Hour Immigration Window
An Endorsement for Iraqi Stability
Tuesday, August 9th, 2005It seems ICANN is feeling better about Iraq. At least that’s something…
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on An Endorsement for Iraqi Stability
Every Breath You Take…I’ll be Watching You
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2005The DHS, DOD, DOE, EPA and NOAA are conducting an “Urban Dispersion Program,” that studies how air flows in a city envrionment.
The second of three field studies start this weekend, and will involve equipment in the form of large briefcases or file boxes, and wind monitoring devices that look like TV antennas scattered throughout midtown. The devices will be labeled as test equipment, and they’ll also be using unmarked vans as mobile measurement labs.
This is a great example of the stuff you do when you’re in charge of the problem, rather than simply commenting on those who are in charge. I’m sure there are a small number of people complaining about privacy invasion now, and a larger number will surface with charges of “promoting a culture of fear” in 2007, when the study is done and they make recommendations about how to improve the safety of the air we breathe.
Categories: New York, New York, Political Rantings | 3 Comments »
Checking in with Bag Checking
Saturday, July 30th, 2005Last week, the New York City subway system announced it would be randomly checking passenger bags. With much less press coverage, New Jersey Transit and the Port Authority PATH lines are now doing the same thing (I don’t know whhat the other major lines that run into/out of Penn Station – LIRR, Metro North, and Amtrak) are doing. If any regular riders are reading this, drop a comment & let me know – I’m curious.
At any rate, questions, questions, questions:
1) Leaving aside the old, worn-out argument about profiling, I’m curious whether the police are looking for people with suspicious bags or suspicious looking people. They’ve really been very quiet about what they’re looking for, other than the whole “we’re going to be fair” line.
2) They’ve said repeatedly that anyone who doesn’t want to have their bags checked will not be permitted on the train. Two questions here: a) Does that mean that once you’re on the train, you’re safe from inspection? Or if you refuse, do they just escort you off at the next stop? If that’s the case, it would seem an excellent opportunity for someone who wished to commit a terrorist act, and b) if the checks are random, and you can walk away if you’re picked, can’t you just wait a few minutes & walk in again? If the cop on duty starts to recognize you, you could always go in through a different entrance, or a different station. Either way, it seems like a gaping hole in the system.
3) If they do look in my bag, what are they looking for? Let’s say I’m carrying a knife in my bag. It’s not illegal to carry a knife, nor is there any rule (that I’m aware of, anyway) that prohibits carrying knives on the subway. So if they find the knife, do they let me on? What if I’m carrying an explosive device (say I’m a chemist or scientist of some kind, or perhaps I work on special effects for movies or TV)? Again, as far as I know, there is no law against carrying an explosive device on the subway (assuming, of course, you don’t set it off). So what’s the verdict? Confiscate or not? At least with the airlines, they give you a list of what you can’t bring on board…
Any thoughts, anybody?
Categories: New York, New York, Political Rantings | Comments Off on Checking in with Bag Checking
What Prevents Crime?
Thursday, July 14th, 2005Jeff Porten, guestblogger on John Scalzi’s Whatever blog this month, posted this about the security cameras in London and their inability to stop the London bombing, touching off an interesting discussion in the comments thread about security versus privacy.
This got me thinking: What prevents crime? Local, State, and Federal governments all around the world have tried various strategies, and many megabytes have been archived over whether or not those strategies are effective and/or worth it. I think it’s best broken down this way:
What Prevents Crime?
Social Convention Prevents Crime
This is the easy one. Most of us are not criminals. Period. (Note to all the bigots of the world: replace “of us” with your least favorite group and the sentence still rings true. Some examples: Most Arabs are not criminals. Most Muslims are not criminals. Most Jews are not criminals. See how easy it is? Fun for the whole family…) At any rate, the fact remains that 99.999% of the people in the world wouldn’t dream of killing another human being, even if they were guaranteed they could get away with it. Heck – a significant percentage of us would stop at a red light on a rural road at 2AM, even if we could see with our own eyes that no one was coming for miles in both directions. Call it habit, call it conscience. Some even call it religion. Whatever you call it, the fact remains that most of us are good people.
So that leaves us with the criminals.
Law Enforcement Prevents Crime
Crooks hate being watched, plain and simple. The New York Police Department’s uniformed headcount increased 42 percent to 40,300 between 1992 and 2000 (that’s one officer for every 7 recorded crimes). In the same period, crime fell by 54 percent. In London, uniformed headcount dropped 10 percent over the same period (one officer for every 41 recorded crimes) and crime increased by 12 percent. [Source]. “John H”, a Whatever commenter, relates similar anecdotes about Chicago in recent years (no direct link – scroll down to Comment #9).
Skeptics will point to other factors that reduce crime (economic growth, community action programs, etc.) and point out horrible stories about crimes committed by cops, crimes that happened while police were on patrol, or crimes committed in the presence of surveillance equipment. While the other factors may also be at play (no one’s saying law enforcement is the only way to prevent crime), the stories are nothing more than anecdotes designed to cloud the big picture.
OK, here’s where it gets really sticky:
The Appearance of Law Enforcement Prevents Crime
If you’re cruising down the highway and a cop pulls up behind you, you slow down. The cruise control could be pegged at the speed limit, but when you see the police car in your rearview mirror, your foot hits the brake. That’s all well and good, but here’s the fascinating part: people also slow down if the cops just park one of their empty police cars on the side of the road. They slow down when they pass an electronic sign that displays their speed and asks them to slow down. They even slow down when they pass a sign that says “Speed monitored by helicopter.” In some cases, the suggestion that someone might be watching can be as powerful as someone actually being there.
Here’s a more haunting example: When the 9/11 hijackers met in Spain, they decided against attacking a nuclear facility in New York, because they assumed the airspace around it would be restricted, increasing the likelihood that the plane would be shot down before impact. [Source: 9/11 Commission Report, Page 245] It wasn’t the security that dissuaded them, it was the assumption that security would exist.
This is also the theory behind the random passenger checks at airports. Jeff slams the TSA in another post for letting loads of people through security with cigarette lighters, calling their security “just for show.” I would argue that this is precisely the point: the TSA can’t possibly hope to identify and confiscate every possible weapon a person may carry on the plane. But by making a very public display about confiscating nail clippers, cigarette lighters, scissors, etc., they hope to dissuade a criminal from attempting to board with a weapon, simply because that criminal might assume that he/she is likely to get caught. If this is indeed the case, missing a few lighters doesn’t matter at all. The “show” is helping to increase security every bit as much as the act itself.
A final thought: in the time between Jeff’s original post and today, the security cameras in London did in fact help the investigation. What now appears to be four suicide bombers were seen on camera meeting just before the attacks and then entering the various train stations, etc. Obviously, the idea that they were being watched didn’t dissuade these terrorists from acting. Hopefully, though, the fact that these guys were found and identified within 72 hours of the attacks makes the next terrorist scrap his plan.
Of course, if that’s the case, we’ll never know…
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on What Prevents Crime?
SCOTUS Interruptus
Saturday, July 2nd, 2005It seems Sandra Day O’Connor shocked everyone today by retiring from the Supreme Court. I am no expert on the Supreme Court, but since blogs serve, among other things, as a kind of public record, allow me to put a few predictions down on pap…well, on silicon:
In the next 6-8 weeks:
1) No one will give two hoots about whether John Bolton is confirmed as UN Ambassador or not.
2) As this heats up, the news will be all-consumed by it. Based on what we read and see, we will safely be able to conclude that no one’s looking for that girl in Aruba anymore, people have magically stopped dying in Iraq, and Social Security has magically healed itself.
3) The Democrats will be shocked – outraged even – at Bush’s nominee, regardless of who it is.
4) The Republicans will be shocked – outraged even – at the Democrats’ reaction to the nomination.
5) Everytime a Democrat says something negative about the nominee, some Republican somewhere will use the word “filibuster” or the words “up or down vote.”
6) Before we’re done, the nominee will endure at least two scandals. There will be at least one “major” scandal, which will turn out to contain just enough shades of truth to keep it alive, but will have been twisted into something much larger than it ought to be. There will also be at least one “minor” scandal, which will be absolutely true but completely irrelevant, and it will be brought up every time someone tries to poke a hole in the “major” scandal.
7) There won’t be a single news story written or spoken about this topic that doesn’t include the word “abortion.”
OK, so we’ve got a checklist set to go. Pencils ready? Begin…
[This essay is part of The Red and the Blue discussion: Supreme Court/Independence Day.]
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on SCOTUS Interruptus
Balancing the Scales: An Example of Bad Reporting
Wednesday, June 29th, 2005Following up on my post about good, balanced reporting from Reuters, here’s an article on the same topic from the New York Times (via Jeff Jarvis). The title, “Some Iraqis Optimistic About Sovereignty,” is encouraging. But then we begin to read:
Paragraph 1:
“When [an Iraqi butcher was] asked what he thought about life in Iraq . . . he responded with a blast of invective as heated as the sunbaked sidewalks [of] Baghdad.”
Paragraph 2:
“What sovereignty are you talking about? How can you even call it sovereignty? We have thousands of occupation troops in this country and you talk about sovereignty? Enough! Iraq is nothing but an American base.”
Paragraph 4:
“Both of those governments have been rubbish. How can you call them governments when they were imposed from abroad? Those governments and their ministers are just puppets. They are all spies, for Iran and the Kurds. I tell you, Saddam did the right thing when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds.”
Paragraph 7:
“[A New York Times survey] turned up plenty of people who bridled over the issues that have eroded support for the American presence in Iraq, from the relentless violence to doubts about the degree of authority vested in Iraqi ministers to faltering supplies of electricity and water and woeful inadequacies in hospitals and schools. There were many, too, especially among Sunni Arabs, who favored a withdrawal of American troops and the resumption of authority by an Iraqi government that is not dependent on foreign troops.”
Perhaps they had the wrong title? Ah wait, here it is. In Paragraph 8:
“But perhaps more striking, considering the huge gap between the hopes stirred when American troops captured Baghdad in April 2003 and the grim realities now, were the number of Iraqis who expressed a more patient view. Among those people, the disappointments and privations have been offset by an appreciation of both the progress toward supplanting the dictatorship of Mr. Hussein with a nascent democratic system and the need for American troops to remain here in sufficient numbers to allow the system to mature.”
The article goes on to quote several folks who strike a very similar tone to those in the Reuters article – we want the Americans to leave, but we’re grateful for what they did and understand why they’re still here. Things aren’t perfect, but they’re improving. etc.
It’s a lesson in strawmen:
Step 1: Take a survey and get surprising results.
Step 2: Interview a somewhat hysterical person (Saddam did the right thing when he gassed the Kurds? Please…) to imply that he represents the norm.
Step 3: Give the results of the survey, and characterize them as a gap between the picture you just painted and what the survey actually shows.
I guess it’s better than just lying about it.
But not much…
Categories: News and/or Media, Political Rantings | Comments Off on Balancing the Scales: An Example of Bad Reporting
An Example of Good Reporting
Wednesday, June 29th, 2005I was impressed by this Reuters article on the President’s speech last night:
Many Iraqis in the capital, weary after more than two years of bloodshed and economic dislocation, view U.S. troops with a degree of mistrust but also as a bulwark against sectarian violence they fear might trigger civil war if they left.
Grateful, in the main, for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, many are dismayed by what they see as heavy-handed tactics and a failure by the U.S. occupiers to prevent Iraq becoming a new haven for foreign Islamists in the chaos that followed Saddam.
It goes on to quote several Iraqi citizens, all of whom have either rational criticisms of the U.S. (“They didn’t come to Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people. Their aim was to deflect terrorism from their own country.”) or show a degree of understanding about our purpose there (“Bush and America decided to help the Iraqi people and that is in our interest.”)
It also discusses the insurgency in terms of the violence it’s causing (“Violence has worsened sharply in Iraq since the Shi’ite- and Kurd-led government took power two months ago”), as well as the political effect it’s having (“[A] Sunni leader. . . launched a new political movement, saying he aimed to give a voice to figures from the ‘legitimate Iraqi resistance.’).
All of the hysteria I’ve read on both sides (“The war is a total failure” vs. “the media doesn’t cover things fairly”) lead me to believe that this article probably reflects the actual tone of what’s going on out there, and suggests that the author has no personal or political axe to grind.
I hope to see more like it…
Categories: News and/or Media, Political Rantings | Comments Off on An Example of Good Reporting