By William Fisher
The Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies’ report on the Egyptian elections says the mass media were generally biased toward the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) candidate. The performance of audio and visual mass media was different from state-owned and private mass media. State-owned newspapers, in particular daily newspapers, continued to be flagrantly biased toward the ruling party's candidate, as they were during the first week of the campaign, it said.
In the U.S., where media is not controlled by the State but is usually owned by large corporations, journalists and commentators appeared to divide neatly into two camps. One clung to the Bush Administration’s view that the election represented “a first step toward democracy.” The other was that the election and the process leading up to it was “a shameless sham” intended only to ensure the uninterrupted flow of aid funds from Washington to Cairo.
In a real democratic election, said the New York Times, “The ruling party should not be allowed to shape the election arrangements and intimidate voters. The candidates should be able to compete on a reasonably level playing field. Impartial observers should be welcome and given time to deploy themselves at polling places nationwide. Not one of these defining features was evident in last week's Egyptian presidential voting, whose main purpose was to usher President Hosni Mubarak into his fifth six-year term.”
The San Francisco Chronicle said, “In effect, the BBC's Cairo-based correspondent Fergus Nichol pointed out, alluding to influence from the Bush administration in preparing for this latest ‘democratic’ contest, Mubarak's regime had been ‘forced by outside pressure into an election it never wanted. ...’ As a result, Mubarak ‘set out not to adapt to change, but to control it, in the process drawing a new template for cynical election management’.”
The influential Washington Post wrote, “For the first time in Egyptian history, multiple candidates were allowed to stand in the election. And many assume
that credit is due the Bush administration for its persistent pleas for democracy in the Arab world. But the far more significant outcome of the presidential election is that over the last year, as Egyptians anxiously anticipated election day, a strong and significant opposition movement against Mubarak went public. And who is the backbone of this opposition movement? The Islamists. For the first time since the 1970s, thousands of Egyptians of all political and religious persuasions joined forces in street protests, demanding political reform and an end to the regime. While a fractured opposition had operated behind the scenes for years, this election inspired secularists, leftists and, most of all, Islamists to take the unprecedented step of coordinating their various campaigns against Mubarak's expected victory.”
And in the heartland of America, the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Journal-Sentinel wrote, “One in every four Arabs in the world is an Egyptian. Mainly because it is so huge, Egypt has traditionally been the most influential country in the Arab world, which, in turn, is why the slightly democratic election that was held in that country last week was an event to be saluted. ‘Slightly democratic’ is a term of faint praise, which is what President Hosni Mubarak deserves. The election he permitted - or acquiesced in - featured nine opposition candidates, and it allowed for the possibility, however remote, of a Mubarak defeat after 24 years in power.”
On America’s West Coast, the Los Angeles Times editorialized, “When Mubarak announced in late July that he would run in a real presidential campaign, it might have been a watershed moment for the United States. Egypt, its most stalwart Arab ally, was finally coming around to democracy. But then came events that undermined what seemed like a positive step: security forces cracking down on peaceful public protests; the government disqualifying 19 candidates without explanation; state-run press and TV openly stumping for Mubarak despite rules requiring them to be neutral. Mubarak also refused international monitors for the election, disregarding U.S. requests. The result was an election under the watchful eye of the state, with voters filling out ballots as Mubarak supporters peered over their shoulders. The turnout was 23%, with fewer than one in four registered voters casting a ballot.”
One of America’s more thoughtful liberal news-weeklies, The New Republic, said, “Last week, in the state controlled newspapers, the president offered a vague promise to expand civil liberties, though he stopped short of promising to release some of the thousands of political prisoners who have languished in jails for years under the Emergency Laws. The Muslim Brotherhood, which gained new stature and visibility during the campaign, has vowed to keep the pressure on the regime. ‘We want the abolishment of all the laws that limit the freedom of the Egyptian citizens’, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, supreme guide of the Brotherhood, told Newsweek. ‘We will not rest until the people of Egypt know what it is to live in a free society’. In the November parliamentary elections, analysts predict, the regime will almost certainly allow opposition parties to make substantial gains, though not enough to loosen the regime's hold on power. The question for the newly energized opposition--and for the youngbloods--is whether Egyptians will settle for that.”
USA Today, one of the country’s few national newspapers, wrote, “The government said the decision to allow challengers signals a move toward greater democracy in a country that has seen only authoritarian rule for more than a half-century. Opponents dismissed the reform claims as a sham, noting that Mubarak's party controls most of the government, including the election process, and that restrictions make it difficult for opponents to gain ground. The country's biggest Islamic group, the Muslim Brotherhood, is banned entirely.”
In Boston, the Globe newspaper wrote, “There should be no illusions about the authenticity of Wednesday's presidential election in Egypt. Even if reports of workers for President Hosni Mubarak's ruling party paying people to vote for him are unfounded, and even if objective monitors had been permitted at all 10,000 polling stations in Egypt, the exercise, with its foregone conclusion, would still be a derisory mimicking of a truly democratic election.”
Whether the election created an opening for a more inclusive, more transparent and more representative process in the future will be argued for years. Speaking personally, I wouldn’t hold my breath!
Monday, September 19, 2005
Sunday, September 18, 2005
Arab Leaders and How They Treat Public Criticism
By Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Arab officials are not used to any sort of criticism, especially in public, and don’t tolerate open debate about their performance.
Now and then, I have off-the-record conversations with Arab leaders of various levels in the public and private sectors. Most are unelected.
I ask them: Why don’t they allow intellectual, peaceful dissent and free discussion of ideas and thoughts? They have the power to pick and choose among proposals; so why the imposed silence and unilateral governance?
Their rationale goes like this: Talk to me respectfully and I’ll listen and consider. Do that in public and you put me in a serious dilemma. If I respond positively, I admit to having made mistakes and you take credit and steal the victory. Worse, by relenting to your demands, I show weakness. You can’t run a business, let alone a country like that.
Besides, in our culture, you don’t humiliate your leader, be it a father, a boss, a sheikh or a president. We shouldn’t copy less respectful societies in this regard.
Eastern societies are different. We don’t go around smearing the image of our heads and expect them to take it kindly. Of course leaders get angry; they are only human. Of course they punish offenders; they have prestige, security and unity to protect. Wrong approaches deserve bad receptions.
If you are sincere, then don’t make a scene. If public interest is your goal, come and talk to me in private. Let me take the credit for doing the right thing. It won’t hurt you, but makes me stronger. However, if it is fame, political gain or any other self-interest you are after, I won’t allow you to gain it at my expense. I will fight you to the bitter end. And you will most likely lose, because I have the muscles and you are toothless.
An Arab public official may add: Make a noise and you might get the outside world’s attention. Some foreigners might take up your cause. Western officials might call on your behalf. This helps me prove you are an agent and traitor. Human rights organizations might protest. Pressure may mount. But it is up to me to set you free. And if I do, I could make your life miserable. You can live outside prison, but the whole country will be your jail. The difference is: I pay your expenses inside, but make sure you are not able to pay them outside. Your call! Your choice!
In response I say: “Those with tight chests and short breaths are not good for leadership,” as an Arab proverb says. If you are so sensitive and thin-skinned, be kind enough to leave the headache for those who are not. You are right to be offended if critics were intruding into your personal affairs that don’t affect your job performance. But if people are criticizing, demanding or advising on issues that concern their well being, then you ought to listen, respect and accept.
Say we are a traveling group. We choose you as our organizer and treasurer. You start acting without our authorization, slipping your gambling loses into the budget or changing our travel plans. Isn’t it our right to raise concerns and objections, present suggestions and proposals and call into review your administrative performance? Why do we have to come, one by one, in private, to discuss such issues with you? Why can’t we debate them among us all? And why is no one but you entitled to take credit for our achievements and proposals?
Most disasters in the history of mankind were caused by dictators. Good governance requires teamwork. No one person, no matter how brilliant, decent and strong, can successfully lead for long without decision sharing. Be it a family, small business, sports team or nation, people need and must take part in the managing of their own affairs.
Systems differ, but the basics are the same. Mechanisms may be tailored to suit different cultures and environments, but they all pursue the same goal — public participation in the decision-making process.
Ordinary citizens must have the divine, constitutionally protected right to voice their opinions publicly or privately without fear of persecution, isolation or retaliation. They should be entitled to expect respectful and systematic responses to their questions, interaction with their proposals, and addressing of their concerns.
Some agree with such logic — intellectually. The problem is, when we talk we are all men of principles. When we act, we are chasers of benefits. Without any protecting, overriding and correcting mechanism, leaders will always pursue their own interests — first.
Arab officials are not used to any sort of criticism, especially in public, and don’t tolerate open debate about their performance.
Now and then, I have off-the-record conversations with Arab leaders of various levels in the public and private sectors. Most are unelected.
I ask them: Why don’t they allow intellectual, peaceful dissent and free discussion of ideas and thoughts? They have the power to pick and choose among proposals; so why the imposed silence and unilateral governance?
Their rationale goes like this: Talk to me respectfully and I’ll listen and consider. Do that in public and you put me in a serious dilemma. If I respond positively, I admit to having made mistakes and you take credit and steal the victory. Worse, by relenting to your demands, I show weakness. You can’t run a business, let alone a country like that.
Besides, in our culture, you don’t humiliate your leader, be it a father, a boss, a sheikh or a president. We shouldn’t copy less respectful societies in this regard.
Eastern societies are different. We don’t go around smearing the image of our heads and expect them to take it kindly. Of course leaders get angry; they are only human. Of course they punish offenders; they have prestige, security and unity to protect. Wrong approaches deserve bad receptions.
If you are sincere, then don’t make a scene. If public interest is your goal, come and talk to me in private. Let me take the credit for doing the right thing. It won’t hurt you, but makes me stronger. However, if it is fame, political gain or any other self-interest you are after, I won’t allow you to gain it at my expense. I will fight you to the bitter end. And you will most likely lose, because I have the muscles and you are toothless.
An Arab public official may add: Make a noise and you might get the outside world’s attention. Some foreigners might take up your cause. Western officials might call on your behalf. This helps me prove you are an agent and traitor. Human rights organizations might protest. Pressure may mount. But it is up to me to set you free. And if I do, I could make your life miserable. You can live outside prison, but the whole country will be your jail. The difference is: I pay your expenses inside, but make sure you are not able to pay them outside. Your call! Your choice!
In response I say: “Those with tight chests and short breaths are not good for leadership,” as an Arab proverb says. If you are so sensitive and thin-skinned, be kind enough to leave the headache for those who are not. You are right to be offended if critics were intruding into your personal affairs that don’t affect your job performance. But if people are criticizing, demanding or advising on issues that concern their well being, then you ought to listen, respect and accept.
Say we are a traveling group. We choose you as our organizer and treasurer. You start acting without our authorization, slipping your gambling loses into the budget or changing our travel plans. Isn’t it our right to raise concerns and objections, present suggestions and proposals and call into review your administrative performance? Why do we have to come, one by one, in private, to discuss such issues with you? Why can’t we debate them among us all? And why is no one but you entitled to take credit for our achievements and proposals?
Most disasters in the history of mankind were caused by dictators. Good governance requires teamwork. No one person, no matter how brilliant, decent and strong, can successfully lead for long without decision sharing. Be it a family, small business, sports team or nation, people need and must take part in the managing of their own affairs.
Systems differ, but the basics are the same. Mechanisms may be tailored to suit different cultures and environments, but they all pursue the same goal — public participation in the decision-making process.
Ordinary citizens must have the divine, constitutionally protected right to voice their opinions publicly or privately without fear of persecution, isolation or retaliation. They should be entitled to expect respectful and systematic responses to their questions, interaction with their proposals, and addressing of their concerns.
Some agree with such logic — intellectually. The problem is, when we talk we are all men of principles. When we act, we are chasers of benefits. Without any protecting, overriding and correcting mechanism, leaders will always pursue their own interests — first.
Liar, Liar
By Jason Miller
If George Bush had encountered the same fate as Jim Carrey’s character in the movie Liar Liar, and had been rendered incapable of lying, America would not have been subjected to thirty minutes of manipulative propaganda on 9/15. Compelled to tell the truth, Bush’s oration would have captured the reality of the situation in New Orleans, and of life for the poor and working class in an America dominated by a wealthy aristocracy:
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. It is a very good evening for me. I am still an obscenely wealthy and powerful autocratic leader of a nation of sheeple who falsely believe they are free. While I am surrounded by misery and suffering, I make this presentation of shameless propaganda from a comfortable, beautiful stage set while surrounded by an entourage of thugs who assure my safety. I am speaking to you from what is left of the city of New Orleans, a gem of an American city which was gutted by a powerful force of nature, and by the insidious social experiment undertaken by my malevolent administration. Millions of lives were destroyed by a cruel and wasteful storm, and by a cruel and wasteful federal government over which I zealously preside.
In the aftermath of Katrina, the haves of this nation have gleefully watched the have-nots dispersed to the four corners of this great nation. As the victims search for loved ones and grieve for the dead, America's attention is diverted from my nomination of a Supreme Court Justice who will strengthen the tyranny I have created, Karl Rove's criminal behavior, and my administration's numerous war crimes related to Iraq. The lies and exaggerations of my media lap-dogs have persuaded many Americans that blacks are undisciplined animals who live off of government hand-outs, feeding my agenda to end social welfare programs and perpetuating the lucrative prison-industrial complex. With their persistent cries for civil rights, blacks have been a thorn in the side of the American aristocracy long enough.
These days of joy and elation for me and my base have been marred by acts of courage and kindness by members of the Coast Guard, who rescued tens of thousands of the undesirables in New Orleans. Rest assured that my administration will deal with them accordingly.
I have met first responders who performed their duties in spite of their own suffering. Steve Scott of the Biloxi Fire Department aided in rescue efforts despite having lost his house and car. For his obstruction of the purge of undesirables, I will see to it that he loses more than just his physical possessions.
Across the Gulf Coast, the people whose suffering I facilitated are showing a spirit and a faith in God which not even I could crush. However, there is a powerful determination amongst corporations, contractors, and entrepreneurs to take what is left of these battered areas and utilize them for personal financial gain. Like me, they have no compassion or humility. Our relentless bid for wealth and power will eventually break the backs of the downtrodden.
To the victims of the hurricane dispelled far and wide, I send you this message. Many soft, weak people I call "liberals" care about you. In contrast, my base of the obscenely wealthy and I are relishing your misery. We are salivating at the opportunities to expand our wealth by rebuilding your city with you out of our way. The Crescent City will rise again, and as it does, so will the balances in our bank accounts.
The National Guard and our hired thugs from Blackwater have nearly completed the task of quelling the New Orleans insurgency. Those thugs who were stealing food to survive or staying in their homes to protect their meager possessions have nearly been suppressed. Let the scenes of armed militia battering down doors of private homes be a lesson to you other potential dissidents across this great nation.
As we have restored "law and order" to New Orleans and have scattered the "evacuees" to the wind, we have taken care of the truly important business. With that mass of worthless humanity out of our way, we have resumed trade in the Port of New Orleans, restored the flow of precious gasoline that ensures profits for me and my cronies in the oil industry, and have repaired the levees to prepare for the impending land grab by wealthy business owners.
What I want you to believe is that our first commitment is to meet the immediate needs of the refugees. To help convince you of my concern for them, I have even started calling them evacuees rather than refugees. However, the reality is that the aid the federal government is offering to the evacuees is window dressing to maintain the facade that we still live in a democracy that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". After days of inaction on my part, Karl Rove reminded me that if we didn't throw the poor some scraps, we could be looking at civil unrest and rioting across the nation. For assistance, please call this number: 1-877-EAT CAKE.
To ensure that Americans believe we are helping the evacuees, but more importantly to start the rebuilding efforts, I have ordered $60 billion in aid. My friends in Congress gave me their usual rubber stamp. Know that this administration has been so generous with your tax dollars because the money will be flowing into the pockets of our friends at Shaw Contracting, Halliburton, and Bechtel National. I have ensured that their profits will be further enhanced by suspending that vexatious Davis-Bacon Act. Forget the damage caused by Katrina. The real tragedy would be if my friends were obligated to pay America's working people reasonable wages, thereby cutting into their disaster profiteering.
Our second commitment, and our true agenda, is to rebuild the Gulf Coast. We will not rest until Trent Lott and I are able to share a drink on the front porch of his newly rebuilt home. Many of the 250,000 uninhabitable homes in New Orleans will be bull-dozed to make way for developments to benefit corporations and the wealthy. While we are orchestrating the theft of their homes, we will implement programs to ensure that the poor, black former denizens of New Orleans are permanently relocated to slums and decaying urban cores of other major cities in the US.
The federal government will be heavily involved in the rebuilding process. I want my people to have ultimate authority to guarantee that my people prosper from this calamity. Many of the same contractors who were awarded large sums to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq, and have bilked America's taxpayers of billions of dollars, will get the same opportunity here in New Orleans. We will see to it that the city of New Orleans changes its zoning laws, to prevent the re-emergence of the disgusting “jungles” populated by poor black “animals” which existed before Katrina.
I pledge a third commitment: The communities that we rebuild will be better than those before the disaster. We have already eliminated the persistent poverty and racial discrimination prevalent in this region by evacuating the residents to various cities across the nation. Once this region is rebuilt, there will be a multitude of new businesses, including some token minority-owned businesses to pacify the black community. When houses are rebuilt, most of the residents will be white so they can own and not rent.
In keeping with our emphasis on businesses and profit over humanity, I am proposing a Gulf Opportunity Zone in areas touched by the disaster. This program will further the interests of entrepreneurs and business people, and move our nation closer to the raw capitalism that is so near and dear to my heart. The Zone will grant loans and tax incentives to business people so they can begin prospering again while the poor continue to suffer. I want you to believe that entrepreneurship breaks the cycle of poverty, but the reality is that without a reasonable degree of government regulation, it perpetuates impoverishment by keeping money in the hands of entrepreneurs who pay meager wages and offer limited benefits to their employees.
I am also proposing Worker Recovery Accounts to help evacuees find work. This will provide accounts of up to $5000.00 from which evacuees can draw for education, job training and child care as they search for work. I want assurances that the poor who are receiving federal assistance are not using the money to buy crack, and this program will weed out the "trash" of our society.
The Urban Homesteading Act, another of my programs I will submit for automatic endorsement by a Congress which is dominated by members of my wealthy base will take the property in the region which the federal government will appropriate from its rightful owners and create a lottery for low-income individuals. Lottery winners will receive a plot of land on which they will be required to build a home. My friends in the mortgage industry will reap the windfalls of providing the financing. Those lottery winners whose credit is too weak to qualify for a loan from my friends will have to rely on Habitat for Humanity to build their homes. If that does not work out, Wal-Mart sells some very affordable tents.
New Orleans presents a unique challenge. It is a city built below sea level. Now that we have expelled the scourges of humanity, my Army Corps of Engineers will make the levees bigger and better. I will spare no expense ensuring that my friends' investments are protected from future Katrinas.
We have witnessed armies of compassion as Americans have given generously to mitigate the plight of the suffering in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Region. Because I remained on vacation and FEMA acted with gross ineptitude, the burden to aid the storm victims initially fell upon private charities, organizations like the Red Cross, individual Americans, and religious organizations. This is "compassionate conservatism" in action, and I am delighted to see it working so well.
I want you to know that my administration will capitalize upon this disaster, much like we did with the 9/11 tragedy. I have already apprised you of the $60 billion which will flow into the coffers of companies with ties to members of my administration and their friends. The financial windfall will be wonderful, but the true benefit lies in the opportunity to expand our power. I realize that like the WTC catastrophe, the cataclysm in New Orleans has left Americans feeling fearful and insecure. We will prey on this trepidation to broaden executive powers and sweep away the remaining semblance of a republic in America.
America, Big Brother is there for you. Above all, remember:
It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces---the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice.
While I realize that Americans expect a more effective response from the federal government when a disaster of this magnitude happens, they need to realize that under my New American Century, domestic programs like FEMA have been rendered impotent. The military is the essence of our government. The US military budget, including money for its ancillary departments, is over $600 billion per year. This siphons money away from domestic, humanitarian programs like emergency response, education, and health care. But the good news is that the rich who have high stakes in entities like the Carlyle Group get richer as a result. Besides, my delayed and feeble response in New Orleans enabled the Gulf Region to rid itself of many of its criminal, useless inhabitants.
Congress is preparing an investigation of the situation in New Orleans. However, the results will be similar to the probes into 9/11 and Abu Gharib. My administration will see to it that no evidence of our culpability comes to light, and if perpetrators are punished, they will be lower echelon scapegoats.
The trials in the Gulf Coast remind Americans of their strength, as they struggle against the forces of nature, and against the corruption and criminal acts of my administration. These challenges also remind them that the poor and working class are bound together, and that despair touches all of them. Meanwhile my rich friends and I raise glasses of outrageously expensive champagne to toast the new opportunities for enrichment and empowerment.
Because my rich, sheltered existence makes it impossible to empathize, I cannot tell you that I understand what you are feeling while you are sitting on the porch where your home once stood or lying on a cot in an over-crowded government internment center. I can say that I doubt that you can imagine a bright future, but rest assured it will come for some of us. My friends and I will prosper at your expense.
Before Katrina and I joined forces to destroy it, New Orleans had a custom for funerals for jazz musicians. Following the funeral procession, a band would play a sorrowful dirge. After the coffin was laid to rest, the band would break into a joyful tune to celebrate the soul's victory over death. No such joyous music will emerge from our new New Orleans. My friends and I will erect a hollow, soulless shrine to the avarice and excesses of capitalism. This I promise you.
Thank you, and may God continue to bless the wealthy of America.
If George Bush had encountered the same fate as Jim Carrey’s character in the movie Liar Liar, and had been rendered incapable of lying, America would not have been subjected to thirty minutes of manipulative propaganda on 9/15. Compelled to tell the truth, Bush’s oration would have captured the reality of the situation in New Orleans, and of life for the poor and working class in an America dominated by a wealthy aristocracy:
THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. It is a very good evening for me. I am still an obscenely wealthy and powerful autocratic leader of a nation of sheeple who falsely believe they are free. While I am surrounded by misery and suffering, I make this presentation of shameless propaganda from a comfortable, beautiful stage set while surrounded by an entourage of thugs who assure my safety. I am speaking to you from what is left of the city of New Orleans, a gem of an American city which was gutted by a powerful force of nature, and by the insidious social experiment undertaken by my malevolent administration. Millions of lives were destroyed by a cruel and wasteful storm, and by a cruel and wasteful federal government over which I zealously preside.
In the aftermath of Katrina, the haves of this nation have gleefully watched the have-nots dispersed to the four corners of this great nation. As the victims search for loved ones and grieve for the dead, America's attention is diverted from my nomination of a Supreme Court Justice who will strengthen the tyranny I have created, Karl Rove's criminal behavior, and my administration's numerous war crimes related to Iraq. The lies and exaggerations of my media lap-dogs have persuaded many Americans that blacks are undisciplined animals who live off of government hand-outs, feeding my agenda to end social welfare programs and perpetuating the lucrative prison-industrial complex. With their persistent cries for civil rights, blacks have been a thorn in the side of the American aristocracy long enough.
These days of joy and elation for me and my base have been marred by acts of courage and kindness by members of the Coast Guard, who rescued tens of thousands of the undesirables in New Orleans. Rest assured that my administration will deal with them accordingly.
I have met first responders who performed their duties in spite of their own suffering. Steve Scott of the Biloxi Fire Department aided in rescue efforts despite having lost his house and car. For his obstruction of the purge of undesirables, I will see to it that he loses more than just his physical possessions.
Across the Gulf Coast, the people whose suffering I facilitated are showing a spirit and a faith in God which not even I could crush. However, there is a powerful determination amongst corporations, contractors, and entrepreneurs to take what is left of these battered areas and utilize them for personal financial gain. Like me, they have no compassion or humility. Our relentless bid for wealth and power will eventually break the backs of the downtrodden.
To the victims of the hurricane dispelled far and wide, I send you this message. Many soft, weak people I call "liberals" care about you. In contrast, my base of the obscenely wealthy and I are relishing your misery. We are salivating at the opportunities to expand our wealth by rebuilding your city with you out of our way. The Crescent City will rise again, and as it does, so will the balances in our bank accounts.
The National Guard and our hired thugs from Blackwater have nearly completed the task of quelling the New Orleans insurgency. Those thugs who were stealing food to survive or staying in their homes to protect their meager possessions have nearly been suppressed. Let the scenes of armed militia battering down doors of private homes be a lesson to you other potential dissidents across this great nation.
As we have restored "law and order" to New Orleans and have scattered the "evacuees" to the wind, we have taken care of the truly important business. With that mass of worthless humanity out of our way, we have resumed trade in the Port of New Orleans, restored the flow of precious gasoline that ensures profits for me and my cronies in the oil industry, and have repaired the levees to prepare for the impending land grab by wealthy business owners.
What I want you to believe is that our first commitment is to meet the immediate needs of the refugees. To help convince you of my concern for them, I have even started calling them evacuees rather than refugees. However, the reality is that the aid the federal government is offering to the evacuees is window dressing to maintain the facade that we still live in a democracy that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". After days of inaction on my part, Karl Rove reminded me that if we didn't throw the poor some scraps, we could be looking at civil unrest and rioting across the nation. For assistance, please call this number: 1-877-EAT CAKE.
To ensure that Americans believe we are helping the evacuees, but more importantly to start the rebuilding efforts, I have ordered $60 billion in aid. My friends in Congress gave me their usual rubber stamp. Know that this administration has been so generous with your tax dollars because the money will be flowing into the pockets of our friends at Shaw Contracting, Halliburton, and Bechtel National. I have ensured that their profits will be further enhanced by suspending that vexatious Davis-Bacon Act. Forget the damage caused by Katrina. The real tragedy would be if my friends were obligated to pay America's working people reasonable wages, thereby cutting into their disaster profiteering.
Our second commitment, and our true agenda, is to rebuild the Gulf Coast. We will not rest until Trent Lott and I are able to share a drink on the front porch of his newly rebuilt home. Many of the 250,000 uninhabitable homes in New Orleans will be bull-dozed to make way for developments to benefit corporations and the wealthy. While we are orchestrating the theft of their homes, we will implement programs to ensure that the poor, black former denizens of New Orleans are permanently relocated to slums and decaying urban cores of other major cities in the US.
The federal government will be heavily involved in the rebuilding process. I want my people to have ultimate authority to guarantee that my people prosper from this calamity. Many of the same contractors who were awarded large sums to rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq, and have bilked America's taxpayers of billions of dollars, will get the same opportunity here in New Orleans. We will see to it that the city of New Orleans changes its zoning laws, to prevent the re-emergence of the disgusting “jungles” populated by poor black “animals” which existed before Katrina.
I pledge a third commitment: The communities that we rebuild will be better than those before the disaster. We have already eliminated the persistent poverty and racial discrimination prevalent in this region by evacuating the residents to various cities across the nation. Once this region is rebuilt, there will be a multitude of new businesses, including some token minority-owned businesses to pacify the black community. When houses are rebuilt, most of the residents will be white so they can own and not rent.
In keeping with our emphasis on businesses and profit over humanity, I am proposing a Gulf Opportunity Zone in areas touched by the disaster. This program will further the interests of entrepreneurs and business people, and move our nation closer to the raw capitalism that is so near and dear to my heart. The Zone will grant loans and tax incentives to business people so they can begin prospering again while the poor continue to suffer. I want you to believe that entrepreneurship breaks the cycle of poverty, but the reality is that without a reasonable degree of government regulation, it perpetuates impoverishment by keeping money in the hands of entrepreneurs who pay meager wages and offer limited benefits to their employees.
I am also proposing Worker Recovery Accounts to help evacuees find work. This will provide accounts of up to $5000.00 from which evacuees can draw for education, job training and child care as they search for work. I want assurances that the poor who are receiving federal assistance are not using the money to buy crack, and this program will weed out the "trash" of our society.
The Urban Homesteading Act, another of my programs I will submit for automatic endorsement by a Congress which is dominated by members of my wealthy base will take the property in the region which the federal government will appropriate from its rightful owners and create a lottery for low-income individuals. Lottery winners will receive a plot of land on which they will be required to build a home. My friends in the mortgage industry will reap the windfalls of providing the financing. Those lottery winners whose credit is too weak to qualify for a loan from my friends will have to rely on Habitat for Humanity to build their homes. If that does not work out, Wal-Mart sells some very affordable tents.
New Orleans presents a unique challenge. It is a city built below sea level. Now that we have expelled the scourges of humanity, my Army Corps of Engineers will make the levees bigger and better. I will spare no expense ensuring that my friends' investments are protected from future Katrinas.
We have witnessed armies of compassion as Americans have given generously to mitigate the plight of the suffering in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Region. Because I remained on vacation and FEMA acted with gross ineptitude, the burden to aid the storm victims initially fell upon private charities, organizations like the Red Cross, individual Americans, and religious organizations. This is "compassionate conservatism" in action, and I am delighted to see it working so well.
I want you to know that my administration will capitalize upon this disaster, much like we did with the 9/11 tragedy. I have already apprised you of the $60 billion which will flow into the coffers of companies with ties to members of my administration and their friends. The financial windfall will be wonderful, but the true benefit lies in the opportunity to expand our power. I realize that like the WTC catastrophe, the cataclysm in New Orleans has left Americans feeling fearful and insecure. We will prey on this trepidation to broaden executive powers and sweep away the remaining semblance of a republic in America.
America, Big Brother is there for you. Above all, remember:
It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces---the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice.
While I realize that Americans expect a more effective response from the federal government when a disaster of this magnitude happens, they need to realize that under my New American Century, domestic programs like FEMA have been rendered impotent. The military is the essence of our government. The US military budget, including money for its ancillary departments, is over $600 billion per year. This siphons money away from domestic, humanitarian programs like emergency response, education, and health care. But the good news is that the rich who have high stakes in entities like the Carlyle Group get richer as a result. Besides, my delayed and feeble response in New Orleans enabled the Gulf Region to rid itself of many of its criminal, useless inhabitants.
Congress is preparing an investigation of the situation in New Orleans. However, the results will be similar to the probes into 9/11 and Abu Gharib. My administration will see to it that no evidence of our culpability comes to light, and if perpetrators are punished, they will be lower echelon scapegoats.
The trials in the Gulf Coast remind Americans of their strength, as they struggle against the forces of nature, and against the corruption and criminal acts of my administration. These challenges also remind them that the poor and working class are bound together, and that despair touches all of them. Meanwhile my rich friends and I raise glasses of outrageously expensive champagne to toast the new opportunities for enrichment and empowerment.
Because my rich, sheltered existence makes it impossible to empathize, I cannot tell you that I understand what you are feeling while you are sitting on the porch where your home once stood or lying on a cot in an over-crowded government internment center. I can say that I doubt that you can imagine a bright future, but rest assured it will come for some of us. My friends and I will prosper at your expense.
Before Katrina and I joined forces to destroy it, New Orleans had a custom for funerals for jazz musicians. Following the funeral procession, a band would play a sorrowful dirge. After the coffin was laid to rest, the band would break into a joyful tune to celebrate the soul's victory over death. No such joyous music will emerge from our new New Orleans. My friends and I will erect a hollow, soulless shrine to the avarice and excesses of capitalism. This I promise you.
Thank you, and may God continue to bless the wealthy of America.
MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED
The following editorial appeared in the Jordan Atimes, Amman, Sunday,Sept. 18.
The world's leaders last week got as close as they could to outlawing terrorism, but still steered clear of defining it. This came about when the UN Security Council met on Wednesday at the head-of-state level to adopt a resolution calling on states to outlaw any incitement or encouragement to terrorism, but skirted around the contentious subject of stating precisely what qualifies as terrorism.
Unfortunately, UN member states still cannot agree on something that should have been relatively easy to define, ostensibly because of the political implication and ramifications associated with drawing a crystal clear line between terrorism and acts of liberation. Yet, all nations know very well what terrorism is all about, although they are not quite ready to commit themselves to clearly defined boundaries that separate terrorism from lawful resort to arms.
The definition of terrorism has defied the international community for decades. There was a determined effort to give terrorism a legal expression at the Rome Conference that adopted the Final Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), at Turkey's initiative, in a bid to include it on the list of international crimes that would come within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Ankara's initiative failed to win wide support for the very same reasons that prevented the international community and the UN Security Council to come up with an internationally recognised definition of terrorism. Despite this apparent failure, there are already sufficient “legal hints” on what constitutes terrorism. The Geneva humanitarian law prohibits the killing of non-combatants or targeting civilians, especially children, women and the elderly.
This alone should have been enough to provide a legal basis for a definition of terrorism. Yet the international community could not see the obvious! The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also came close to outlawing terrorism when it stipulated, in Article 20, that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence [and] shall be prohibited by law.” It goes without saying that terrorism as we know it entails all elements of incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.
Why the world leaders' summit could not come up with a definition of terrorism defies logic and common sense. By confining themselves to outlawing any incitement, encouragement or promotion of terrorism without giving the phenomenon a workable definition, the leaders who represented their nations at the UN Security Council have obviously failed in one of their most important missions.
The world's leaders last week got as close as they could to outlawing terrorism, but still steered clear of defining it. This came about when the UN Security Council met on Wednesday at the head-of-state level to adopt a resolution calling on states to outlaw any incitement or encouragement to terrorism, but skirted around the contentious subject of stating precisely what qualifies as terrorism.
Unfortunately, UN member states still cannot agree on something that should have been relatively easy to define, ostensibly because of the political implication and ramifications associated with drawing a crystal clear line between terrorism and acts of liberation. Yet, all nations know very well what terrorism is all about, although they are not quite ready to commit themselves to clearly defined boundaries that separate terrorism from lawful resort to arms.
The definition of terrorism has defied the international community for decades. There was a determined effort to give terrorism a legal expression at the Rome Conference that adopted the Final Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), at Turkey's initiative, in a bid to include it on the list of international crimes that would come within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Ankara's initiative failed to win wide support for the very same reasons that prevented the international community and the UN Security Council to come up with an internationally recognised definition of terrorism. Despite this apparent failure, there are already sufficient “legal hints” on what constitutes terrorism. The Geneva humanitarian law prohibits the killing of non-combatants or targeting civilians, especially children, women and the elderly.
This alone should have been enough to provide a legal basis for a definition of terrorism. Yet the international community could not see the obvious! The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also came close to outlawing terrorism when it stipulated, in Article 20, that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence [and] shall be prohibited by law.” It goes without saying that terrorism as we know it entails all elements of incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence.
Why the world leaders' summit could not come up with a definition of terrorism defies logic and common sense. By confining themselves to outlawing any incitement, encouragement or promotion of terrorism without giving the phenomenon a workable definition, the leaders who represented their nations at the UN Security Council have obviously failed in one of their most important missions.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
FROM A KATRINA VICTIM
Below is a letter from a Katrina evacuee that appeared in the New Orleans Times Picayune Wednesday, Sept. 14.
If what my family and I are experiencing dealing with
FEMA is indicative of their policies, then God help us
all. Everyone at FEMA should be fired, not just the
head clown.
We are a middle class working family. We have paid
payroll taxes for 37 years and never asked the
government for help before.
When Mayor Ray Nagin advised us to evacuate -- we did. We
left our home in Algiers and have been on the road for over two
weeks, paying as we go for everything out of our pockets.
We didn't drive to the Superdome expecting the
government to take care of us. We didn't pillage the
Dome. We didn't rape anyone. We didn't murder
anyone. We didn't loot our neighbors' homes. We did
the right thing: We evacuated, despite the fact
that I'm awaiting spinal surgery and possible bypass
surgery when we return to New Orleans.
Last week on TV we saw the unfortunate people in the
shelters in Texas receiving their $2,000 awards from
FEMA. It was money badly needed by them and everyone who
has evacuated. Unfortunately, some of those receiving
the money may be the pillagers, rapists and murders from
the Superdome and Convention Center.
I went online and filed a claim with FEMA. Twenty-four hours later the response I received online from FEMA about my claim was that "an inspection of my home was necessary."
Since then, I've called FEMA every day to explain that an inspection
of my home is a little
difficult given we aren't allowed into New Orleans.
Every day I've been told their hands are tied.
Today I received a new excuse why I wasn't being given
the same help as other evacuees. I was told my
application was flagged and being held up because my
wife and I both work and we make money.
Guess we just have to keep digging into our money
until it runs out, and then that will force our
government to help us.
George Avery
New Orleans
Now in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
If what my family and I are experiencing dealing with
FEMA is indicative of their policies, then God help us
all. Everyone at FEMA should be fired, not just the
head clown.
We are a middle class working family. We have paid
payroll taxes for 37 years and never asked the
government for help before.
When Mayor Ray Nagin advised us to evacuate -- we did. We
left our home in Algiers and have been on the road for over two
weeks, paying as we go for everything out of our pockets.
We didn't drive to the Superdome expecting the
government to take care of us. We didn't pillage the
Dome. We didn't rape anyone. We didn't murder
anyone. We didn't loot our neighbors' homes. We did
the right thing: We evacuated, despite the fact
that I'm awaiting spinal surgery and possible bypass
surgery when we return to New Orleans.
Last week on TV we saw the unfortunate people in the
shelters in Texas receiving their $2,000 awards from
FEMA. It was money badly needed by them and everyone who
has evacuated. Unfortunately, some of those receiving
the money may be the pillagers, rapists and murders from
the Superdome and Convention Center.
I went online and filed a claim with FEMA. Twenty-four hours later the response I received online from FEMA about my claim was that "an inspection of my home was necessary."
Since then, I've called FEMA every day to explain that an inspection
of my home is a little
difficult given we aren't allowed into New Orleans.
Every day I've been told their hands are tied.
Today I received a new excuse why I wasn't being given
the same help as other evacuees. I was told my
application was flagged and being held up because my
wife and I both work and we make money.
Guess we just have to keep digging into our money
until it runs out, and then that will force our
government to help us.
George Avery
New Orleans
Now in Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Friday, September 16, 2005
A Few Thoughts on Dubbya's Address to the Nation
By Christopher Robin Cox
Yesterday, President Bush addressed the nation from what is now the epicenter of American inequality, disaster and controversy: New Orleans.
He of course spent the first few minutes of the speech spewing all the same rhetoric one has come to expect; lots of talk about what a great job the first responders, National Guardsmen et.al. did in the immediate aftermath of the Hurricane. Meanwhile, those incredibly brave and unusually high-minded people - as I have always found them to be in times ogreat emergency - all say they are simply doing thier job. If the George W. Bush Administration had been doing ITS job, there would have been no room for Mayor Nagin - or any other local official for that matter - to drop the ball in this game.
Of course, Dubbya did actually take responsibility for screwing this one up. Are we supposed to like him now that he has apologized for the biggest fuck-up in American history? Did he apologize for the systematic marginalization of the poor in this country being a basic feature of his political agenda? No, I don't think he apologized for that. But, he did indeed admit something I thought I would never hear him, or anyone else in his administration ever admit: that there is poverty and racism in America. I had been pretty much sleeping during the speech until then. He said: "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality." Wow! I sure woke up when I heard that. Just so you don't think I am lying, here is the text of his address: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/15/national/w181903D15.DTL
Don't start becoming a fan of the right just yet. There is a nasty sinister side to this speech too. But before I get to that, there were some propositions made by the President that were shockingly logical and, believe it or not, quite socially and economically sound. He proposed the creation of "worker recovery accounts to help those evacuees who need extra help finding work. Under this plan, the federal government would provide recovery accounts of up to $5000, which these evacuees could draw upon to for job training and education to help them get a good job, and for child care expenses during their job search." Man, if you took the word "evacuees" from the statement, one might get the idea our government was suggesting some kind of social democratic welfare state. And if Bush paying attention to the woes of the poor and disposessed was not enough, he even mentioned - now get ready for this - labor union locals. "And I challenge existing organizations - churches, scout troops or labor union locals - to get in touch with their counterparts in Mississippi, Louisiana or Alabama, and learn what htey can do to help," he said.
So, right before our very eyes, George W. Bush has - or at least has "proposed" - that the Gulf region fo the United States become a social democracy, receiving all of the benefits the rest of the country has needed for decades as well, until it can fend for itself. Then we can go back to the racial and economic division that part of the world is famous for.
Just when I thought something was being ushered in that might actually make a real difference in our socioeconomic fabric of life, he brought up the military again. "The system, at every level of government, was not well coordinated and was overshelmed in the first few days. It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces, the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."
Well, there you have it boys and girls. The federal government is going to give handouts to the Gulf region so that it can again become a huge money-generating tourist spot, full of massive racial adn economic inequality. In the meantime, we are going to reorganize our armed forces to that they can take total control whenever there is a catastrophe. Isn't that what the National Guard is for? And didn't FEMA do a great job of organizing those kinds of efforts before the agency was absorbed into the DHS? Maybe I'm just stupid like the President no doubt thinks I am, but I could swear that everything went down hill when he took office, literally, and now it is going to roll ever more swiftly.
Like the title of my blog says, I am a "mad optimist". That is, I am mad, and I am optimistic. I am mad as hell that I live under the tyranny of the bottom line and the goons who push its propaganda, but I am truly optimistic that these goons will push the American people far enough into anger and despair that they will revolt. The next President of the United States better have his or her shit together, or he or she doesn't stand a chance.
Yesterday, President Bush addressed the nation from what is now the epicenter of American inequality, disaster and controversy: New Orleans.
He of course spent the first few minutes of the speech spewing all the same rhetoric one has come to expect; lots of talk about what a great job the first responders, National Guardsmen et.al. did in the immediate aftermath of the Hurricane. Meanwhile, those incredibly brave and unusually high-minded people - as I have always found them to be in times ogreat emergency - all say they are simply doing thier job. If the George W. Bush Administration had been doing ITS job, there would have been no room for Mayor Nagin - or any other local official for that matter - to drop the ball in this game.
Of course, Dubbya did actually take responsibility for screwing this one up. Are we supposed to like him now that he has apologized for the biggest fuck-up in American history? Did he apologize for the systematic marginalization of the poor in this country being a basic feature of his political agenda? No, I don't think he apologized for that. But, he did indeed admit something I thought I would never hear him, or anyone else in his administration ever admit: that there is poverty and racism in America. I had been pretty much sleeping during the speech until then. He said: "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality." Wow! I sure woke up when I heard that. Just so you don't think I am lying, here is the text of his address: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/09/15/national/w181903D15.DTL
Don't start becoming a fan of the right just yet. There is a nasty sinister side to this speech too. But before I get to that, there were some propositions made by the President that were shockingly logical and, believe it or not, quite socially and economically sound. He proposed the creation of "worker recovery accounts to help those evacuees who need extra help finding work. Under this plan, the federal government would provide recovery accounts of up to $5000, which these evacuees could draw upon to for job training and education to help them get a good job, and for child care expenses during their job search." Man, if you took the word "evacuees" from the statement, one might get the idea our government was suggesting some kind of social democratic welfare state. And if Bush paying attention to the woes of the poor and disposessed was not enough, he even mentioned - now get ready for this - labor union locals. "And I challenge existing organizations - churches, scout troops or labor union locals - to get in touch with their counterparts in Mississippi, Louisiana or Alabama, and learn what htey can do to help," he said.
So, right before our very eyes, George W. Bush has - or at least has "proposed" - that the Gulf region fo the United States become a social democracy, receiving all of the benefits the rest of the country has needed for decades as well, until it can fend for itself. Then we can go back to the racial and economic division that part of the world is famous for.
Just when I thought something was being ushered in that might actually make a real difference in our socioeconomic fabric of life, he brought up the military again. "The system, at every level of government, was not well coordinated and was overshelmed in the first few days. It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority and a broader role for the armed forces, the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."
Well, there you have it boys and girls. The federal government is going to give handouts to the Gulf region so that it can again become a huge money-generating tourist spot, full of massive racial adn economic inequality. In the meantime, we are going to reorganize our armed forces to that they can take total control whenever there is a catastrophe. Isn't that what the National Guard is for? And didn't FEMA do a great job of organizing those kinds of efforts before the agency was absorbed into the DHS? Maybe I'm just stupid like the President no doubt thinks I am, but I could swear that everything went down hill when he took office, literally, and now it is going to roll ever more swiftly.
Like the title of my blog says, I am a "mad optimist". That is, I am mad, and I am optimistic. I am mad as hell that I live under the tyranny of the bottom line and the goons who push its propaganda, but I am truly optimistic that these goons will push the American people far enough into anger and despair that they will revolt. The next President of the United States better have his or her shit together, or he or she doesn't stand a chance.
MR. BUSH’S LEGACY: MORE THAN DUCT TAPE NEEDED
By William Fisher
The speech President George W. Bush delivered in New Orleans last evening had the phony ring of a second-term president driven by a single goal: to rebuild what is left of his tattered legacy.
The president still contends he is a ‘compassionate conservative’, yet conservatives in his own will find little joy in his huge spending proposals for rebuilding the Gulf Coast. In that sense, his speech could just as well have been made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. No legacy there.
Maybe the ‘compassionate’ part will be about race, which he mentioned briefly as the fault of slavery. But for five years the Bush Administration has contorted itself to avoid even using the word. Save for his efforts to bring more African Americans into the Republican Party, the President has none nothing -- zero, zippo – to stimulate an urgently needed national conversation about race. No legacy there.
Or maybe it was about poverty, another toxic word in the Bush lexicon. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were going to stimulate economic growth and the trickle-down jobs were going to make the poorest of us less poor. Yet the statistics show us that during a time when the rich got richer, jobs for the poor disappeared and more people got poor and the poor got even poorer. More people in America live below the poverty line now than on the day Mr. Bush took office. Yet the president uttered not a single word about rolling back any of these tax cuts. No legacy there either.
Health care, too, got a passing nod in the president’s speech. He is going to bring health insurance to the people of the Gulf Coast while millions more Americans have none. The Administration has ignored Medicaid, the only vehicle available to provide health care for the poor, and used his bully pulpit to hawk private accounts as Social Security’s contribution to his ‘ownership society’. The president’s proposals were roundly rejected by the people, and he is now in the process of reducing critical funding for Medicaid. No legacy there.
After 9/11, the President correctly took on the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan. But then he diverted resources from there to Iraq to wage a ‘war of choice’ – on the cheap – without enough troops, without any meaningful post-conflict planning, and on shamefully spurious grounds that kept shifting like sand castles. The result has been an Afghanistan now famous as the world’s leading supplier of opium and an Iraq that is drowning in the blood of its own people and ours. No legacy there.
In his defining bullhorn moment, standing with a firefighter atop the wreckage of the World Trade Center, the president promised to make the nation safer from terrorists. The jury is still out on that pledge.
But as for making us safer from natural terror, the jury’s verdict came two weeks ago. The unimaginably huge and bureaucratic caricature called the Department of Homeland Security was headed by a smart guy with no national security experience whatever, grossly under-funded, disorganized, and populated with political operatives who helped the president prevail in the 2004 election. Its dysfunctionality has been documented in report after report. Four years after 9/11, the radios used by first responders along the entire Gulf Coast still didn’t work.
But the bottom line for the DHS is that it ignored all credible warnings of an impending disaster until it was far too late. Did someone forget to tell the president? Or was he told and decided to take no action? Maybe we’ll never know.
Mr. Bush has been called our ‘MBA President’. All MBAs are taught the art of delegation. But they are also supposed to be taught the two accompanying principles of delegation: Hire the best and the brightest as your managers and monitor their performance or, as Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust but verify.”
Mr. Bush has been long on trust and virtually absent on monitoring and verification. To be realistic, the president cannot be expected to monitor our huge government – no one person could, MBA or not. But is it not now reasonable to question the competence, independence and imagination of those he hired to advise him? We know they are superb at spin; but are they any good at anything else? Like having the courage to warn the president that Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on the Gulf Coast -- and on his presidency!
Mr. Bush was right to accept responsibility for the government’s response to Katrina, but his admission of any mistake is being hailed by his supporters as some kind of epiphany. The truth is that, beyond getting ‘Brownie’ to fall on his sword, the president ran out of people to blame. A robust response is his job.
Many in the TV punditocracy are now calling Katrina Mr. Bush’s ‘second bullhorn moment’. Dick Morris, political guru, went so far as so say on television last night that Katrina was a blessing in disguise for giving him an opportunity to save his second term.
This is a wildly absurd assertion. The reason is that fewer and fewer people in this country now believe that Mr. Bush can actually deliver. To do so, he will need to cajole Congress to fund his grandiose promises. And Congress is acutely aware of the political price they could pay in 2006 by further mortgaging our great-grandchildren with an even larger deficit.
All the polling data suggests this is not going to happen. In short, the president has lost his credibility. Which makes him not merely a lame duck second-termer, but a paraplegic.
The speech President George W. Bush delivered in New Orleans last evening had the phony ring of a second-term president driven by a single goal: to rebuild what is left of his tattered legacy.
The president still contends he is a ‘compassionate conservative’, yet conservatives in his own will find little joy in his huge spending proposals for rebuilding the Gulf Coast. In that sense, his speech could just as well have been made by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson. No legacy there.
Maybe the ‘compassionate’ part will be about race, which he mentioned briefly as the fault of slavery. But for five years the Bush Administration has contorted itself to avoid even using the word. Save for his efforts to bring more African Americans into the Republican Party, the President has none nothing -- zero, zippo – to stimulate an urgently needed national conversation about race. No legacy there.
Or maybe it was about poverty, another toxic word in the Bush lexicon. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans were going to stimulate economic growth and the trickle-down jobs were going to make the poorest of us less poor. Yet the statistics show us that during a time when the rich got richer, jobs for the poor disappeared and more people got poor and the poor got even poorer. More people in America live below the poverty line now than on the day Mr. Bush took office. Yet the president uttered not a single word about rolling back any of these tax cuts. No legacy there either.
Health care, too, got a passing nod in the president’s speech. He is going to bring health insurance to the people of the Gulf Coast while millions more Americans have none. The Administration has ignored Medicaid, the only vehicle available to provide health care for the poor, and used his bully pulpit to hawk private accounts as Social Security’s contribution to his ‘ownership society’. The president’s proposals were roundly rejected by the people, and he is now in the process of reducing critical funding for Medicaid. No legacy there.
After 9/11, the President correctly took on the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan. But then he diverted resources from there to Iraq to wage a ‘war of choice’ – on the cheap – without enough troops, without any meaningful post-conflict planning, and on shamefully spurious grounds that kept shifting like sand castles. The result has been an Afghanistan now famous as the world’s leading supplier of opium and an Iraq that is drowning in the blood of its own people and ours. No legacy there.
In his defining bullhorn moment, standing with a firefighter atop the wreckage of the World Trade Center, the president promised to make the nation safer from terrorists. The jury is still out on that pledge.
But as for making us safer from natural terror, the jury’s verdict came two weeks ago. The unimaginably huge and bureaucratic caricature called the Department of Homeland Security was headed by a smart guy with no national security experience whatever, grossly under-funded, disorganized, and populated with political operatives who helped the president prevail in the 2004 election. Its dysfunctionality has been documented in report after report. Four years after 9/11, the radios used by first responders along the entire Gulf Coast still didn’t work.
But the bottom line for the DHS is that it ignored all credible warnings of an impending disaster until it was far too late. Did someone forget to tell the president? Or was he told and decided to take no action? Maybe we’ll never know.
Mr. Bush has been called our ‘MBA President’. All MBAs are taught the art of delegation. But they are also supposed to be taught the two accompanying principles of delegation: Hire the best and the brightest as your managers and monitor their performance or, as Ronald Reagan famously said, “Trust but verify.”
Mr. Bush has been long on trust and virtually absent on monitoring and verification. To be realistic, the president cannot be expected to monitor our huge government – no one person could, MBA or not. But is it not now reasonable to question the competence, independence and imagination of those he hired to advise him? We know they are superb at spin; but are they any good at anything else? Like having the courage to warn the president that Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on the Gulf Coast -- and on his presidency!
Mr. Bush was right to accept responsibility for the government’s response to Katrina, but his admission of any mistake is being hailed by his supporters as some kind of epiphany. The truth is that, beyond getting ‘Brownie’ to fall on his sword, the president ran out of people to blame. A robust response is his job.
Many in the TV punditocracy are now calling Katrina Mr. Bush’s ‘second bullhorn moment’. Dick Morris, political guru, went so far as so say on television last night that Katrina was a blessing in disguise for giving him an opportunity to save his second term.
This is a wildly absurd assertion. The reason is that fewer and fewer people in this country now believe that Mr. Bush can actually deliver. To do so, he will need to cajole Congress to fund his grandiose promises. And Congress is acutely aware of the political price they could pay in 2006 by further mortgaging our great-grandchildren with an even larger deficit.
All the polling data suggests this is not going to happen. In short, the president has lost his credibility. Which makes him not merely a lame duck second-termer, but a paraplegic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
