« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 »

Basra Blues

There were some pretty big protests against the Iraq war this weekend, though you'd be forgiven if you missed it. If you were like me, you were spending more time eyeing Hurricane Rita's path and hoping fervently it would show a little mercy at the last minute, than watching Cindy Sheehan get herself arrested. My own feelings on the Iraq situation are somewhat conflicted. Whether or not you agree it was a good thing to do in the first place isn't all that relevant since the question today is, well, what we do today. Being right two years ago unfortunately doesn't alter the situation our countries are currently in. Upon doing some checking into the Basra situation I mentioned in my last article, some of the complexities on the ground came to view. It's not very pretty.

Almost up until the jail standoff that led to the current tensions in Basra the British forces in the country had a reputation for getting on better with the local populace than the Americans. The implication was that the British knew much better than the American forces when it came to pacifying neighborhoods with minimum force. It so happens I actually do believe the British forces bring a wholly different attitude on the conflict and how it should be handled. US forces should be learning more from us, but the extension of the British press view of things was that one, the US forces were clueless, and two, the British forces would succeed where US brute force failed.

This was a simplistic view, and I instinctively distrust simple answers to any problem like Iraq. I was not unduly surprised to find reports about the sorts of people that were making it into the Iraqi security forces, including their Police and Army units. British Forces were instrumental in training a large amount of the new crop of Police recruits. The overwhelming drive is to fill these positions as quickly as possible. Politician protests notwithstanding, they want to get out of Iraq. One of the routes to achieving this is to get the Iraqis able to provide for their own security. Background checks are pretty hard to come by. It is impossible to say how many police recruits may be involved with militias, or former Saddam loyalists. Personally my wild-ass guess view would be in Basra, a Shia town in the South, no former Baathist would survive in the police services. The Shia had no love for Saddam and have been active in paying back old grudges. However, the Iraqi Shia population is not a unified ethnic group either. It has its own factions, all jostling for position, and one of the levers of power in the 'new Iraq' is going to be who controls the Army and who controls the Police. Ergo, the various militias are moving quickly to fill the power void by getting their own men at the helm.

Anyone remember Moqtada Sadr? Or Najaf? Around this time last year, Sadr - a young cleric with a large following among the disaffected Shia population in Baghdad and Southern Iraq - organized his followers in what was, in all definitions of the term, open rebellion against the interim Iraqi government. US Marines fought pitched battles among the cemetaries and mosques of the city of Najaf, until Sadr's forces acquiesed to a face-saving handover of territory to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He was militarily defeated, causing the deaths of hundreds of his men, but he's as strong as ever; one might say even experiencing a resurgence. The anger that fuels his movement cannot be ignored. Every time the allied forces move against him or his militia risks another spark being struck which might turn into a repeat of Najaf, which is what the commanders on the ground want least of all. With the referendum on Iraq's constitution - due next month - already in severe jeopardy, the sight of American or British troops in open war on the streets of Baghdad or Basra would inflame the situation to a point of crisis.

In Basra, the British were making some quiet moves against the Mehdi army - Sadr's militia. Some ranking members of this militia were recently arrested. There has been some speculation that this may have indirectly led to the recent confrontation over the British soldiers. One Iraqi Member of Parliament said that the militiamen wanted to hold the two British soldiers hostage to exchange them for the release of their leaders. If true, this completely justifies the command decision on the ground to rescue the troops. It also underscores just how powerful the miltias are becoming, when they can contemplate hostile actions against their purported allies and 'security guarantors'. This wouldn't have been possible without inside involvement in the Basra police; the British are now in the wake of the rescue mission contemplating completely disbanding the 25,000 strong police forces in Southern Iraq and building them back up from scratch. Pretty extreme.

It is difficult to get an accurate reading on what the average Iraqi citizen makes of all this. Hostility to the coalition forces notwithstanding, many seem to have little taste for the newly strutting militias, either, who are accused of religious intolerance, violence and murder. The ordinary citizen has little option but to keep their heads down and hope things calm down. With militias infesting the army and police, their protections seem limited at best. An American journalist, Steven Vincent, sent some detailed reports from Iraq, and Basra in particular. He was murdered this summer. His killers remain at large. They are purported to be either members of the security services, or working in collusion with them.

Where do we go from here? The referendum is not looking very solid at this point. Sunnis believe themselves outside the political process and plan to vote no. Competing Shia factions either support or oppose the constitution based on their power plays. Michael Portillo, a conservative British politician and intial supporter of the war, wrote an interesting piece on his own views and how they have changed as the conflict drags on. The only thing that is likely to me at this point is increasing instability, culminating in the breakup of Iraq. One need only look to the former Yugoslavia for parallels. A country of disparate ethnic and religious groups, held together by an iron central government and nominally secular leadership. When the central government fell, there was no sense of a 'greater' Yugoslavian national identity to hold the nation and it violently split. Iraq, with its Sunnis, Shias and Kurds, is a construct, lines drawn on a map after the fall of the Ottoman empire. As a nation it never reached equilibrium, and without a central force to keep the balance, it will continue to spiral further and further out of control.

Posted by union_jack at 08:38 PM | Comments (0)

Childcare and the Art of Distraction

This is just a short piece (stop cheering in the back, there). Remember I was talking about the British and how we're not all that nice? It's funny to be proven right so... quickly.

The Guardian reports of a new technique in child restraint that's been approved. Suffice to say, Bruce Lee would be proud. Timeouts? We don't need no steenkin' timeouts...

Remember kids, stay in school.

Posted by union_jack at 08:52 PM | Comments (2)

I Thought They Just Played Cricket..

I'm starting to wonder if the typical American view of the British - that of polite tea drinking cricket playing bowler hat wearing chaps with bad teeth - might be subject to revision based on events over the past year. First we had the police shooting in London in the wake of the suicide bombings – pretty extreme no matter what the circumstances. And a few days ago, British troops eschewed negotiation in favor of crashing through the walls of a jail with armored personnel carriers to rescue troops held by Iraqi authorities in a scene worthy of a movie. This has raised some eyebrows around the world. Isn't Britain a nation of unarmed 'bobbies' and genteel diplomacy?

The answer is no. On the contrary, we have always had a surprising capacity for violence beneath our stiff upper lip exterior. After all, one does not build an Empire that spanned a quarter of the globe based on hearty handshakes and crumpets. True, we had to give most of it back after the Second World War (much like a sulking child being forced to give back pilfered halloween candy) but in its heyday, the British Empire was as powerful as any to have arisen. It was built largely on insufferable self-assurance and the knowledge that the British way was the True Way Of Civilization; young men traveled the world, met interesting native peoples, and shot them, before planting a large flag. And presumably making tea.

The Empire is now gone but echoes of it remain. Britain still holds a number of overseas territories and has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council - a distinction shared by only four other nations; the United States, China, Russia and France. The English language itself was propagated around the world not just by MTV, but as an official language of former colonies like India, Pakistan or Australia (though the Australians have since mangled it into something strange and terrible involving sheilas and shrimp. Australian grammar is a contact sport). British power may have waned, but influence endures. It must be the accent.

In the years following 1945, American attitudes to Britain have vacillated. The two nations cooperate at a political level and are by any standards, unusually close. Attitudes between the respective publics is somewhat harder to define. It usually comes down to stereotypes. Personally, I blame Monty Python for a lot of it. Let me just be clear. Monty Python was funny. THIRTY YEARS AGO. You do not need to still quote it to me. Really. I've seen it. We do not all talk like that, walk like that, or have dead parrots. The Monty Python troupe were largely public school (Note : Public School in Britain is actually Private (fee based) School. Make sense? No? Good) educated, Oxford and Cambridge graduates, active in the theater and other such arty pursuits. This is not reflective of the general population. It would be as if you looked at the Harvard Theater Dance Troupe and decided 'That's what all Americans are like'. * America can't seem to get enough of that Python, though. Even Condi Rice is a fan.

In actuality, the British have a reputation in Europe for being hard drinking, violent, yobbish louts (and that's just the women, ohoho). This picture is built in part on the behavior of holidaymakers in Europe - which seems to have reached new lows (or highs, depending on what you're after) in recent years - and the thuggish football subculture. While not representative of us as a whole, the view does reflect some of the hard edges of our national character. This is not a modern phenomenon by any means. Britain has a long and bloody history and has been at war with almost everyone at one time or another.

I don’t mean to give the impression that we’re all alcoholic sex-crazed lunatics, of course (just the Members of Parliament). It is good to remember that Britain is the source of much Western law, philosophy, engineering and scientific discovery, not to mention its wondrous contributions to cuisine, like the.. um.. er.. well, there’s always the deep fried mars bar.

The British are a complex lot, all in all, when you look beneath the surface. Thankfully, apart from the orgies, drunken street fighting, coating chocolate in lard and invading almost everywhere, we’re really very nice people. For a given value of 'nice', anyway. We just don't all play cricket!

* If there is a Harvard Theater Dance Troupe, please don't sue me. I'm sure you're all fine upstanding examples of American citizenry.

Posted by union_jack at 02:18 PM | Comments (2)

Tradition, or Why We Never Learn

What causes sectarianism? What causes ethnic cleansing? How different from someone do you have to be before it starts to seem like a rational, sane way forward? Different nationalities? Different religions? Different races? Different political philosophies? These are big questions. I think in the West we like to think we're largely above such things. They could never happen here, right? We're -civilized- here.

Yeah, right.

The recent riots in Northern Ireland were barely a blip on the news radar here in America, in the grand scheme of things. I'm not surprised - with Katrina, Iraq and Courtney Love in rehab, there are pressing news stories here to cover - but back home, it's a big deal, and rightly so. It is somewhat a personal interest of mine because I have family ties to both 'sides' of the conflict, to simplify it into pro-Irish Catholics versus pro-British Protestantism (though to try and simplify four hundred some-odd years into just two viewpoints is almost an exercise in futility, when I think about it).

You might be surprised, but Bill Clinton seems to have a more positive legacy in Europe than he does in this country. He was instrumental in the US intervention that attempted to end the vicious wars in the former Yugoslavia. In addition to that he was also a noted figure pushing hard for the Northern Ireland peace process back in the late 1990s. I believe it was a measure of who he was as a President; there was little domestic benefit to either action and he did it anyway (One way to gauge a politician's intent is whether or not it boosts poll numbers. If it doesn't, you can probably guess that there's actual principle involved. The reason I felt obliged to point this out was to advance the notion that men are not just seekers of blowjobs.*).

Since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1997, it was hoped by everyone that the peace process would move forward. Fast forward a few years and we arrive at the riots that broke out this month. Mostly confined to Protestant areas, they were at once shocking in their intensity and eerie in their echoes of the past. Few people I speak to in these parts understand the depths of the Troubles, as they're known, even though America was a source of funds for the Republican cause for a number of years - at least until the Robert McCartney murder which somehow awoke certain politicians to the notion that the Irish Republican Army were, in fact, terrorists. Go figure. I guess bombing hotels and launching mortars at Number 10 Downing Street were just hijinks (a historical nugget that few people seem to even remember even though it happened relatively recently; it's as if someone launched an RPG at the White House).

The most recent phase of the Troubles, which started in the late 1960s, was brought about in part by civil rights protests among its Catholic population against deep seated discrimination from the Protestant majority in the six provinces. The ensuing crackdown from the almost entirely Protestant police force caused widespread riots. This then led to the deployment of the Army, which continues today. Back then scenes of Catholics being burned out of their homes was not uncommon, and the discrimination was indeed blatant. Back then, the Protestant majority was nominally on the side of the security forces while it was the Catholic minority and IRA that was opposed. That's what makes the rioting so jolting from a historical perspective. It is a measure of how twisted the situation has become, when the 'pro-British' militants are attacking the British Army.

The spark that set off the riots was the prohibition of an Orange Order march. The Marching Season is a long 'tradition' in Northern Ireland. To the Protestants, it is cultural; to the Catholics, triumphalism. It is somewhat difficult to explain the levels of passion it arouses on both sides of the divide, but I shall attempt to do so by means of friendly parade-float imagery in the following analogy.

Imagine a carnival float. On it is President Abraham Lincoln. He's waving and smiling. Good so far? Now imagine Robert E. Lee bent over, in front of Abe, pants around his ankles, as Abe vigorously makes him his bitch (while waving with his free hand). Got that? Now include a brass band playing 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' while carrying banners reading 'Union Army Kicked Your Asses' following this float. Okay? Offended yet? Now drive this float down Main Street in the Southern town of your choice. Imagine the reaction. The Protestant Orange marches are viewed about that way by the Catholic population. It's a measure of just how long a grudge can be held when one march commemorates the Battle of the Boyne - which took place in 1690. Somehow there is still a need to parade this battle on a yearly basis all in the name of tradition (can you tell I'm not impressed?).

The police blockade of a single march wasn't the real reason for the bullets and firebombs. Growing anger among the Protestant community led to the violence. Protestant community leaders complained about perceived concessions to Republicans. Most of the reasoning is bunk, but logic plays little part. In the bitter history of Northern Ireland, logic is a distant second to sectarianism. The riots hint at the possible slide back into violence. Almost a decade of reduced hostilities and inward investment was not enough to blunt the old hatreds, despite polls showing the majority of people in both sides wanted peace. Unfortunately, peace has a price.

The Northern Ireland peace process certainly is not dead yet. Unfortunately the riots show how far it still has to go. Whether or not the process ultimately succeeds matters to more than just the people in those communities. It is in some ways a test case on our ability to find ways to defuse similar conflicts in other parts of the world. Effort spent building peace builds national security - to say nothing of the moral dimension. Clinton realized this much, at least. Pity about the cigars.

* Just mostly seekers of blowjobs.

Posted by union_jack at 10:59 PM | Comments (2)

Who's On First?

There are moments in the aftermath of Katrina that I wonder about the long-term effects on the current Administration. They are renowned for their ability to stay on-message, manage the press and drive an agenda. Lately though it seems as if all of that is going by the wayside.

I was reading through the reporting of the President's speeches on the vision for reconstruction (oddly enough, he has not mentioned Trent Lott's porch lately, which makes me sad) and tucked away in an article in the New York Times was the identity of the White House staffer put in charge of the Reconstruction effort. The funniest part about this whole thing was I related this information to several people I know whose views ran from leftish to rightish and, in every case, the response was the same.

"You got to be fuckin' kiddin' me."

So I ask you, gentle reader, who would be the -worst- person in the White House to appoint to a reconstruction effort that is deemed to be nonpartisan, working purely for the people in the Gulf states, putting all politics and blame game shenanigans aside? Who is the person who, when you hear their name, you think 'Yup, that's a non-partisan official, they're known for problem solving and not getting caught up in the spin game' ? Can you take a guess? Hint : It's not Colin Powell. He quit, remember?

If you said 'Karl Rove' you would be correct! ( I'll let you blink in disbelief for a few moments).

Yes, Karl 'I didn't leak any CIA agent names' Rove has been put in charge of the non-partisan people-before-politics efforts of directing the reconstruction. This is somewhat akin to Hannibal Lecter being put in charge of the menu at the local vegetarian health food store's annual picnic, when you think about it.

Still, I'm looking forward to hearing the reports from this exercise that calmly, rationally and reasonably show that the Democratic Party caused Hurricane Katrina to form as a result of their weak national security credentials.

Next up : Vice President Dick Cheney chosen to lead task force on strengthening environmental protection legislation. *

* Just kidding.

Posted by union_jack at 05:16 PM | Comments (0)

The Supreme Court of the Rings

The confirmation hearings for John Roberts are proceeding apace. I'm not paying as much attention to this as I normally would. It seems to be a done deal; the Republican side evidently like his Catholic roots, his clerking under the late Judge Rehnquist, and, of course, his strong Conservative credentials. The man has upheld Guantanamo actions and advocated against civil rights law, after all. Spin aside, the Democrats seem to be resigned and in 'it could be worse' mode. He's not Robert Bork, seems to be the thought in many of the questioner's heads.

Barring a memo revealing Roberts has a side job at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch under the stage name of 'Candi', he seems a shoo-in for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What this made me think about though, was my own Supreme Court - that is to say, the final court of appeal of the United Kingdom (or at least, England, Northern Ireland and Wales - Scotland has its own legal system*).

It was surprising for me to realise that I know more about the US Supreme Court than I do about the courts in my own country. Off the top of my head, as an experiment, I attempted to name the Supreme Court justices. I got five of them. Not great, but not too bad. The U.K. high court on the other hand, I could barely define, much less know who serves on it. It is consoling to think that outside the legal and judiciary circles, I doubt anyone else in the country could, either. So, I set off to do a little reading. What I found surprised me, and maybe you'll find it interesting (if an article on law bores you, I recommend this music video instead).

If anyone's still reading...

In the UK, the final court of appeal resides within the House of Lords. I say 'final' but the UK Court system is a thing of surprising complexity. A kind soul tried to diagram it here. As you can see, there is the High Court and the Court of Appeals, but all roads lead to the House of Lords eventually.

The Court is made up of twelve Lords, known as the Law Lords. I'm not a fan of class systems or of Noble title, just on principle, but even I can admit that 'Law Lord' sounds a lot cooler than 'Judge'. Or even 'Chief Justice'. Law Lord sounds more like a superhero title. It brings to mind dynamic figures in black capes and wigs, with sidekicks like Subpoena Lad and Gavel Girl. Law Lord sounds like they could kick your ass.

Sadly, the truth is somewhat less dynamic. The Law Lords are chosen by the Lord Chancellor from among the Judiciary within the Court System. What actually goes into how a Law Lord is appointed seems quite vague; in very traditional British way it amounts to 'do they have the right stuff'. What the right stuff is is never really articulated, but it is assumed one will know it when one sees it (for the longest time, being a well connected white guy was most of what having the right stuff was all about. This is still the case to a large extent). All fairly predictable (and yes, dull).

Where it gets good though, is the revelation that not only is the Lord Chancellor the one making the appointments, they're a Cabinet minister! Plus the head of the Judiciary! So that's a post that spans Executive, Legislative and Judicial all in one. It's like the swiss army knife of political posts! Imagine Antonin Scalia being able to not only rule on the Constitution, but vote in the Senate and create new Amendments, all without being actually -elected- and you'll get an idea of why they're looking into reforming this whole show.

The U.K. Constitution is defined in various ways. One way to put it is 'Everything done legally since around 1215 or so squished up into a big sack and jumped up and down on'** (that's 1215 as in, the date, rather than the time of day). We don't have a formal document to point to or Amendments to argue over. Naturally, this leaves enough wiggle room in some cases to ride a small pony through, though why this may be needed is another question. When you insist on your lawyers wearing wigs that look like carefully bleached pubic hair in the name of tradition, I guess anything is possible. I might check into our lack of a 'real' Constitution in a future post.

I digress. The point is the Law Lords in the UK are chosen largely out of notice of the general public, and there has been little fuss made over the years. Much of this may be due to the fact that even the Law Lords cannot overturn law, as the Supreme Court here is empowered to do. They can reverse judgements and in doing so, declare a law unsound. The challenged law remains in force until Parliament amends it. Not so here in the U.S. where the Supreme Court can and do overturn laws if they are deemed unconstitutional (or if they're filthy communist activist judges, depending on who you listen to). This makes the public grilling and interest in Supreme Court appointees vital and healthy. In addition, the Law Lords tend to rule on boring matters of tax law. It is only rare that legislation that catches the public's eye came before them, like the recent antiterror laws that were struck down.

How has this system continued to work for so long without massive insurrection and protest over unelected activist judges appointed by a single party political person? Well, it's hard to say. Maybe, as a friend remarked to me, it's because we're all just so polite that we let it work. Or perhaps it's the kind of Judges we have. I leave you with this interview with Tom Bingham, the current Chief Law Lord. Anyone described as the 'Gandalf candidate' must be worth listening to in a courtroom, even without a hobbit.

Which character would John Roberts be, in Tolkien's fable? Hint: big blue eyes, charming smile, and Dudley Do-Right aura that might, just might, contain the seeds of pure evil? He's Frodo (only without the freakishly large neck of Elijah Wood)!

When Roberts does takes up his gavel, let's hope he stays away from the One Ring.

* It's the only way haggis could be legal to eat, as opposed to used on the battlefield to terrify the enemy.
** That's my definition, and I'm happy with it.

Posted by union_jack at 09:39 PM | Comments (0)

A New Contender

Michael Brown has taken the long walk off the short plank. While this is good to see, I do not think the public at large will be happy with one resignation limited to one agency. On the bright side, businesses are starting to return to New Orleans. If Brownie needs a job while he's waiting for the next lobbyist gig to open up, may I suggest Big Daddy's? I'm sure as a novelty act it would draw a crowd and provide some much needed art and entertainment to the beleaguered crews working in the city. And who says white guys can't dance? We've seen a lot of good tapdancing this week in Government circles. Give him some tassels and he's set.

In the spirit of bringing the country together in Katrina's wake, I think we can learn some lessons from Europe. For example, in the former Yugoslavia, amid uncomfortable ethnic tensions between Croats, Serbs and Muslims, the town of Mostar has decided to erect a statue to noted human rights campaigner and election reformer Bruce Lee. Yes, -that- Bruce Lee. The statue is to be paid for with a 5,000 Euro grant from a German organization. I admit to bemusement at this. I hope it works, though. And at the very least, one corner of Europe will be forever devoted to kung fu justice.

Here in the United States similar symbols are required. In discussions at the weekend with some friends of mixed political views, we could all agree that Christopher Walken needs to be the next President, running on the more cowbell platform. He would be a uniter, not a divider. And he could stare at foreign dictators until they became very uncomfortable and agreed to WMD inspections. In addition, let's not forget that he can also dance. As I've noted, dancing is an important skill in politics...

Posted by union_jack at 09:37 PM | Comments (0)

You Spin Me Right Round Baby...

It's time to play... BLAME GAME! (Cue the calliope music, audience applaud!). Let's spin the Wheel O'Fault and see where it lies! Round and around it goes (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... FEMA Director Michael Brown? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... President George W. Bush? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... The House and Senate? (clackaclackaclacka...)

Will it be... The American Electorate? (clackaclackaclacka...)

The wheel is stopping.. (clackaclackaclacka...) it's slowing.. (clackaclackaclacka...) it's stopped! On.. 'All of the above!'

Well, this is awkward. Can't we blame this on a terrorist? How about an Axis of Evil? No? What about the French? New Orleans has a French Quarter! They must have undermined the city with their Camel cigarettes and armpit hair and their filthy French secular agenda! No?

Oh, shit. Now what do we do?

(Okay, time to be serious again).

After 9/11, this country was united in the spirit of finding the perpetrators and bringing justice to them. While Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, they are holding elections in Afghanistan, and the Taliban regime who sheltered Al Quaeda is shattered and fragmented. Progress has been made there and I hope to see progress continue.

Clearly the same spirit of unity is decidedly absent from the fallout from Hurricane Katrina. While there are many reasons for this, I think one of the fundamental reasons is that there is no external fault; no fingers to be pointed overseas. Thus the clamor turns inwards.

When I read polls that are starting to assign blame along party lines I get worried. A recent ABC News poll quoted 71 percent of Democrats disapproving of Bush's handling of the event; while 74 percent of Republicans APPROVED of his handling of the event, with the same facts at their disposal. It's all in perception.

Sorry, but this strikes to the core of what's been going wrong in this country over the past four years: rabid partisanship. It's never your guy's fault. It's always the other guy. Rationalization is a powerful thing after all. When Clinton was being impeached, it was either due process or a witch hunt. When Tom Delay is being called into question, it's partisan fingerpointing or due diligence. When levees break, it's that Republicans cut the funding, or that Democrats didn't have an effective local disaster plan.

If we had been facing this with President John Kerry, don't for a split second tell me that he wouldn't be being torn apart by the Right wing over the situation. To be honest, I've always grudgingly admired their spin machine. It's very good at what it does, and what it does is destroy. The Democrats by contrast are like blinking quadraplegic donkeys in headlights, facing down an onrushing red, white and blue humvee with a 'Support the troops' ribbon above one taillight and a 'God Hates Fags' bumpersticker above the other*. I can only imagine what would be being said on Fox News and the Talk Radio circuit, were there a Democrat in the White House. They'd already be placing an order for a rail, three barrels of tar, and a metric ton of feathers to be delivered COD. Or perhaps they'd just be placing a call to Pat Robertson to call in some divine favor.

This view - that the finger pointing would be going on regardless of who was in the White House - is shared by a few people I've spoken to and it speaks to a greater cynicism out there. Many people I chat to about politics are deeply suspicious or weary of the entire subject (possibly because I talk their ears off and sound like a slightly deranged missionary attempting to convert them, but that's neither here nor there). There's a growing mistrust that government can be relied on or trusted to carry out its duties. 'Things will never change'. 'They're all the same'. 'You can't trust the government'.

Perhaps because views are already so entrenched one way or another, after steadily worsening demagoguery over the past four years, there is little new ground to tread. People hear the blame machine spinning up and mentally tune it out. It's very understandable, this feeling of weariness and contempt. Understandable, but dangerous.

The long term damage of Katrina is difficult to quantify in terms of life, property and economy. To that I think we're going to have to add the damage to the public's faith in government in this country. This could go one of two ways; It could spur people to greater involvement and activism in the political process. Or, it could turn them further away in disgust.

Time will tell.

*The gunrack goes without saying.

Posted by union_jack at 11:48 AM | Comments (4)

We Will Rebuild.. For Less!

Today I noted, buried in another story about the Hurricane, a so-far to my mind shockingly under-reported news item. As reported by CNN and several other outlets, President Bush suspended the Davis-Bacon Act in storm-affected areas in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Missisippi.

The Davis-Bacon act, in its essence, stipulates that Contractors bidding for Federal contracts (that is, taxpayer-funded contracts) pay their workers the prevailing wages in the area the work is being performed. This is most typically used in highway and bridge construction around the country.

The prevailing wage for basic construction labor in New Orleans (according to the U.S. Department of Labor) was $9 per hour.

Nine bucks.

The President justified his decision by noting it will permit the employment of thousands of additional individuals.

At what, four bucks an hour? I'm sure they'll be overjoyed.

Will the Contracting firms involved be taking less profit, to account for their lower labor costs, thus costing the taxpayer less? Or do you suppose they'll charge the same as usual and pocket the difference?

I hope to see this question being asked by news anchors when they have some Administration officials over to explain how well the relief effort is going.

EDIT : Late breaking news. The New York Times is asking that question. A day after I did, but hey. Maybe next time you'll scoop me, guys!

Posted by union_jack at 11:30 PM | Comments (1)

Fault Lines

The news from Hurricane Katrina continues to flow in, much like the pollution-soaked waters of lake Pontchartrain. And, as the stories gather substance, and the scale of the disaster is unveiled, so to does the need in Washington to distance oneself, and make sure that whatever blame comes, it does not come to you.

The position of the Administration is now being defined. This is not the time to point fingers! This is the time to work together to fix what needs to be fixed, with the details to be sorted out later. On the surface, this seems quite reasonable and appropriate. If your house is burning down, you don't look for the arsonist, you evacuate your family (or in my case, my laptop and my extensive collection of beer mats).

Unfortunately, beneath this surface is something more sinister - and yet, sophsticated and artful. I smell Karl Rove. Distraction and misdirection have served this President very well in the trials he's faced. From shifting goals in Iraq to misinformation on tax policies, the current Administration is very adept at pressing the emotive buttons, while avoiding the substantive.

While they are very keen to avoid the 'blame game' this clearly only applies to criticism of the Federal goverment, while being quite happy to assign blame to City and State level officials. Michael Chertoff, director of Homeland Security, asserted that it was the responsibility of State and Local Government to evacuate residents, with the Federal Government in support. Essentially, attempting to suggest that had New Orleans officials 'done their job properly' noone would be in this situation. Very subtle. Tom Delay, everyone's favorite Ethically-challenged Representative, has weighed in, noting that Missisippi and Alabama seemed to have far less problems than Louisiana, for some reason. Perhaps that's because they had efficient, small-government Republican Governors. Or maybe because they didn't have a city of a half a million people be inundated. Just a thought.

Chris Wallace and Bill O'Reilly over on Fox have picked up this refrain, and it is gathering steam among the right-wing blog circuit. I think over the next few weeks you'll start to see an array of attacks against the New Orleans Mayor and the Louisiana Senators and Representatives, while presenting the Federal Goverment as the much-maligned scapegoat, misunderstood and underappreciated. After all, to assign blame to the Federal goverment is to be one of those 'Blame America firsters' and is just unpatriotic and wrong, as we all know. But when Fox News reporters are expressing anger and frustration at the handling of this tragedy on Hannity and Colmes and right wing pundits such as Michelle Malkin are calling for FEMA Director Michael Brown's head, it doesn't take a political genius to know that someone somewhere is already digging the shallow grave in the political desert. I've a lot to say on FEMA, but that deserves its own article. Still, if the President's past performance is any indication, Chertoff and Brown can look forward to the Presidential Medal of Freedom in due course.

Here's my major worry about this entire mess. It's been almost four years to the day since the September 11th attacks. What came out of those was a realization that government and the emergency services were hamstrung at a local level. Agencies were not coordinated. The one thing everyone needed, it was agreed at the time, was better control, better management and better cooperation.

It's been four years, and the Homeland Security Agency, devoted to protecting this country from attack and disaster, assimilated FEMA and dozens of other agencies, great and small. All in the name of streamlining management, improving efficiency, and avoiding a repeat of the mistakes of that dark day.

They failed, oh how they failed, on a disaster that was predictable and expected. And all the spin in the world can't hide it. Had this been a terrorist attack, there may not have even been an evacuation order. Would they still be asserting it was the Mayor's fault then? I agree that at the State level, plans were lacking. There is, unfortunately, no getting around that. The people of Louisiana and New Orleans will be the judge of it, though. For the greater country, the concern is that when a major city was literally overwhelmed and lost control, the Federal government stepped in far too late, and its key emergency management officials seemed blind to what was happening on the ground.

This does not fill me with confidence in their abilities, should an actual terror attack strike occur.

A friend of mine asked me, "So what needs to happen, so this never happens again?"

A huge question, and my answer blurted out of me without even thinking about it. "First, people need to pay attention to politics."

"Yeah, good luck with that," she laughed.

Good luck indeed. But I think about it, and I have no better answer. The writing was on the wall for New Orleans for decades; slashed funding for flood control. A widening gap between rich and poor that left the impoverished with no easy means to escape. A National Guard called overseas. And an Administration that pays attention only when the cameras are rolling.

A lot of this can be resolved with good government at all levels. Good government though, starts with a good electorate. If you don't pay attention, don't question, and don't vote... don't be surprised when the next pork-laden bill skimps on disaster prevention in your State. There's so much blame to go around, and not all of it is to be laid at the feet of the elected officials. Someone has to elect the muppets in the first place.

I hope the American people read and re-read the stories out of Louisiana and Mississipi. I hope you get angry, when you do. I hope you have questions for which you will demand answers. And I hope you keep that anger with you when election time rolls around. I'm able to forgive people who make mistakes. While still making sure their asses are fired.

Posted by union_jack at 07:01 PM | Comments (1)

Dig deep, folks...

It's not good to bite the hand that feeds you, and the people affected by the Hurricane need all the help they can get.

Deion Sanders is taking up a collection among the NFL players, asking each one to contribute $1,000.

I know he means well, and I applaud it, but I wonder if I'm the only one wondering just how much $1,000 (Tax deductable) is to a professional athlete. According to USA Today, for example, Deion himself is doing well on a $1.5 million paycheck.

As for baseball, well, the New York Yankees payroll chimes in at a healthy $208,306,817.

A thousand bucks?

Check your other pants, guys. I'm sure you can find a little more if you REALLY try.

Posted by union_jack at 07:54 PM | Comments (1)

Chaos in the Big Easy

I was preparing an article on the Labor Day weekend, but events in Louisiana have somewhat distracted me from musings on the European versus American work week. Fear not, I'll get to it - I know you're all just dying to know how easy they have it across the pond. For now, though, I find my usual flow somewhat disrupted by Hurricane Katrina's utter devastation. As events unfold, it seems that it will be unprecedented in the sheer magnitude of human suffering. Inevitably, questions are being asked on all sides even as dozens of agencies, government and civilian, mobilize.

What's shocking is how badly this seems to have spiraled downwards. The situation in the city of New Orleans and the surrounding towns - thousands trapped, heavy flooding and extreme storm damage - is bad enough to contend with. What is worse is the loss of control. Hospitals under sniper fire; uncomfirmed reports that the Orleans Parish Jail may have been taken over by the inmates; dead and dying refugees in the Convention Center, which has by many accounts turned into a thing of nightmare.

The Mayor of New Orleans has issued what CNN calls a 'desperate SOS' three days after the storm. This tells me that the situation is not yet under control. I certainly don't lay blame on the local authorities or aid organizations who are plainly overwhelmed. Aid in massive quantities is pouring into the region, but it needs to be managed. More importantly, the security situation needs to be brought under control. It is incredible to me that three days after the storm, they are pleading for protection on the ground so that rescue teams can operate. That is a failure in no uncertain terms.

Where is the coordination? Where is the plan? The unpleasant truth, I think, is there is no real plan for something like this. The hurricane effectively has rendered a city of half a million people uninhabitable, something truly unprecedented in this country - or any developed Western nation. Things like this just 'don't happen here'. Officials can create contingency plans for various circumstances, but the real thing, when it comes, is always unpredictable. There is a saying in the armed forces: 'No plan survives first contact with the enemy'. One might say the same of natural disasters.

Government agencies however, have had ample years to plan for such a scenario. The Department of Homeland Security, formed after the September 11 attacks, was supposed to bring disparate agencies together to improve response and coordination in times of national crisis. With years to prepare, and having drilled for this exact situation only one year ago, I think people are justified in having expected faster and more coherent response, despite the scale of the disaster.

Could the worst of Katrina been avoided? Perhaps; political hay is always to be made, even in - one might say, especially in - the darkest of times. Accusations are flying back and forth. While I don't personally hold the President responsible for the storm, some of these questions - about flood protection funding, preparedness, and energy dependency - do seem to require answers, in due time.

Around the world, the reaction to Katrina hasbeen mostly what I'd expect. In the Middle East, sympathizers of Al Queda are lighting up message boards, positively gleeful. That's no surprise to me, though I am rather nonplussed by some of the reactions in Europe. For the most part, it is of sympathy, but there seems to be a certain undertone of 'that's what you get' from some quarters. One German Minister linked the storm to global warming predictions, and of course, the Administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, which still rankles in many European nations.

Here in the United States, some message boards are reporting at least one novel interpretation of Katrina's cause: abortion. (Note : The link does contain profanity. Frankly however, I think profanity is a reasonable response to such garbage).

I've read on some internet blogs, message boards and even newspaper editorials of anger that more foreign nations are not offering help in this time. The truth is of course they are. The President has gone on the record as saying he doesn't expect much from foreign nations, which struck me as somewhat odd. Help is, after all, help. And speaking for myself I'm glad to see such offers come in. Something many Americans forget is people around the world, no matter what they might think of the current Administration, do have a warm regard for the American people. In times like this, it shows, as it did on September 11th. In the midst of the horror stories of looting, it is also important to remember the response from around the country. I strongly encourage you to help in whatever way you can, be it a donation of goods, time, money, or prayer. The people in the disaster zone need it all.

What will be the aftermath of Katrina? That's a question that will take years to answer. With so many homeless in and around New Orleans, I wonder that the city will ever be what it was. Even in tragedy, though, it seems some conventions are hard to break. It's good to know that in such a situation I would be labelled a 'survivor' rather than a 'looter'.

Do what you can to help. You can donate to the Red Cross here.

And if I have to hear another person yell about gas prices while I see children dying in fetid refugee centers, I think I'm going to haul off and punch someone.

Posted by union_jack at 06:08 PM | Comments (0)