George W. Bush : No Supersuit, But No Kryptonite, Either

[W]

I will start by stating the obvious - we do not need or want Activist judges. I throw that out here, because it illustrates a frustrating difference between the Left and Right on the matter of judicial activism. Liberals see what they consider injustice, and want to use the Courts to remedy that injustice. They are quite willing to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution to support their actions. Constructionists, on the other hand, are compelled to obey the Constitution, and will not act outside the powers granted by it. So, when a Constructionist court comes to power, while they may wish to immediately undo the damage done by the Activist court before them, they cannot do so without support from the Constitution. These limits can be infuriating, but they are the rules by which Conservatives operate. People forget them sometimes, and demand things from their elected leaders which go outside the lines.

Hurricane Katrina was a particularly ludicrous example of how people often expect the absurd from the government. President Bush was expected to personally anticipate every twist in the course of the storm, hand-hold the local and state officials through all their responsibilities, and if necessary abrogate his responsibilities to get federal troops into New Orleans to take control. Naturally, if President Bush had actually done any of those excesses, we should hear how he was usurping his powers, but never mind. The point is, that millions of Americans act as if the President is a Superhero, who must rush to the need wherever it is, taking on the evil-doers with suitable sound effects and appropriate levels of cartoon violence.

And that crowd demanding that Dubya put on the Supersuit includes Conservatives. They see a potential fight between Liberals and Conservatives, frame it as the final battle between the Powers of Good and Donkey, and demand a political Armageddon, in large part because they are so sure they will win. When that comes to appointing Supreme Court justices, simply naming a competent and honorable person will not do; they demand a "known" Constructionist (even though History shows us that judges very often rule differently on the High Court than they did at the lower level), and eagerly anticipate a bloody and decisive battle, to the end of crushing the evil forces of Liberalism. The possibility that such conflicts may carry other costs they have not considered, or that they might lose by demanding such an all-out offensive, is rejected out of hand. And, having chosen an immature demand, they naturally pursue it with an immature rationale, insulting anyone who questions or criticizes their method, or who suggests that they might be overlooking other salient aspects to the matter.

President Bush is well aware of the "Six Roads" I noted earlier in the week. He understands that he must consider the needs of the House of Representatives, and even the needs of those vain puff pieces in the Senate. He understands that a necessary confrontation is one thing, but that going after a fight that risks long-term goals for small gains is simply unwise. He understands that there are likely more vacancies to fill soon on the High Court, but not if he appears to be looking only for extremist justices. Ginsberg, Stevens, and Souter may all choose to retire soon, or they may hang on until after 2008, when they will see their seats filled by a different President. Dubya needs to convince them that he will be at least as reasonable as the person who will be elected in 2008. Dubya understands that if he appears to be catering to the Hard Right in his selections, this will hurt the Republican Party in states where they are still thought of as extremists, places like Florida and Pennsylvania and California, where high stakes remain for not only Senate and Congressional elections, but also for support for Conservatives in the 2008 election. This does not mean that Bush will not support true Conservatives, but he will not seek to display his choices in a way which will inspire useless conflict with Media or with the Lobbyists, who have no direct power but can still damage a careless President by wearing away support from his initiatives and programs. For all the talk about the President, Bush has done a very respectable job overall, not least because he keeps his priorities straight.

I never got into "Superman" much, because for all his strength and special powers, he was not very wise or inclined to consider his actions in terms of consequences ahead of time, or to weigh his options in a broad context of cumulative effect. Flashy yes, but not really effective for what he had to work with. President Bush, on the other hand, lacks the appearance of omnipotence, and so steps aside from the gunfighter scenario, but he still retains his full authority and every weapon at his disposal. No supersuit, but no kryptonite, either.

Will You Please Point The Gun AWAY From The Elephant?

[xx]

It used to be a mystery to me, why Republicans and Conservatives found it so difficult to make the most of their opportunities, or to show the unity that Liberals manage so often. It seems obvious to me now, that the differing factions of Conservatism are unwilling to share credit and gains with anyone who has even a slightly different perspective; a moral victory with no substance seems preferred to a solid victory resulting from consensus or cooperation with other groups. All or nothing, which too often produces nothing.

Sorting through the comments, I see the sort of thing reprehensible in anyone claiming to be mature and constructive in their position. I do, despite so many claims to the contrary, respect the right to think the Miers pick is not the best one, or even not a good choice. But far too many of the commenters have demanded the President give in to them, claimed Miers is unqualified on no basis other than that they wanted someone else. Many comments have been bitter, many more spiteful, and far too many more made no attempt to defend their position, but only attacked the people who supported the decision.

Comments from just yesterday’s post included claims about “Bush’s dereliction of duty”, denunciations of Bush supporters as “cheerleaders” and “kool-aid drinkers” and ”lapdogs”, as “pandering”, whining that somehow “debate is off limits” simply because I point out the venality of their tone and the total lack of evidence to support their claims - please note, by the way, that not a single comment has been deleted from these posts, although one comment Thursday was edited to remove gratuitous sexually offensive comments. Commenters have claimed that Miers was only nominated because she is Bush’s “confidante”, or that anyone supporting the President is “goose-stepping”. These comments are coming from Republicans, folks. Is that how you want to treat your own party? Really?

A surprising number of Conservatives are starting out with the assumption that Miers is not qualified. This betrays a serious misundertanding of the process, and a woeful tendency to jump ship when it’s not the style you want. Looking at the reaction, I generally see three groups - those who have worked with Miers approve of her selection, some of those who do not know her say they would have preferred someone else, and a growing number are saying they will wait until the hearings to see how they will respond. There are, of course, a relatively large number of high-profile people who have said some very unreasonable and negative things, but to be frank they have done this before, pretending they are better-qualified as popular celebrities than people who have been elected to make just these sorts of decisions.

Like it or not, the process will go pretty much as Hugh Hewitt described it yesterday on his radio show;

1. George W. Bush will not retract Miers’ nomination. If you doubt this, look at his track record on nominations.

2. That leaves two choices for the ‘Hate Miers’ crowd. You can give her a chance at the hearings, or you can try to tear her down by demanding your Senators vote against her before you have heard anything from her.

3. Because of the structure of the Senate, there are only two ways in which Miers will not be confirmed. Either she wil prove herself a complete idiot at the hearings, in which case reasonable Senators will remove their support for valid reasons, or Miers will prove herself to be so completely Hard-Right, as to strip support from the RINOs and every Democrat in the Senate. There is no reason, from her resume or her character, to believe Miers will make either of those mistakes. That means, in all likelihood, that Harriet Miers will be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. All the name-calling and spiteful feuding will do nothing to change that.

Far too many people on the right seem to have adopted the malicious caricatures the Left uses to think of Dubya. We are told that somehow Dubya “betrayed” the Right, as if he were an untrustworthy standard-bearer of the party. We are told that Dubya did not think this decision through, that he somehow must have forgotten about Luttig, Brown, or the more preferred choices. We are told that Bush prefers setting up his buddies, to doing what is best for the nation. When these sorts of inane comments come from Michael Moore or Al Gore, we chuckle and observe that they just don’t know the President. It’s now obvious that many Republicans don’t really know Bush, either, if they can trot out the very same lies and slander that the Donks have used for the last decade, so miserably and so falsely.

The Bush-haters, whether from Right or Left, continue to miss a few very important points. First, Bush is the President, and you are not. He was elected to make just these sorts of decisions. And before you get on your high horse to demand someone ‘better’, take a close look at the appointments made by Republicans over the years. Was Earl Warren, a “known” Conservative, such a great choice in retrospect? On the other hand, I recall Conservatives moaning about Clarence Thomas in very much the same way they are now about Miers. He wasn’t their first choice, so he must have been a poor choice. Funny how that opinion changed, when they saw Thomas do his job. I agree that there are other choices who appear to be more solidly Rightist, though that brings up another issue very few people seem to have considered - Judges can be just as guilty as anyone else, of putting Ambition ahead of better priorities, and of campaigning for the jobs they want. One thing about Miers, is that she does not appear to have sought out the SCOTUS job, which is something which puts her a notch above some of the other judges who have made sure their contacts and friends kept their name in the light of attention and discussion. After all, one thing we know about Activist judges, as that they tend to think more highly of their own minds than they do of the law they review; in that context a judge who campaigns to be selected to the SCOTUS is LESS qualified, from the Constructionist point of view, than one who has made no attempt to sell their name for the position. Miers is not only known to the President, which is true of very few other contenders, but she was sought by him for the post, rather than showing the ambition which could indicate a dangerous pride.

But to the main point, while honest Republicans and Conservatives may disagree on the Miers selection, there needs to be a better standard of behavior, or else all you do is damage the party, and the nation.

Miers and the Roads of Government

0-0-0

I have learned, through experience, to look below the surface when considering the reasons and planning behind President Bush’s actions. Despite the mindless braying of insults about Dubya’s intellect, the fact is that he is a very shrewd politician and planner. Liberals constantly, as we have all heard before, ‘misunderestimate’ him. Recent events show that an embarrassingly large number of Conservatives buy into the same error.

Yesterday I noted that George W. Bush is the most Conservative President this nation has seen, even as a candidate, since Ronald Reagan. I noted that Bush has a long string of victories for the Right Side of Things, and has earned more than a little discretion in his judgment. I also noted that the anti-Miers crowd have not presented any opinions or writings from Miers to demonstrate cause for concern; it basically boils down to not trusting the President, even as they hotly deny the charge.

It still strikes me as strange, that so many people do not seem to have seriously addressed the fact that President Bush has considered all if the various candidates suggested before now, and there is a reason Dubya settled on Miers instead of Luttig. If Dubya were somebody with a record of bad appointments or poor judgment, one might reasonably challenge a pick which does not suit the conventional wisdom, but considering the number of times Bush has been right and his detractors wrong, the automatic rejection of Miers is, at best, poor consideration and an overly emotional focus on the part of the naysayers. George W. Bush was twice elected Governor of Texas, and now twice elected President of the United States; it is completely unreasonable to think he does not know what he is doing. Ultimately, like it or not you have to either stand with him or stand against him, and this has everything to do with the future of the GOP and Conservatism in the coming years.

There are six roads to power and influence in Washington, D.C., and far too often these roads are hidden from close inspection. They are quite real, however, and knowing which road a certain leader uses will tell you their motives, loyalty, and focus.

The first road is the House of Representatives. Do you want to know why, even as the media makes great noise about his indictments, that Tom DeLay is relaxed, even cheerful? OK, it’s partly the fact that Ronnie Earle is a corrupt git with a bitter grudge and nothing close to evidence, so that DeLay is in no serious danger of conviction. But it’s also because Tom DeLay does not really need to worry about what the media thinks of him, nor even the whole state of Texas. So long as his District supports him, he’s just fine, and he knows that fact quite well. There are over three hundred other Congressmen in exactly the same situation; they do not answer to the nation or their party, whatever their speeches say, but only to their district. For better or worse, there are always going to be members of Congress who don’t give a fig for anyone who doesn’t live within a walk of their zip code, because they don’t have to care.

The second road is the U.S. Senate. All the talk we saw this summer about the “dignity” and “stature” of the Senate should have warned folks that the U.S. Senate is more about privilege than ideals, more about personal influence than personal responsibility. Even the strongest Conservative in the Senate is going to be tempted by some of the perks and benefits set aside for the elitist section of the Congress. The fourteen Senators who took it upon themselves to decide what the whole Senate would or would not do, without any input from even the Senate Majority Leader, demonstrates the arrogance of such people. And it should be considered that these are the men and women who vote Bush’s nominees in or out, often according to their own measure of advantage or self-interest. Few people indeed, have considered whether the nature of the Senate head count is relevant to the sort of nominees to be submitted.

The third road is the Executive branch. Most visible in that line is the President of course, but also the people he appoints and who provide him with the information and support he needs for his decisions. A President is normally seen as a strong center of power and authority, but as we have seen in the past, the President really has firm limits of his power, and depends on the Courts and Congress to grant him what he requests, form the budget to his appointments to his executive orders. As for the people working under the President, they serve at his pleasure, which in real-world terms means they have no sure security at all.

The fourth road is Lobbying, that mercenary trade of influence and information, somewhat less honorable or direct than Prostitution, but a favorite career for former officials all the same. While these individuals are not elected, and so do not consider themselves answerable, they have increasingly found it expedient to be able to provide information for Congressmen and high-profile officials, in order to receive consideration at a later time.

The fifth road is, it seems, proof that God felt sorry for the Lobbyists, and created a class of creature even lower in ideals and standards. I write, of course, about the Media, which necessarily includes my own humble efforts. The Media can be callously reckless, like the CBS attempt to smear President Bush in the ‘Rathergate’ episode, or stupidly biased, as we see every time a network sees a chance to put emotion ahead of upright reporting; ‘sweeps week’ has become ‘sweeps life’, all about the ratings, or what the suits think will impress the viewers. Sad to say, we see the same thing even among the New Media, where increased stature and attention has led some sites and stations to think they personally matter more than the issues they cover. This week has shown that Conservatives are in no way immune to such thinking.

The sixth road is the courts. While some judges run for office, at the Federal Appeals level and up, we see nominations to be confirmed by Congress, which is where the real circus begins. As a reader wrote me last night, “the absolute first rule of politicians is to get re-elected”, which means that a nominee is not confirmed by his or her qualifications, but by what Senator Hairpiece thinks his voters want. As my reader went on to say, “there are too many Republicans who cannot afford (at least in their own minds) to risk being labeled a "right wing extremist", which is the appellation that surely would follow from any nomination of a committed, vocal Conservative to the Supreme Court “. These are my own thoughts on the matter. The simple fact is, that the nomination of a judge or justice in no way guarantees their confirmation, especially after all we have seen during Dubya’s first term. Just this summer, we saw seven Republicans stick a knife in the back of Frist, rather than do their jobs properly. It is not the President’s fault that so many RINOs roam the halls of the Senate, or that so many politicians have sold their spines for TV time, but far too many analysts have forgotten the fact of that quavering character, demanding the President put everything on the table now, for a gamble they themselves can call reckless if it doesn’t pay off, even as they scream for it. The decision was made to present a qualified candidate, one who will advance the Conservative movement, but not give ammunition to hurt the work coming along in the next three years. Dubya knows Miers, and he has been looking for the best candidate for a long time. Frankly, the more I think about it, the more I wonder how much we really know about the “sure thing” picks we heard so much before. Not too many people seem to have considered that judges solicit support for the jobs they want, just like anyone else. Funny, that people would put the word of a newspaper columnist or talk show host, ahead of a man they say they trust with the welfare of the nation and the party. Huh, go figure.

And what about Miers? I have read comments from supposed Conservatives denouncing her as “unqualified”, or some who grudgingly admit she is qualified, but claim there are “dozens, even hundreds” of better choices. Seriously, does anybody who makes such insulting and ill-considered comments expect them to be taken seriously? Does anyone who throws out such emotional tripe think this advances the discussion? What exactly are you expecting? Do you think you can call up the White House and force the President to pull his choice in favor of yours? That, people, is not going to happen. If Miers is shot down, Bush will send out another nomination, but it’s still going to be someone he chooses, and you should certainly know by now, Dubya is not a man who settles for being bullied. You choose not to trust him, that’s your loss. You chose to screw around with his work, that just hurts the country.

The 11th Commandment - Broken Again

.<>.

The continuing rancor among Republicans and the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court displays an unfortunate lack of understanding amongst Conservatives about the condition and reality of modern American politics. Certainly the Democrats have demonstrated that they do not comprehend how much things have changed since the heyday of the New Deal and the Great Society, to such a degree that the long-term survival of the Democrats is in grave doubt. But the present inability of many Conservatives to understand the situation they face with the Miers selection also presents evidence that the Right is also going to have trouble making the most of their opportunity.

The most common complaint I hear regarding Miers, is that the SCOTUS is somehow not going to be Conservative “enough” to suit the Right. It has been said before, by Lorie and others, but it needs to be said again, quite clearly, that such talk is a wrongful insult to Judge Miers, and certainly is an unacceptable arrogance taken towards President Bush. It seems to me that Conservatives sometimes fail to keep their support firm for Dubya, even to the point that some groups and individuals act as if the President owes them the first call on his own nominations. This has certainly happened before, with Conservatives decrying the selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate in 2000, or the recent selection of Gonzales as Attorney General, or his staunch defense of Donald Rumsfeld during any number of MSM attacks. The fact that Dubya makes decisions carefully, then sticks by them, should have long ago warned people that Bush is neither conventional nor a popularity lapdog.

But a lot of people continue to forget the deeper lessons as well. When George W. Bush decided to run for Governor of Texas, he knew Ann Richards was a well-established icon of the Democratic Party, who never expected the former “frat boy” to understand the game of politics better than she did. It’s a great irony that the rising star of the Democratic Party who hoped to become the first woman President of the United States and the next President to come from Texas, instead saw her little-known rival displace her first in the Governor’s mansion, then take the White House twice. The simple fact is, George W. Bush had done his homework, and put up a poker face when it counted. We saw the same thing happen over and over again, as many Democrats ended up voting for the same Iraq War they later tried to make an election issue, and in the 2002 Mid-Term elections, when instead of losing seats as expected, the GOP made gains, directly due to Bush’s personal involvement in a number of close races. It’s frankly amazing to me, how many times Dubya has played the Left with a ruse, and accomplished everything he meant to gain, yet the Lefrt never seems to remember the trick the next time they come up against him; the juke always works.

With all this in mind, we turn to the largest stakes in the present debate; the lifetime appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, being “more” Conservative than someone else in appearance does not mean that you will make better decisions on the high court, for a number of reasons. For one thing, a reputation for being a Conservative judge may not mean anything when that judge becomes a SCOTUS Justice; ask Nixon and Reagan if they were surprised by how some of their picks turned out. To know how a potential Justice is really going to think when presented with key decisions down the road a number of years, the President choosing the person must be able to see who they have worked with, how their mind has developed, and ideally should have some personal contact with them as well. In short, just what we see with Harriet Miers. It is not necessary for Miers to hold an NRA card to support 2nd Amendment rights. It is not necessary for her to oppose all abortions as a matter of principle, to agree that the Federal Government should not rule on the practice and deny States their own jurisdiction. It is not necessary for Miers to condemn homosexuality, for her to oppose the notion that sexual orientation deserves special rights or protections. I do not mean to say that Miers has any personal opinions which Conservatives should find objectionable, but rather that we should want a justice who rules on the basis of the Constitution, not how they feel about something. The problem with Souter, as an example, was that he seemed to approve personally of the same things the elder Bush liked, but when it came time to rule, Souter applied his preferences in exactly the same method as Ginsberg or Kennedy, and that is the reason we now see him as a threat to the Constitution, rather than its defender. The record available on Miers is that of a Constructionist, and that, when we get to the bottom of the decision, is what we need.

President Bush certainly has his limitations, and there are issues and topics where Conservatives may reasonably disagree with his position. But then, that was true even of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater; the simple fact is that George W. Bush is far better for Conservatives than most of the available choices we’ve seen in my lifetime, and yes, that does mean that Conservatives owe this guy a certain margin of deference. For that matter, most of the columnists and commenting hairpieces on the Right owe Harriet Miers and the President an apology for the manner in which they have portrayed his decisioning process, and their rather rude assumption that just because they didn’t get the Conservative they expected, that the one they got is somehow inferior. The only “damage” that has been done to the Conservative cause in this matter, did not come from the White House but from the brittle egos of malcontents who are unwilling to set aside pettiness in the interest of greater ideals. They demonstrated to Kos and Soros and every back-biting Leftist in the field, that unity on the Right can be shattered by a simple bruised ego here and there, or the notion that the President of the United States is not allowed to exercise his personal discretion, without the permission of selected newspaper columnists. Nice going, to broadcast an Achilles heel for them to use against us...

Harriet Miers is not the problem. Peggy Noonan, George Will, and every Conservative whose loyalty to the nation and party depends on their personal approval of every decision are the problem. The oh-so-quick assumption by many that a name or two that they have heard in conversation or essay, but whose actual judicial temperment they do not personally know, is superior to a jurist known by the President, whose mind and character he knows, is appalling on its face, all the worse that it should be given such ready currency simply out of pique. It is not common for the average person to give a great deal of thought to SCOTUS nominations; except for recent events, we seldom hear of the community of judges. But given the ages of the Justices on the extant Court, and the strategic and tactical measures necessary to get confirmation and establish the appropriate atmosphere, it is completely in character for President Bush to have developed his working list a long time ago, even as he held it close to his vest. In other words, President Bush not only knows his personal choice far better in detail than most commenters can say for their choice, he has been thinking about this decision far longer than most of the people barking about it now.

Why not Brown, or Luttig, or Owen? Since I am writing this from Houston and not Washington D.C., I would have to say there are points in that decision to which I am not privy but then, that same disadvantage is true for everyone else as well. Certainly we should understand and accept that the President knew these judges well, and has considered their qualifications. If we can do that, then we are forced to concede that there is something else to the decision, that the President has more information and a deeper comprehension of this issue than the general public - what a concept!

Moving ahead, as adults invariably have to do sooner or later, there are two takeaways from this debate. One, is that Conservatives will have to decide for themselves whether or not they are willing to accept the choice of the most Conservative President in memory, and if not, to understand that they would be giving unwarranted influence and power back to the Liberals they claim to oppose in principle. The other lesson, sad to say, is that a great many Conservative figureheads have proven themselves to be as fighty, venal, and narcisstist, as any Liberal they have countered in the past. We are not the party we pretend to be, not yet, and there is much work to be done to mature the leadership of the Republican Party to handle such decisions in better fashion.

Somewhere, Ronnie is not happy.

Why Not Me?

XOXOXOX

The selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court has raised the hackles of an amazing number of right wing advocates for the predictable, demanding a “known” conservative for the high court. My initial reaction to this sentiment was the same as my considered opinion; people insisting that Harriet Miers is unacceptable because she is unexpected, have simply not thought this decision through with nearly the diligence that President Bush has applied, nor have they considered the tactical advantages.

There are, basically, five types of people paying attention to the SCOTUS picks. There are the activists in the Liberal and Conservative camps, demanding the court swing their way. There are a lot of people who don’t really care who the nominee is, except that they don’t want an “extremist”. There are people who have one really hot issue, where they demand the “right” sort of judge. And there are people who just want a qualified jurist, someone who does not rule by a litmus test but maintains a judicial philosophy based on the firm understanding of what the Constitution actually says and allows. Speaking for myself, I belong in that last group.

But while I am speaking for myself, it occurs to me that perhaps I should promote my credentials for the post. After all, I am a solid red-meat Republican, married to a woman from another race to please the Diversity crowd, and an energetic sprite of a 5-year-old daughter to add the requisite ‘cute’ factor. I am a Texan and have worked jobs for minimum wage before, giving me both a loose connection to Bush and the common touch. And I am quite disposed already to tell Senator Byrd or Senator Reid to suck a lemon if they get mad because I am not sufficiently ‘progressive’ for their taste. After reading and hearing the opinions of so many angry Conservatives, I think I may be just what they want.

Of course, some might prefer to have a Conservative justice known to the President personally, rather than rely on someone who just happens to be popular at the moment with the Right. Some might prefer someone whose mind and character are understood by the man appointing the justice. Some might prefer someone whose proven credentials not only suit the court, but also will be very difficult for Liberals to turn to their own political advantage, especially in the 2006 mid-term elections. Some might prefer someone who is focused not just on the issues of the moment, but the Constitutional foundation of American Law itself.

Those people should be happy, because George W. Bush made a choice that addressed those needs and ideals quite well, in Harriet Miers. But if an eminently-qualified jurist known to the President, and this President in particular, is not suitable, I am still willing to accept the responsibility, for the good of the nation, and for the chance to put a tack or three on the seats of Justices Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens.

Race Baiting

[{}]

Race continues to play an inordinate role in American politics, and influences politics to an unhealthy degree. In addition to normative definitions of racial demographic groups, there are also cultural demographic groups which play a role in national politics, and to my mind are perverting the proper voice of the nation’s citizens.

To start, I took a look around, and generally there seem to be two models of racial influence in national politics; either the dominant demographic simply asserts itself and largely ignores the minority voice, or else the various demographics operate as a coalition, roughly proportional to the representation in the population. Only in the United States are minority groups given a disproportionately large influence in modern politics.

According to results from the 2000 U.S. Census, out of a total population of 281.4 million people, Whites make up 67.6% of the population, Blacks 12.9% of the population, Hispanics 12.5% of the population, Asians 3.6% of the population, American Indians and Alaska Natives 0.9% of the population, Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islander 0.1% of the population. An additional 2.4% of the population is mixed-race. This tells us four things, right there.

First, while the ‘melting-pot’ nature of American heterogeny is a fine ideal, it has largely been limited to mixing Europeans together; other regional cultures have not been involved in this process, either through exclusion from the majority or by the choice of that group to remain apart.

Second, I notice that Jews and Arabs are not identified in the Census as a race; they appear to be included as a sub-set of Whites, but this may well be an invalid assignment, given the known distinction between most European races and Semitic races. That is, one would hardly expect someone with a genetic background developed through many years in the Middle East to be effectively the same as someone whose genetic characteristics were molded in Scandanavia or Europe’s North coast.

Third, the rising trend of mixed-race Americans (in 1990, the percentage was so low as to not be tracked) indicates that conventional racial identities may begin to lose functional meaning in years to come, diluted as different races intermarry and raise children who do not fit neatly into assumed categories.

And fourth, it becomes obvious that black American politicians enjoy a far greater share of the political spotlight than can be explained by their demographic representation. This, by itself, is in no way a bad thing, as any individual or group has a reasonable expectation to succeed by their efforts. But even a cursory look at the figureheads of black politics shows an alarming focus on negative and predatory tactics. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show the perversion of religion in the pursuit of political influence, and such hateful idealogues as Charley Rangel, John Conyers and Shelia Jackson Lee demonstrate the intention to use race as a tool for fomenting hatred, pursuing division and rancor, and to prevent the consideration by blacks of their true best interests. For these threat mongers, the ideals of common ideals for all Americans, and common assimilation of everything Americans can offer one another, is rejected and replaced by a vitriolic practice of race-baiting.

It’s not PC, but it seems to me that we need to set this matter straight. As things stand right now, Conservatives stand to gain politically from the Liberals’ dependence on hate-only demagoguery, but millions of Americans are not receiving the representation they deserve, and the vital need for the country as a whole is to drive discussions which involve racial issues to solution and cooperation.

Good News, Actually

...

Good Afternoon. Yes, I’ve been away for a few days, and no, I’m not going to explain why. But I have not been so far removed from things that I have not caught the news, especially the running gag (or should I said bound-and-gagged, as in ‘fit to be tied’?) we call the MSM. I’m speaking, in particular, about the attempted twisting of Dr. Bennett’s comments last week about Abortion.

For those who somehow managed to miss it, the Daily Show put up a clip of Dr. William Bennett, noted conservative talk show host, responding to a caller with a scenario with this statement:

“But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down”

Well, that by itself certainly sounds horrible. And as expected, every knee-jerk, head-jerk, and other-jerk in general Liberal website and broadcast team started in to demand Bennett’s firing/lynching/deportation to outer Mongolia. But if you simply look at the very next thing Dr. Bennett said, you begin to wonder if the quote was yanked out of context:

“That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.”

What happened was this – the caller was trying to claim that Abortion was responsible for lost revenue in the Social Security funds, and while that is statistically true, Dr. Bennett argued that this was a poor reason to argue against Abortion, to argue about finance and completely miss the moral imperative. To illustrate how ridiculous and offensive this example was, Dr. Bennett presented the argument in an equally statistical sense – there is significant evidence that not only are a disproportional number of criminal perpetrators in the United States black, but also a heavily disproportionate number of crime victims in the United States are also black. So Dr. Bennett’s example is exactly correct, especially when he reminded the caller that such a notion would be abhorrent on its face; you can not and must not separate the morality from the debate.

Taken in context, Dr. Bennett’s statement is not only clearly not racist, but an effective caution against forgetting the significance of a moral position. Small wonder that the Left ripped out the parts about morality; it’s increasingly hard to find a Liberal who thinks victims have equal rights to criminals, or that helpless infants enjoy the same rights as unwed female Kerry supporters. But it’s actually very good news, when you think about it.

Conservatives, while morally and (apparently) intellectually superior to Liberals, are still vulnerable to doing and saying incredibly stupid things. A smart Liberal would wait for just such a gaffe, test it out to make sure it’s what it looks like, then wreak havoc. After all, one clear lesson from the Presidency of George H.W. Bush is that Conservatives, even relatively mild ones, are held to a much higher standard than Liberals. However, another lesson the Liberals ought to have learned by now but somehow keep missing, is that folks have picked up on their bias (i.e. raving hatred) against Conservatives, and they tend to look for something to back up a claim. So, while Trent Lott mishandled his situation and it cost him a leadership slot, the lynchings of such notables as Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dubya himself all failed to happen, because the goods just weren’t there when people checked out the claim. The same thing happens in the case of Bennett; anyone who bothers to look finds out that basically, the good doctor never said what was claimed, but was actually presenting quite a different argument. In the end, this may annoy Dr. Bennett for a few days, but will inevitably just add to the mountain of evidence that the Liberals are unable and unwilling to defend their opinion with anything better than slander.

Slander monkeys, they just can’t learn.

Offline

I will be offline until Monday, October 3rd.

A Muddy Smear

@#$@#$!!!

CNN almost fooled me today. I visited the site to check baseball scores from last night, and blazing across the top of the screen I saw the ominous headline: “DeLay Resigns”.

The sub-title stated that Congressman DeLay had resigned his leadership position after being indicted by a Grand Jury. It sounded serious, enough so that I wondered how someone as politically adroit as DeLay could have gotten into that kind of trouble. Then I looked into the details, and the odor most commonly associated with dead vermin and CBS Anchormen wafted into sense. The short version of the DeLay indictment can be summed up in four points:

* The indictment was drawn up not in Sugarland, where DeLay lives and has an office, nor in Washington D.C., where he works, but in liberal-controlled Austin, where Delay may have had a lunch once or twice, or caught a UT game.

* The person pursuing the indictment was none other than Austin DA Ronnie Earle, most famous in recent months for trying to indict Senator Kay Bailey Hitchison, which effort was no more effective than the 2004 Dean For President campaign, which may have had its hand in Mr. Earle’s more than slightly hysterical efforts to slander Congressman DeLay. Mr. Earle has previously appeared on the CBS sitcom “60 Minutes”, where he regaled the audience with Munchhausen-like credibility in his accusations of malfeasance by the Congressman. That attempt in 2004 failed to impress a Grand Jury; the accusation now leveled in Earle’s first indictment in four tries against Republicans; it is noteworthy that Earle, a likelong Democrat, has never spoken ill of a single Democrat anywhere, anytime, much less pursued an indictment against an elected Democrat.

* The indictment has no specifics of any alleged criminal act by Congressman DeLay. The allegations are so vague as to be frivolous on their face. The closest approxmation to a charge, is the claim that DeLay violated the ‘60-day window’ law in Campaign Finance laws. However, the law cited prohibits only “corporations” from making donations during the 60-day window; it in no way prohibits PACs from spending and allocating funds already received prior to that window, which is the case here.

* The action that DeLay’s Political Action Committee is alleged to have performed in violation of law, is identical to actions taken by PACs of Democrats running for office at the same time. If indeed a violation has occurred, one wonders why Mr. Earle believes that an action taken by a Republican is illegal, while the same action taken by a Democrat would be legal.

In summary then, a rabid Democrat in a solid-blue state, with no legal basis but more than the normal amount of Leftist paranoia, has mounted a smear campaign which he knows will fail any sane scrutiny. Why? Well seriously, what else do the Democrats have left? They rejected honor and serious examination of the issues, and have become a party of vicious lemmings. They hope to smear one of the most effective members of Congress, and a leading Republican from Texas in the bargain, to bolster what pallid hopes they still carry of grabbing votes from the gullible in 2006.

Monkeys and Professionals - Another Look at Media, Local Version

[]--[]---[]

You may have seen those Careerbuilder commercials, the ones where the dedicated and hardworking employee is surrounded by a pack of useless chattering monkeys? That image showed up repeatedly in my mind, as I watched the various media types try to cover Hurricane Rita, most of them badly and with little sense of the needs of their viewers. This seems to happen a lot with television, at the network level as much as the local stations. There appears to be a formula for news shows in general, and it gets even more trite in storm coverage:

[] You must show the anchors working in casual clothing, to emphasize that they are working under difficult and deprived conditions, even at the studio.

[] The people on camera must look rough and ready, yet their makeup must be perfect

[] At least one young female, preferably petite, must be seen at the coast to emphasize the danger and maximize the storm’s effect

[] When considering scenarios, the worst damage and loss of life must be emphasized repeatedly

[] Drama is vital; reporters must stand in water as deep as possible (even if that means finding an alley which does not drain well to imply a flooded major thoroughfare), and must exaggerate wind velocity

[] Footage and information must be repeated incessantly, dozens of times an hour in order to look busy and informed


Just as CBS News has become no more than a façade of a real news service, most local news do not supply the real information deeds of their viewers, and this was painfully obvious during the “coverage” of hurricane Rita.

I had Thursday and Friday off before the storm hit Saturday morning, and so I spent a lot of time watching the news for information. While the stations featured endless examples of the ridiculous, like Fox 26 putting a female reporter in a poncho and hip waders to stand in an empty Galveston street in hundred-degree heat more than 40 hours before the first rain drop fell, or Wayne Dolcefino of Channel 13 (ABC) trying to convince viewers that he was working hard on the scene in Beaumont, when he would disappear for hours on end and reappear looking fresh and in new clothes, in sharp contrast to reporters who were really working the long shifts. But worse than the Potemkin newscasts, was the useful information that the stations simply never bothered to provide, like alternate routes North and West, or coordination with the Mayor’s office to help the evacuation proceed according to plan. The appearance of diligence was more important than actually helping people get vital information, it seems, and for that most of the local stations have earned my great contempt.

The trump card of the Old Media remains the fact that networks and major stations have significant broadcast facilities and resources. If the editors and majority owners of the syndicates put the same thought and diligence into the quality of information that they provide to viewers in these events that they do to their equipment, modern television could be truly amazing in its value and a tremendous asset to the city. As it is, most local stations have no more virtue than a Pamela Anderson sitcom. My grades for Channel 2 (KPRC-NBC), Channel 13 (KTRK-ABC), Channel 26 (KRIV-FOX), and Channel 39 (KHTV-WB) are F’s across the board. Right there with the screaming chimps I mentioned at the beginning of this article.

A pleasant exception, as I conclude, must be noted, for Channel 11 (KHOU-CBS). While they could not resist the obligatory marathon of repeated file footage, when the storm itself rolled in, regular updates of road conditions, shelters, police and city advisories, and store availability was maintained non-stop, updated far more often than the other stations and with far less induced drama. Greg Hurst and Lisa Foronda worked, by my estimate, about 65 hours between Friday and Sunday, taking calls and emails to answer questions and provide the most needed information. No hip-wader stunts, just solid information when it mattered. Well done, Channel 11.

Disaster Planning

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

When I announced my intention to remain in Houston during Hurricane Rita, it immediately provoked a fair amount of debate. Now that the crisis is largely past, I think it would be useful to re-examine the decision.

There is an old saying; no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. And it’s not far from that to say that the real world is not kind to plans we make for emergencies. That’s part of why I am writing this article, actually - it is far easier to make a general plan and demand someone else follow it faithfully, than to make all the adjustments needed under the pressure of real time and significant consequences.

It’s always a good idea to have plans for emergencies; fire escape plans, tornado and flood response, intruder alarm and escape, and so on. But it’s just as important to have Plans B, C, and D, for what happens if something shoots the first plan to pieces. And hurricanes are a good example of a situation not agreeing to follow the plan.

Like Katrina, Rita formed up rather quickly for a storm of its size and strength. It changed course a number of times, even in the last day before landfall, making it difficult to know the conditions to expect. Some will (correctly) observe that this fact makes it important to prepare for the worst, but it also means that we have to divide our plans into things we expect to control, and things we cannot control.

Like many people who live on the Gulf Coast (though not nearly so many as I would like), I made plans to address hurricane and severe storm conditions. The things I can control in such conditions basically come down to laying in supplies, like canned food and bottled water, confirming the stability of the residence and street conditions, and planning evacuation routes for various situations. These were all in place.

A number of factors affected the decision I had to make last Wednesday. They included the following:

1. The coastal and low-lying areas were ordered to evacuate, and people living in known flood-prone areas were asked to consider evacuation. People who did not live in flood plains, as is my case, were told to exercise “common sense”. The area where I live has never flooded on record.

2. We had two cars, and had plans which allowed flexibility depending on which car (or both) we took. When my car was stolen on the night of the 13th, that reduced options severely.

2a. With only one car, we no longer had the ability to keep one car fully fueled at all times, and because of the necessary method for getting parents to and from work, and the daughter to and from school, the CRV was only half-full Wednesday evening when we had to choose our actions.

3. Because Mikki and I both had to work through Wednesday, by the time we were all back home, the major roads were crowded, the gas stations were jammed with long lines and already starting to run dry, and this reduced feasible options.

4. I knew Houston traffic from long congestion, and correctly anticipated that we would run out of gas before could reach a safe destination, and might be unable to find fuel to make the journey.

5. I have relatives in other countries, but not in Central or North Texas. As a result, evacuation would mean trying to find a hotel in another county on no notice, which would be relatively expensive and difficult.

6. Our residence does not sit in a flood plain, nor do any of the major roads which lead from it out of town.

7. The building in which I live is a thick brick structure, with surrounding brick structures. It has never been flooded, nor has it suffered significant damage from wind. Since we are 60 miles inland, and our apartment is on the second floor, we are in danger from neither the storm surge nor flooding, unless something truly unprecedented happens, but must prepare for wind under a known number of limited possibilities.

Our choices then, were reduced to trying to find fuel, risking what we already, had, and then to make a long trip to an unknown destination. Otherwise, we could choose to reinforce our residence, make use of prepared supplies, and ride out the storm. The measure was unknown risk against known risk, unknown cost and difficulty against a reasonable estimate of cost and difficulty, and the uncontrollable behavior of other drivers and non-local conditions, against controlled conditions. From that perspective, the choice to remain at home was clearly the best option, in terms of protecting family and preventing harm. The severity of the storm is actually a greater factor of danger if we evacuated, than if we stayed.

Obviously, had we been on the coast, if we lived in something like a trailer or a wood-frame house, if our neighborhood was known for periodic flooding, then bugging out would be required, but in our condition, we were as secure or more in our home as we would be in any location we could reach for more than a hundred miles. While wind was a threat to consider, it was not the only factor, and the decision I made was the one which best protected my family. In other conditions, situations, or with different options, my choices would have been different. But I made my decision without emotional imbalance, without forgetting priorities and known history.

Just something to think about when looking at a hard decision someone else has to make. Know your options, what you can control and what is byond your control, and make your decision without panic.

Houston

[H!] [O!] [U!] [S!] [T!] [O!] [N!]

As I begin this article, I will say at the outset that I am a Houstonian, and so may be prone to a certain bias in favor of my hometown. That said, I would contend that Houston has established a very good reputation by its works, earned through the character of its citizens.

I was already proud of Houston’s response to Katrina; where so many other cities were mouthing sympathy, Houston took the overwhelming majority of refugees from Katrina, and amazingly, had major shelters finding places to live and temporary work for victims before most Louisiana shelters had an accurate roster of people staying there. Houston provided more supplies, helped more people with shelter, relief, and assistance in finding family than any other city, and did it in less time and with less bureacracy than any other government entity. This led to praise for the Space City not only from other Americans, but also other countries.

This weekend, it happened again. As motorists found themselves stranded on Interstates 10, 45, and 59, residents in North Houston took it upon themselves to bring water, ice, and gasoline to them so they could continue their evacuation. My wife’s mother in Hong Kong saw such actions on the news there, and remarked to my wife about how generous and helpful Houstonians are.

I have complimented Mayor Bill White not only for his planning and cool head, but also a professional modesty which allowed people to do their jobs without undue pressure. I would note, however, the cooperation and community spirit for Houston in general, from Centerpoint getting 83% of the Greater Houston area back with power in less than a day, to City of Houston services getting traffic lights back in operation and countless signs repaired/replaced by Sunday morning, to area gas stations and grocery stores getting open by Sunday morning to not only resupply citizens in need, but also send the message of re-establishing a comforting routine. I also found a strong city-wide commitment to courtesy and order.

Last night is a good example. Around 9:40 PM, ABC News showed a helicopter shot of an HEB on Highway 6 which was pumping gas. My wife and I did a quick consult, and we decided to try to get some gas, as no one in our immediate area had been able to find a place with any to sell, and the tank was close to empty. When we got to the store however, we found a very long line of more than a hundred cars, and almost immediately after we got into line, a Sheriff came by and announced that there was no more gas to be had, and to go home.

As we were driving home, I took a smaller road home than the one we took over, and found my lane slowing then coming to a stop. There was a lane to our left, but I had a gut feeling I should stay where we were at, and sure enough, as time passed we began to inch forward, and a gas station appeared in the distance. What was interesting, was that the line stayed orderly, no one cutting in line and no one losing their temper. It took an hour in line, but we got our gas. The station stayed open to at least 11:30 PM, and served more than a hundred customers in the time I was waiting and watching. My point is, that without the need for law enforcement or anyone getting unruly a lot of people were able to get what they needed, because the store was open, staffed, stocked, and had a plan to get people what they needed. That was the story across all 600+ square miles of Houston, and that made a real difference in this event.

Logging Back In

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Power came back about 4:30 PM. I confess I indulged in a shower before re-assembling the computer and logging back in to report I am alive and well, though I need to find a gas station.

Gasoline is the big word for everyone right now. At the 5 PM Newscast, there were two (2) gasoline statons open for business and fueling up cars, at an average wait time of three hours for those in line. KHOU advised that if you were not already in line, they might well be out before you could get there. Houston remains the city which, two days after finishing the 2005 “Get Outta Town” marathon, is now the city of “Stay Where You Are”. Gas stations are expected to be closed until at least Monday or Tuesday throughout Houston, although FEMA (more on them in a moment) has sent rations of gasoline to locations along major roadways.

I feel like the guy in those movies who has a gun pointed at his chest, only to see the shooter turn and fire into the guy next to him. Louisiana got a lot of Rita, and East Texas got a lot more. Rita politely dropped her windspeeds from 175 mph sustained to just about 130 mph when she made shore, and she moved froma dead-on course for Galveston. Since Rita was so big, Houston still got hurricane-force winds and a fair bit of rain, but no real storm surge and a lot less damage than we expected.

I saw an interesting effect from Rita late yesterday. The sky was clear at sunrise, but clouds moved in around noon, and by 4 PM were clearly threatening. Around 7:30 PM, the setting sun turned the cloudscape golden, a stunning sight which seemed like a divine promise of protection. Of course, it was overcome in about 20 minutes by black clouds swiftly moving in, so that could be taken the other way, but it was a fascinating sight, not unlike the green skies I have seen just before a tornado hits.

We kept waiting for monster winds, but the sustained winds were fairly controlled, not much worse than the tree-shakers we get every couple weeks or so. Of course, those storms don’t last for fifteen hours, but even so, the winds didn’t seem too bad, and even the gusts brought down only a few trees and signs in the neighborhood; the building proved to be just the rock we hoped it would be. All the streetlights are still out, and no one has gas,but we’re good. And Centerpoint got the lights back on before nightfall.

Now, I will be annoying some of the Red-Ticket-Only contingent, the ones who maintain that we are morally obliged to vote a straight-ticket, but I have to say that Mayor Bill White, a life-long Democrat even if he did his best to keep that quiet when he ran for Mayor, has done an outstanding job in this crisis, especially in avoiding finger-pointing for things like the gas shortage, and in asking Houstonians to use “common sense” early in the week in deciding whether to evacuate and in cooperating to help stranded motorists and in planning actions with state and federal officials. White, very unlike Nagin, got in touch with state and federal officials early on and made all the necessary approvals and requests to get supplies deployed and responders on the same page. I will writing more on Bill White later this week but for now I have to say that, Democrat or not, he’s earned my respect and my vote. I will give Governor Perry a chance to redeem himself as recovery unfolds, but he was a moron to publicly promise that Houston gas stations would get gas by Friday evening; it never happened and he plain looked like an idiot for promising what we all knew would never happen.

Now about FEMA: FEMA had officials in Houston Thursday, in close cooperation with the Red Cross and Salvation Army, and more importantly, with office space specifically set up by the Mayor. By Friday night, a convoy of eighteen-wheelers was bringing medical and food supplies to the 49 Red Cross shelters in the greater Houston area, ahead of the storm. It is noteworthy as well that in about the same time that it took for New Orleans to get about 200,000 people out of New Orleans, more than three million people evacuated the greater Houston area. Think about that, really.

Well, I gotta get going; Jagan needs dinner and I want to find a Coke machine.

Shutting Down

[][][]

Storm clouds moving in, wind gusts up to 40 mph now.

Closing down until the storm surge passes.

A Chat With A Witch, about a Really Mean Lady

UUUUUUUUUUUUUU

I was walking around today, trying to think of anything I might have missed in preparing to ride out Hurricane Rita, when a figure in black caught my eye. Looking up, I saw a woman in black riding a broomstick, and peering down with a worried look. I waved at her, and she came down to the ground.

“You look lost”, I said to the woman. “Can I help you?”

“Maybe”, replied the woman. “I’m a witch, and I’m trying to find a little brat and her dog.”

“That sounds familiar.” I remarked.

“Yeah, I know, I know”, shrugged the woman. “Gerty Nightfall, Wicked Witch of the West.”

“Like in the Wizard of Oz?” I asked.

“Kind of, yeah”, agreed Gerty. “That movie didn’t really catch the whole story, you know.”
“Really?” I asked

“Oh yeah”, assured Gerty. “Like that brat Dorothy. To hear people talk, you’d think she was a sweet innocent little girl, but in reality she’s a racist murderer.”

“That sounds harsh.” I said.

“Hey, her mom started the ‘tradition’ by dropping a house on my great-aunt. And ever since, it’s been a running game of ‘kill the witch’. I could sure use a Harry Potter on my side, even a Voldemort.”
“I guess. So, what are you doing in Houston?” I asked her.

“Houston?” repeated Gerty, clearly surprised. “I thought I saw storm clouds, like a tornado coming.”

“Umm, no.” I answered. “Those storm clouds are Hurricane Rita.”

“Hurricane?” asked Gerty. “So, no houses being picked up and moved to another land?”

“More like winds tearing down houses and land being turned into instant lakefronts.” I answered.

“Ow. Sounds mean, this Rita.” said Gerty.

“She is that.” I said. “Six hundred miles across, winds moving faster than some aircraft can fly, and she can’t make up her mind.”

“Indecisive? How do you mean?”

“Well, Rita was supposed to be heading for Matagorda, then Brownsville, then Corpus Christi, then Matagorda again, then straight for Galveston, now it’s nudging more towards Beaumont.”

“So some of your coast could be OK?”

“Not really. The storm is so big, pretty much the whole state will take a hit, it’s just a question of who gets the worst of it.”

“I get it.” said Gerty. “So why are you sticking around? Are you that tough, or that stupid?”

“I’ve been hearing that”, I replied. “It really comes down to three factors, which people don’t often see unless they have to face the decision themselves.

“First, have you seen the traffic jams? By the time my wife and I got off work yesterday, the roads heading North were jammed so tight, that the time to get out of Harris County was in the 12-13 hour range. Also, we couldn’t get gas for the CRV; stations were running out and the ones which still had gas Wednesday had lines dozens of cars deep. We decided driving out was not feasible.”

“So that’s what that was.” muttered Gerty. “I thought it was just a bunch of really big snakes, sleeping and stinking in the heat. What about catching a flight?”

“I can’t ride a broom, Gerty” I said.

“Ha ha” said Gerty. “Come on, you’ve got airports.”

“Yes, but we can’t get there, the only way to get to any of them is to drive the same roads that are already jammed.” I explained. “And anyway, everything that can fly out has pretty much already left; can’t blame the airlines for not wanting to park a few thirty-million dollar planes out where the wind will rip them up. So that’s not really an option.”

“You said there were three reasons” reminded Gerty.

“Yes.” I replied. “Leaving town would be stressful and expensive, no matter how we did it-”

“And staying for the storm is fun?” interrupted Gerty.

“No fun, but we have to come back and clean up sooner or later” I replied. “If we had left town, we’d be spending hundreds of dollars we can’t easily spare, to sit in a hotel or shelter somewhere, stressed out while we worry, and then afterwards we have to get back and clean up, and probably do repairs. It just prolongs the stress, increases the cost, and makes more problems. Also, there is a real danger of looting.”

“OK, but isn’t your family more important?” asked Gerty.

“Absolutely.” I answered. “And that’s where the third reason kicks in. Houston is a huge city, covering about six hundred square miles. About four and a half million people live in Houston and the surrounding areas. Throw in another hundred thousand or so fleeing from Galveston and other coastal counties who are heading North through Houston, and you have a lot of people driving on some very limited roadspace, and with no way to refuel them. It doesn’t matter what time you leave, or which highway you take, you’re going to run out of patience, fuel, and options if you didn’t leave early Wednesday or if you didn’t get lucky. There are a bunch of people who went on the long drive, only to end up having to come back home, only more tired and less prepared than when they left. Next to that, staying home and readying supplies looks very smart.”

“I guess”, said Gerty. “Well, good luck with the storm.”

“And good luck to you with Dorothy” I said, as Gerty prepared to fly away.

“And her little dog, too” she chuckled as she left.




It was only much later that I wondered about the monkeys...

City In The Crosshairs

[-] [+] [-]

Thursday, September 22, 2005. Houston is fast becoming a ghost town. With the evidence of Katrina’s pain and misery unloaded on the people who stayed in New Orleans, many Houstonians didn’t have to be prodded very hard to evacuate. Of course, the rush to get out of town led to huge lines at gas stations, empty store shelves, and chaos on the major northbound routes. There are over four million people living in the greater Houston area, easily nine times the number of people in the greater New Orleans area. Given the comparison in available roads, notice before the storm hits, and the wind force of the relative storms, Houston is going to have just as hard a time getting everyone out as New Orleans did. And, like New Orleans, there will be many who are unable or unwilling to leave, like my own family. We do not have the finances necessary to take shelter in a North Texas hotel, we do not trust the police or neighborhood to prevent our apartment from being burglarized if we leave town for any length of time, and in any case, the long drive North before the storm, and the return later to deal with the consequences would only add to the stress and fatigue before we got down to the task of cleaning up and repair. So we have stored up provisions, prepared escape plans for worst-case conditions, and readied ourselves for both what we expect to see happen, and for possibilities of every magnitude. My employer took the precaution of closing early for the weekend, so we will have all of Thursday and Friday to get ready for Rita’s landfall. Our apartment is not in a flood plain, the one car we have remaining is a relatively high-clearance SUV, we have several cases of water, a fair amount of dry and canned food, a decent first-aid kit, candles, and a small butane stove. The apartment building itself is a heavy brick building, ugly but sturdy, and we live on the second floor. As long as the power stays on, I will blog updates on the Hurricane. At the moment, Rita is a full-Category 5 Hurricane, the 3rd-strongest storm ever tracked, headed on a course directly for the Galveston Bay and Houston. We expect to start seeing storm effects Friday morning, with landfall expected around 1 AM Saturday morning.

The most likely scenarios for Rita all include heavy rain and high winds; the only question is really how much flooding, how high the wind gusts will be in major metropolitan areas, and how far inland Rita will be able to do catastrophic damage. Galveston, both the city and the county, will be in for a really hard hit, just like Lake Jackson and the rest of the Texas Gulf coast. Buses and other means have been used to move thousands of people already, and the rescue crews and shelters are all in place and have several plans and contingency options ready for whatever comes.

What I’m saying is that there are really three zones of Hurricane impact; the Gulf Coast cities, the Houston metropolitan area, and inland Texas. The areas of greatest danger have had mandatory evacuations begin already, including Seabrook, Galveston, Clear Lake, Dickinson, LaPorte, Corpus Christi, Nassau Bay, Hitchcock, Victoria, Wharton, Pasadena, Baytown, and all the way down the coastline. The Houston metropolitan area is actually three sub-areas - downtown with high-rise buildings and a lot of glass, low-lying areas to the South, and a lot of land which is going to get hit with high winds and flooding to some extent, but which is sixty miles from the coast, so there will be effectively nothing like the storm surge which hit New Orleans. The main concern is the fact that Houston is a very decentralized city, so that people who are trapped in flooded areas or by wind destruction will be difficult to reach. City officials warn that 911 services will seriously degraded during the time the Hurricane is passing through Houston, and the sheer size of the storm (more than 600 miles across at this writing, with sustained 170 mph winds) means that it’s fifteen mph pace of approach will take around twenty hours or so to make its way through the city, so there will be literally a full day of high winds and heavy rainfall. According to KHOU-TV, around a million and a half Houstonians have or are evacuating through this morning, generally from the areas with flood history. TXDOT has begun to reverse inbound lanes on major highways and toll roads to outbound traffic only, to improve the flow of traffic out of town. Additional deliveries of gasoline to stations is planned for today, to provide fuel for the evacuees. Medical evacuations began late Tuesday evening, so that the most critical cases were out of town before Mayor White announced the voluntary evacuation stage.

Houston is also seeing traffic from the South, as coastal areas evacuate through Houston to reach inland destinations. This is another reason for the congestion, as well as the heavy gasoline consumption. Many evacuees from Galveston and the coast were nearly out of gas when they got to Houston, creating intense demand for the limited supplies by both Houstonians and through traffic. In addition, owners and employees of many stations are themselves evacuating, further reducing the supply. At the moment, the supply of gasoline has definitely been the biggest problem so far. Most of us would be happy if that were the only big problem from this storm.

Outrageous - Class Warfare a la Reader’s Digest

0000


The October edition of Reader’s Digest is out and with it, another in a series of outrageous injustices - or so it may seem, if you don’t look at the details or pay much attention to the writer’s hidden motive. The writer of this particular piece, titled “the $54,000 an Hour Executive”, is Michael Crowley, whom Reader’s Digest acknowledges in rather fine print after the article, is also Senior Editor at The New Republic. That is, he sees things with his own perspective and agenda, and while this is valid for a writer, it’s just a touch unfair that Reader’s Digest does not present this fact plainly, at the start. The reader is led to believe that Mr. Crowley speaks from Middle America, and so is misled from the start.

The article Mr. Crowley put out this month is a harangue against CEO pay. Don’t get me wrong; there are a lot of overpaid people in the world, and more than once I have looked at this case or that and wondered “What were they thinking?”, about the people who approved such extravagant compensation. But the essence of Crowley’s article is based on a very false premise; that wages and compensation should be controlled, that if someone makes more money than the average person thinks is appropriate, that he should be denied his wealth. That, friends, is nothing but forced redistribution of wealth, the stuff of Lenin and Stalin and Chairman Mao. As un-American as anything we’ve seen since the Nazis thought it would be cool to impose their will on anyone they could control. I am not saying that Michael Crowley is a communist or wishes to overthrow the American tradition of government, but simply that he has done a poor job of thinking his complaint through. He’s done a poor job, but broadcast his ill-considered thoughts on a very significant stage. That must be rebuked.

Sure, some CEOs make a ton of money. But the guys who garner these deals do so through negotiations; no one is forced to make the deal they do, and Mr. Crowley leaves off the success stories, in large part because there are too many CEOs who do their jobs with integrity and modesty; they don’t fit the picture Crowley wants to sell, so he leaves them off, but still pretends he’s showing the matter cleanly.

Consider professional sports, those fortunate few who are paid millions to play games. A basketball, football, or baseball player who is able to drive his name and reputation can make more than a hundred million dollars before he sees his first grey hair. Next to pro sports, the money paid to the average CEO is frankly paltry. Then there are doctors and lawyers, who can make millions of dollars off a single case; why doesn’t Mr. Crowley consider that a conflict of interest? Authors who find an audience can become rich, even though they do not hire employees, produce tangible commodities, or improve the efficiency of any business or industry. Shall we tell Michael Crichton or J.K. Rowling that they are not entitled to the results of their efforts? For that matter, it seems that Mr. Crowley’s annual earnings are several times my own, even though I work just as many hours, just as hard, and with just as much ingenuity and creativity. Perhaps Mr. Crowley should, in keeping with his sense of fairness, share his salary with me? Somehow, I doubt his sense of fairness extends to personal responsibility.

Republicans: By the Polls

[]--[]--[]--[]

Yesterday, I noted the numbers for the Donkeyfied Party, today I look at the Pachyderms.

Again using the numbers from Polling Report I took a gander to see how the Grand Old Party sails in the American eye. Here are the numbers, using the same polls:

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll says that 42% of Americans viewed the Republican Party as “Very Positive” or “Somewhat Positive” in January 1997. That remained at 42% in January 2000, and only climbed to 44% just after the 2000 election. April 2003 saw the Republicans rise slightly to 49%, and in September 2005 the Republicans are down to 37%. Compared to the Democrats, the Republicans in this poll started 5 points lower, pulled ahead in 2003, and now are even with the Democrats.

Then there’s the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. In October 1997, the Republicans held a 50% “Favorable Rating”, reached 61% Favorable in January 2002, and in July 2005 owned a 46% rating (no newer data). During Bush’s time in office, the Republican Party has generally been above 50% Approval in this poll.

The ABC News/Washington Post Poll has a shorter timeline, starting in December 2000 at 54% Approval (10 points below the Democrats), but rising to 63% in January 2002, and sloping back down to 49% in June 2005, their lowest rating since ABC started tracking. This represents an eight-point gain in that time-frame.

The CBS News/New York Times Poll showed the Republicans at 41% Favorable in June 1999 (10 points behind the Democrats), rising as high as 58% in January 2002 (even with the Democrats), and staying near or above 50% since 2003. Their July 2004 number (last report) sat at 49%. This represents an eight-point gain for the party, and the absence of recent readings is interesting.

And finally, the Pew Research Center showed the Republicans at 52% “Very Favorable” or “Mostly Favorable” in January 1997 (8 points behind the Democrats), and as high as 59% in December 2002, their most recent report (5 points higher than the Democrats). The absence of recent data is interesting, and the thirteen-point gain by the Republicans is in line with a strong increase in self-identified Republican voters.

Note that only the NBC/WSJ Poll has asked about people’s opinion of either Democrats or Republicans in anything like recent weeks.


Well.

Well.

Well.

Democrats: By the Polls

[][][]
/\/\/
I love Polling Report. If you want to see what’s what on a topic in an opinion poll, you can’t do better than visit Polling Report, who present side-by-side polls to show the consensus without a word of their own preference.

There’s been a lot of talk about the Democrats, and I have to admit, if these guys had been steering the Titanic, they’d have aimed for the iceberg, but anyway. I thought it might be interesting to see what people think of the party that used to bring us men like Truman and John Kennedy, and now has to settle for Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy. Here's what the numbers say:

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll says that 47% of Americans viewed the Democratic Party as “Very Positive” or “Somewhat Positive” in January 1997. That rose to 50% in January 2000, but was down again to 46% just after the 2000 election. April 2003 saw the Democrats drop to 36%, and in September 2005 the Democrats are at 37%.

Then there’s the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. In October 1997, the Democrats held a 54% “Favorable Rating”, and in July 2005 own a 52% rating (no newer data). But the Democrats, who reached 61% approval in January 2000, have also been as low as 46%, that mark in February 2005. Before the midterm elections the Democrats were generally above 50% in the this poll, after 2002 generally below it.

The ABC News/Washington Post Poll has a shorter timeline, starting in December 2000 at 64% Approval, but dropping down to 51% in June 2005, their lowest rating since ABC started tracking.

The CBS News/New York Times Poll showed the Democrats at 51% Favorable in June 1999, rising as high as 58% in January 2002, and dropping as low as 46% in May 2003. Their July 2005 number sat at 54%.

And finally, the Pew Research Center showed the Democrats at 60% “Very Favorable” or “Mostly Favorable”, as high as 61% in June 1997, falling as low as 52% in August 1997. Their last reading was 54% in December 2002, no data after that.

Note that only the NBC/WSJ Poll has asked about people’s opinion of Democrats since July.

The Hidden Secret of Albus Dumbledore

0-0-0

It’s really a mark of how great J.K. Rowling has mastered her craft, that legions of fans are arguing for weeks on end about whether Severus Snape is a loyal but misunderstood servant of Light and Justice, or else a slimy traitor who should not only be killed in the final book if there is justice, but in an especially prolonged and painfull manner. I should say right here that if by this point you are a fan of the “Harry Potter” series, but have not yet finished the “Half-Blood Prince”, this article would be a ‘spoiler’, so you might want to stop here. Also, if you are not a fan of Harry Potter, or if the name Harry Potter rings no bells, this article will hold little value to you.

With that said, readers of HBP (as the 6th book is usually dubbed in shorthand) are appalled to learn about the death of Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster at Hogwarts School and Harry Potter’s mentor. If the events of the book depict matters clearly, it also happens that Severus Snape, a teacher at Hogwarts specifically protected under Dumbledore’s trust, delivered the kiling blow with a forbidden curse. Snape was last seen fleeing the school, Death Eaters and snotty bully Draco Malfoy in tow. As a result, all sorts of debates have begun concerning the character of Snape’s heart and soul, and more to the point, predictions about what is to come in the pronounced finale to the best-selling series. The essential point comes down to a critical question: Was it Snape’s idea that Dumbledore, or was it actually Dumbledore himself? There seems to be strong support for either position, but I have found an early indicator of Dumbledore’s intentions along this line of thought.

First things first, and by that I mean that a lot of good information can be found in the first book, “Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone” (American title under Scholastic publisher; all references in this article will be under the American edition), the shorthand for the title is SS. Anyway, the very first words spoken about our man Dumbledore come from Professor Minerva McGonagall, who tells Dumbledore that the only reason Voldemort has any powers that Dumbledore does not, is because Dumbledore is too “noble” (page 11). That significant word is reinforced througout the series, so it strikes me that we should key on it.

Another early reference to Dumbledore shows up when Harry meets Ron Weasley on the train to Hogwarts, and also discovers Chocolate Frogs and Famous Wizards Trading Cards. Harry’s first card is no other than Albus Dumbledore. The card’s detail says Dumbledore is famous for a number of accomplishments and merits, including “the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon’s blood, and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicolas Flamel.” (page 103). The story brings up this connection later in Harry’s discovery of the significance of Nicolas Flamel, and his search for the hidden stone and its importance to the mystery.

At the end of SS, in wrapping things up, Dumbledore says a number of things which are very important if they are recalled and applied to the context. To Harry’s first question, Albus “sighed very deeply”, and said “I cannot tell you. Not today. Not now.” (page 299). This is important, because it reinforces that there is information we do not receive directly, nor at the time or in the way we wish.

But before that, in the course of discussing the magical stone, Dumbledore says a number of things which need closer attention. In the first place, Albus flatly explains “As for the stone, it has been destroyed.”

Harry immediately realizes that the destruction of the stone will mean the death of Nicolas Flamel and his wife. Dumbledore explains:

“Nicolas and I had a little chat, and agreed it’s all for the best.”

“But that means he and his wife will die, won’t they?”

“They have enough Elixir stored to set their affairs in order and then, yes, they will die.”

(Page 297) It strike me as worth looking at that statement more closely, with a few thoughts.

First, one might wonder why the Flamels are willing to discuss this matter with Albus Dumbledore in the equal footing that they do.

One might note that Dumbledore and Flamel were not merely colleagues in magic, but according to the card, partners in alchemy.

One might consider that Dumbledore’s true age is difficult to know, except that he is very old by all accounts. He has no wife or children, and seems to have little planned for the future.

One might consider that Flamel and Dumbledore discovered how to make the Sorceror’s Stone together, and shared its virtues together. That would explain why Albus spoke with Nicolas; they shared the same fate.

Once the Stone was destroyed, Albus Dumbledore knew he was going to die, years before it happened. In all probability, Snape (who knew a great deal about potions, the Stone, and the events involving them) did as well. Everything after that is details about how it may best be used to accomplish good.