The Common Ills

"They can go into Iraq and do this and do that," Martha Madden, former secretary of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, said Thursday, "but they can't drop some food on Canal Street in New Orleans, Louisiana, right now? It's just mind-boggling."

The policies are matters of priorities. And the priorities of the Bush White House are clear. For killing in Iraq, they spare no expense. For protecting and sustaining life, the cupboards go bare.

The problem is not incompetence. It's inhumanity, cruelty and greed.

Media outlets have popularized some tactical critiques of U.S. military operations in Iraq. But the administration is competent enough to keep the military-industrial complex humming. It's good at generating huge profits for "defense" contractors, oil companies and the like. First things first, and first things last.

Why shore up levees when the precious money it would take can be better used for war in Iraq? Why allow National Guard units to remain home when they can be useful, killing and being killed, in a faraway war based on lies?

And when catastrophe hits people close to home, why should the president respond with urgency or adequacy if their lives don't figure as truly important in his political calculus?

It's time to end the impunity of President George W. Bush.

Over at Slate, Jack Schaefer asks the same questions and responds with some apparently provocative ideas (see reader reaction) as to why the majority of the media isn't discussing what is obvious to anyone watching.

Race remains largely untouchable for TV because broadcasters sense that they can't make an error without destroying careers. That's a true pity. If the subject were a little less taboo, one of last night's anchors could have asked a reporter, "Can you explain to our viewers, who by now have surely noticed, why 99 percent of the New Orleans evacuees we're seeing are African-American? I suppose our viewers have noticed, too, that the provocative looting footage we're airing and re-airing seems to depict mostly African-Americans."

If the reporter on the ground couldn't answer the questions, a researcher could have Nexised the New Orleans Times-Picayune five-parter from 2002, "Washing Away," which reported that the city's 100,000 residents without private transportation were likely to be stranded by a big storm. In other words, what's happening is what was expected to happen: The poor didn't get out in time.

Even the mention of class and race is enough to throw some readers into a flurry. On the Slate message boards, the piece has been dismissed as "race-obsessed liberal commentary" and one poster suggests that Schaefer thinks Katrina itself was racist. What they refuse to acknowledge is they are participating in a long conservative history of denying race -- which is of course intertwined with class -- as a determining factor in American life. But Katrina exposed that perspective for what it is: a lie. Race matters. Often tragically so.

" I hope this is brief message is worth your time. If possible, I am hoping to get attention of someone who has ready access to news outlets.

"There are two pictures being spun of people ravaging for food in theaftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In the attached document are pictures from Associated Press at the Yahoo News. In the document, a picture of a 'white' couple is shown wading in the water having foraged forfood and supplies in a grocery store. There is also a picture of a 'black' couple shown wading in the water after having 'looted' a store.

"Fact: I am unaware of the basis of either party's venture to the store. Within the captions, there is no discernible difference between the two trips except for the word 'loot.' With no other information provided about the pictures, how are they different? In my opinion, the connotations of the captions under are serious. In a time of extreme emergency, a story should not be spun in this manner.

"If this struggle for survival is being depicted falsely, we cannot allow this to occur. Global and local sympathy should not be curtailed by misrepresenting the intentions of people fighting for their lives. Obviously, if the situation was depicted accurately, we would hope that sympathy of the audience would not wain for the many people in need due to the actions of a few."

These captions have been widely discussed and apparently changed -- after the fact.

Just moments ago at the Ferragamo on 5th Avenue, Condoleeza Rice was seen spending several thousands of dollars on some nice, new shoes (we’ve confirmed this, so her new heels will surely get coverage from the WaPo’s Robin Givhan). A fellow shopper, unable to fathom the absurdity of Rice’s timing, went up to the Secretary and reportedly shouted, “How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!” Never one to have her fashion choices questioned, Rice had security PHYSICALLY REMOVE the woman.

Nationally syndicated radio show host Tom Joyner announced Thursday the creation of the BlackAmericaWeb.com Relief Fund, which will assist those displaced by Hurricane Katrina.

"Hurricane Katrina hit the heart and soul of Black America," Joyner said in a news statement. "This is our Tsunami and we want to take care of those people who now may have family or friends who are going to be in their homes for an extended period of time. We know its hard and we want to make it a little easier on everybody."

[. . .]

Joyner Morning Show commentator, Tavis Smiley, and personalities Sybil Wilkes and J Anthony Brown, have each pledged $1,000.

For more information about how the BlackAmericaWeb.com Relief Fund will provide relief to families helping families, visit www.blackamericaweb.com/relief

The BlackAmericaWeb.com Relief Fund will accept donations at www.blackamericaweb.com and by mail at:

BlackAmericaWeb.com Relief Fund
P.O. Box 803209
Dallas, Texas 75240

All relief requests must be submitted by the church or partner organization administrator. Companies, sponsors and potential partners interested in providing matching funds or resources are encouraged to contact Katrina Witherspoon, president and CEO of the BlackAmericaWeb.com Relief Fund, at (972) 371-5850. You can also call toll free at (888) 866-1741 to get the information on how to make a donation and how to receive relief assistance.

We'll also note Roland S. Martin's "Tragedy affects us all" (The Chicago Defender):

President George W. Bush has stated that the devastation along the Gulf Coast wreaked by Hurricane Katrina is a national tragedy, yet in many ways, it is being played out as a southern coastal problem that doesn't require the attention of the rest of the nation.

As CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel, devoted hours upon hours of coverage to the unfolding events, my heart grew angry by the minute at the lack of perspective or coverage offered by ABC, NBC, CBS and yes, Fox's national network.

When terrorists attacked our nation on Sept. 11, 2001, our sense of collective outrage was furthered by the images being shown on every major network and multiple cable stations. Yet when we all should be witnessing the worst natural disaster in our nation's history, we can count on the usual fare - soap operas, game shows and infomercials - taking up our time.

Should this have just been a cable story? Absolutely not. Had the networks taken the time to adequately jump on this story - remember how they were all over the blackout in New York and along the East Coast? - maybe the people in Wyoming, the state of Washington, California, Indiana, Maine and other non-affected states would have responded in a much more concerted way than what we have seen up until this point.

The head of FEMA also said that he didn't know there were people stranded at the Superdome until Thursday, even though this was broadcast widely and covered in the newspapers all week.

What does this say about Bush's wasteful use of billions of our tax dollars allegedly on "homeland security." This could have been a terrorist attack. The Busheviks weren't prepared at all, even after days of warning about the storm. With a terrorist attack, they wouldn't have even seen it coming, so their incompetence would have been even worse in not responding, which is hard to imagine.

This is inexcusable. If Bush is a man of God, God must have his head in his hands today, cursing his doltish, feckless self-anointed follower. People have been dying in American streets because the American government can't get water or food to them, even though reporters could get into the city.

Undeterred by fact, Bush said on Sunday that the Iraqi constitution is "an inspiration to all who share the universal values of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law."

Really?

This constitution, with its heavy emphasis on Islam, gives Iraqis the right to go to clerical courts governed by Sharia law. As a result, many Iraqi women will be a lot less free than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Bush praised the constitution for declaring that "all Iraqis are equal before the law without regard to gender, ethnicity, and religion." But that assurance will be meaningless to women if Sharia law governs.

Bush is becoming increasingly distant from reality, his words unmoored from their meanings, his policy totally at sea.

And even as he flounders, he demands "more time, more sacrifice, more resolve" for his war, as he said on Saturday.

But he is not the one who is doing the sacrificing.

His policy is a disaster, and if he can't recognize this, at least a majority of Americans can.

That is why Cindy Sheehan continues to strike a chord.

HERBERT (9/29/05): An education task force established by the center and the institute noted the following:

"'Young low-income and minority children are more likely to start school without having gained important school readiness skills, such as recognizing letters and counting...By the fourth grade, low-income students read about three grade levels behind non-poor students. Across the nation, only 15 percent of low-income fourth graders achieved proficiency in reading in 2003, compared to 41 percent of non-poor students."

For starters, a note about the concept of "proficiency." To a large extent, "proficiency" is in the eye of the beholder. That is, researchers can set the standard for "proficiency" wherever they please, producing various results in the process. In the study by this task force, what did fourth-graders have to do to show they were "proficient" in reading? Herbert doesn't attempt to say. Therefore, when we read that "only 41 percent of non-poor fourth graders can read proficiently," we don't really know what is being said. Nor is it clear that the non-poor fourth-graders are really involved in a “crisis."

Beyond that, the quoted passage might seem a bit puzzling. If most non-poor fourth graders can't read "proficiently," then Herbert's readers might assume that these kids read at third grade level or below. If so, what exactly does it mean when we're told that "low-income students read about three grade levels behind" that? We haven't looked at this study yet. But as often happens when mainstream scribes write about public ed, Herbert's column draws sweeping conclusions on the basis of poorly-parsed data.

Unlike the 1960s, when anti-Vietnam protests were led by young men subject to the draft, today's war protester is more likely to look like your mother.

That's the premise of this New York Times story about women on the political frontline. Elisabeth Bumiller writes:

What happened in 40 years? How has that changed how the White House responds?

In interviews last week, some of the female protesters suggested that decades of feminism had pushed them more easily into leadership and public speaking roles in the antiwar vigils inspired by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier, who is demanding to meet with Mr. Bush in a protest outside his ranch. But they also viewed the war through the traditional prism of mothers and wives, and said that women felt the pain of loss more intensely than men.

Though I'm doubtful that many men aren't grieving to the same extent or finding Bush's war equally reprehensible, women have become more organized in recent years. The piece fails to mention Code Pink, a dynamic women's peace group that formed in 2002 in response to the build-up to war with Iraq. Nor does it mention Mothers Against Bush, which gained some traction during the 2004 election. According to the group's website, "The MOB has become MOBilizing Mothers, an army of 24,000 mothers in 350 sister cities working for laws that protect our children and families." The group will debut this fall.

I wish the NYT had also addressed how the press dwells on and inflates the narrative of anti- and pro-war mothers. The emotional response, as well as the visuals, makes for good TV -- though it ends up simplifying the war debate. Overall, it might be more productive to see these women inspired by a feminist ethic instead of a biological imperative.

Note, Christine's excerpt of the Times op-ed by Bumiller is longer and Patt Morrison is cited.  (FYI, Morrison uses "if" in the place of "unless" in the To Die For quote.  Noting that before I get an e-mail on it.)

As gas prices rise, oil policy, to no one's great surprise, has become a major fixation of the presidential candidates and their surrogates. At any given moment, they can be found debating how the United States should persuade OPEC to bring down the price of crude or which candidate favors increasing gasoline taxes least. In June the argument was over how much oil there ought to be in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). George Bush said we should fill it to the brim. John Kerry thought that just below the brim would be fine. In all of this back-and-forthing, however, neither of the candidates has mentioned the real problem facing American consumers of petroleum and petroleum by-products. Like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the Earth itself has a limited storage capacity, and at some point in the not-too-distant future, the cheap oil that fueled 100 years of economic growth will cease to exist.

The key here is a concept known as peak oil production. In 1956 the agro-physicist M. King Hubbert observed that the production of oil from any given field does not proceed smoothly until the last drop of oil has been sucked from the ground but instead follows a long peaking curve. Once roughly half the oil has been extracted, it becomes harder--and more expensive--to get at the remainder. Daily production begins to fall off, and eventually the field is abandoned. Hubbert believed that this peak phenomenon (known today as Hubbert's Curve) could be seen at any scale--from a single field in Texas to all the fields in a country. Less than two decades later, Hubbert's theory was vindicated. In 1971 oil production in the United States hit a peak and began a long, slow decline that oil companies, despite much effort, have not been able to reverse.

Ultimately, such a peak must also occur globally. It doesn't mean that the oil will stop flowing overnight. But it does mean that oil producers will find it harder and harder, and, eventually, impossible, to raise their yearly production. And since demand will continue to rise (oil may be finite, but our energy appetites are not), the price of oil will head for the sky. The last time production fell seriously behind demand--the Iranian revolution of 1979--oil prices hit the modern-day equivalent of $80 a barrel and pushed the world into a deep recession. And keep in mind that this was a temporary disruption: a permanent decline in oil production (assuming we haven't found something new to burn) would be an economic catastrophe.

For that matter, we should question just how "inexorable" a U.S. exit from Iraq is. After all, it's hardly certain that the worst and dumbest or the best and brightest in Washington will opt for evacuation of the U.S. military bases in Iraq. And can we really assume that the president will order complete withdrawal from a country with so many billions of barrels of oil under the sand?

While many anti-GOP pundits insist that a fast withdrawal is no way to go, numerous leaders of the Democratic Party are even more eager to triangulate. "Senior Democrats sought to distance themselves Sunday from Sheehan's protest," the Washington Post reports. On a Fox network show, Sen. Byron Dorgan said: "If we withdrew tomorrow, there would be a bloodbath in Iraq. We can't do that." Yet a bloodbath is already well underway in Iraq and shows no sign of abating under the U.S. occupation.

Meanwhile, a more overt pro-war position is explicit from the Washington Post, which seems bent on replicating its blood-soaked history of editorial support for the Vietnam War.

In August 1966 the Post's owner, Katharine Graham, discussed the war with a writer in line to take charge of the newspaper's editorial page. "We agreed that the Post ought to work its way out of the very supportive editorial position it had taken, but that we couldn't be precipitate; we had to move away gradually from where we had been," Graham was to write in her autobiography. Many more deaths resulted from such unwillingness to "be precipitate."

In August 2005, while noting the latest setbacks for the U.S. agenda in Iraq, the Post's editorial on the last Saturday of the month did not waver -- and was certainly not precipitate: "There is no cause for despair, or for abandoning the basic U.S. strategy in Iraq, which is to support the election of a permanent national government and train security forces capable of defending it with continuing help from American troops. But it is dispiriting, and damaging to the chances for success, that President Bush still refuses to speak honestly to the country about the challenges the United States now faces, or how he intends to address them."