Dumping Grounds

Meet the Press, Sept. 3, 2006

I’m typing this in front of my TiVo. I’ve rewound several times, because I simply could not believe what I had heard. Although I have edited for length, given that I am a lazy typist, all of the following are exact quotes.

Tim Russert (concerning a Pentagon report about sectarian violence in Iraq): This is Shiite vs. Sunni, Iraqi vs. Iraqi, what do you do about that, stay the course?

Rick Santorum (Senator from Pennsylvania): … We are fighting this war on multi fronts, and Iraq is simply a front. And Iran, which is the principal stoker of this Shia/Sunni sectarian violence, would love nothing more than to see the Iraqi democracy fail because of that. This is a tactic of Iran, to disrupt our efforts in Iraq by in fact trying to defeat the Sunnis. So there’s no question… at the heart of this war, is Iran. Iran is the problem here. Iran is the one that is causing most of the problems in Iraq. …[Iran] is the country we need to focus on in this war against Islamic fascism.

So, please, dear readers… help me out here.

Is Sen. Santorum saying we invaded the wrong country? Is he now recommending a military move against Iran? That is certainly what it sounds like to me. This is not a lunatic running for Congress with no chance of winning. This is the current Republican Senator from Pennsylvania.

His opponent in the debate today pounced on this stating that this was a long winded answer in favor of staying the course in Iraq. That is not how I read it at all. I read it as an endorsement of expanding our efforts in the Middle East dramatically, and toppling another government.

We are the most powerful military in the history of the world. But we are not all powerful. We are stretched thin. I cannot conceive of an argument that would convince me that any attempt to topple the government of Iran would be a good idea.

Sen. Santorum proceeded to claim that the invasion of Iraq was a war of necessity, because they posed a direct threat to the United States, right after he pointed out that we did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even the President has abandoned that viewpoint, and clinging to the premise that 20 year old chemical weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war constituted weapons of “mass destruction” that posed a direct threat to the United States simply makes Sen. Santorum look petulant and childish.

Don’t get me wrong, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Pennsylvania did not impress me (he seemed far too focused on “My opponent is wrong” and not nearly focused enough on “here’s why I am right”)… but Mr. Santorum scares me. Although he did have a really nice dimple in his tie.

â??Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.â?
- George Santayana, Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense

Let’s talk about a war. Let’s talk about a war in which the greatest power the world has ever known, despite winning far more battles than it lost, was defeated. Defeated by logistics. Defeated by being overextended because of multiple conflicts. Defeated by the inability to move soldiers across the ocean quickly enough. Defeated by an insurgent army who had advantages of local terrain. Defeated by an army dedicated to religious ideals.

It’s not a quick conflict. It was expected to be, by everyone in the world. But it doesn’t work out that way. It drags on, and on, and on. It’s expensive, economically and politically. It leads to widespread public protests against the war.

It had its share of atrocities, committed by both the occupying force, and the natives of the land. Bloody massacres of civilians, sneak attacks on soldiers from behind every tree.

The war is as costly for the victorious defenders as it is for the defeated invaders. The country teeters on the verge of civil war for years. The first government proves to be too weak, and fails. It is only the second government, formed 8 years after the war (14 years after the original invasion) that finally takes hold. Even that government collapses in the bloodiest civil war the world has ever known.

The new government has religion at its very core. Every founding document of the new government mentions God. The new leaders are sworn in with their hand on sacred texts. Leaders who are not of the majority religion have virtually no chance of being elected, and only very rarely are there leaders selected even from the minority branch of the all but state religion. Many policies are enacted (some even against the majority of the electorate) because of pressure from conservative religious leaders.

No matter how hard I tried… everyone knows that I am not talking about Iraq. I’m talking about the American Revolution. Most Americans have forgotten that it took us 6 years to defeat the British. Even more have forgotten that it took 8 years following the end of the war for the Americans to come up with a workable government. The first one was a dismal failure.

But across the nation, our representatives, our Leaders, and, to be fair, a majority of the people… thought that Iraq would be easy. The invasion would be easy. Setting up a new government would be easy. After all, it was easy for us, right?

We pride ourselves on being the foremost experts on democracy and representative government in the whole world. And yet, we thought it would be quick and easy to introduce it to an entirely new culture, with no history of knowing what it means to vote (and yet they had a far greater turn out in their first election than we did in any recent Presidential election).

On the other hand, we do have experience in setting up new governments, so called â??country building.â? We have tried it in Cuba, Panama, and most recently in Afghanistan. We had to go in and fix our problems in Panama, the new Afghan regime is in the process of collapsing, and I think we all know what happened in Cuba.

And yet, somehow, we thought it would be easy. We were wrong. We didn’t listen to the lessons history tried to teach us. It’s not easy, and it’s not going to get any easier.

And now, I’m going to go back to writing something non-controversial, like religion.

All of the following content is directly from the EFF website. They said it as well as I could.

Please visit their Action Center for how you can make your voice heard. Since most of my readers are in Texas, it is important to note that John Cornyn is on the relevant committee.

â??The White House and Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) have come to a sham compromise that would sweep the NSA’s illegal spying program and any further government surveillance under the rug, shuffling legal challenges out of the traditional court system and into the shadowy FISA courts. This bill would stack the deck against anyone suing to stop illegal surveillance such as the wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment alleged in EFF’s suit against AT&T.

The Judiciary Committee will likely vote on this bill soon, and possibly an even worse bill authored by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH). Check below to see if your Senators are on the committee — if they are, please call them immediately and tell them to reject these proposals.â?

Yes, I have called and spoken to a staffer for Sen. Cornyn. You can register your call at the EFF site. There is more background available. The staffer was non-committal to Sen. Cornyn’s view on these bills, so more calls are definitely needed to indicate his constituents’ displeasure at legalizing wiretapping American citizens without a warrant.

Saddam Hussein has ended an 11-day hunger strike for “health reasons”, his chief lawyer has said. — From the BBC

Wait, I mean… wasn’t that the point?

By all accounts, Sam Alito is going to be a terribly right wing justice. He’s going to side with the conservative bloc, and along with Chief Justice Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, tip the Court in a more conservative direction than Sandra Day O’Connor ever allowed it to go.

Probably.

Like any other position that one holds for life, you just never quite know what you are going to get until after someone is appointed (remember: John Paul II was expected to be a liberal Pope.)

In his very first decision, Justice Alito broke ranks with his conservative brethren and went with the majority in a 6-3 decision to stay a Missouri man’s execution. On what grounds? That the drugs used would cause undue suffering. In other words, you can’t kill him Missouri, if you are going to make it hurt while you do it.

Oh good grief.

While as I get older, I find myself getting more and more liberal, (and I find this decision a wonderful, if unconvincing, first sign of things to come with Justice Alito) this decision is ridiculous. Just because I’m getting more liberal doesn’t mean I’m not still from Texas. I support the death penalty. There is no doubt that this man committed the crime (kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 15-year old girl). He pled guilty, he admits that he did it.

And he can’t be executed because it might hurt?!?!

Oh well, I just wonder how many hard line conservatives are clinching up a bit that the man nicknamed “Scalito” didn’t vote as predicted on his very first decision out of the box.

A truly hilarious entry today.

Among the highlights:

• Q. Is it legal for the president to ignore the law?
  A. Maybe not according to plain ol stupid ol regular law, but we’re at war! You don’t go to war with regular laws, which are made outta red tape and bureaucracy and Neville Chamberlain. You go to war with great big strapping War Laws made outta tanks and cold hard steel and the American Fightin Man and WAR, KABOOOOOOM!

• Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?
  A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.

• Q. Can the president spy on me without a warrant?
  A. The president would never, ever spy on you, unless you’re talking to a terrorist or an associate of a terrorist or a suspected associate of a terrorist or a possible suspected relative of a member of an affiliate of a terrorist or someone with a name that’s spelled like a terrorist’s or someone who’s been mistakenly identified as a terrorist by an NSA algorithm.

• Q. Is the president above the law?
  A. Nobody’s above the law! As commander-in-chief the president just outranks the law.

Unless you have been under a rock, you have heard of the trial that opened in Harrisburg, Pa. this week, concerning school curriculums and whether or not intelligent design has any place in the biology classes of the Dover school district. Currently, the district recommends an alternate textbook that presents the ideas surrounding intelligent design. 11 parents, backed by the ACLU, are suing the Dover School district for presenting â??religious conceptsâ? during class, thereby violating the Constitutional requirement of separation of church and state.

Dover became the first district in the entire nation to require its teachers to question the scientific validity of the theory of evolution and present intelligent design as an alternative. Teachers were required to state that â??The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence, intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.â? Teachers were not required to point out that not only is there no evidence that backs intelligent design, but that the idea itself is inherently untestable.

Pennsylvania is not the only place that the debate has been front and center. The Kansas Board of Education is considering changes that would â??encourageâ? the teaching of intelligent design in all Kansas schools. In Washington, the President sparked a firestorm of reaction when he seemed to endorse the teaching of intelligent design in schools, while refusing to state his own beliefs on the matter. However, while Bush was Governor of Texas, he supported the teaching of both the theory of evolution and creationism in Texas schools.

What is Intelligent Design?

So what is all the uproar about? What exactly is the idea of intelligent design? Very simply, it is the idea that the world, and all the living beings in it, is too complex to have arisen through the mechanisms espoused by Darwin, namely mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection. Therefore, life, while millions of years old, has been created and guided by an unseen hand, an unspecified intelligence. The specific nature of this intelligence is unknowable, but the theory is most often espoused by those who believe that the guiding force is the Christian God. The phrase â??intelligent designâ? was first used in this context in 1989 in the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People and was further popularized by Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial. The concept itself has been around for centuries, and was presented in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica in the 13th century.

The modern idea of intelligent design is built around three principal concepts: irreducible complexity, specified complexity and that of a fine-tuned universe. Each of these concepts boils down to the basic tenet that it is so terribly unlikely that we exist, that some outside influence must have caused it to happen.

Irreducible complexity was introduced in 1996 by Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box. He defines it as

â??…a single system which is composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.â?

In effect, he proposes the idea that if there are multiple elements of a complex system that work together (and require each other to operate) that have no use by themselves, there is no mechanism that will cause that entire system to evolve. Among other examples, he cites the immune system as a set of parts which provide no advantage individually, but together give a tremendous benefit. Evolution, he says, cannot provide support for the intermediate pieces, and therefore provides no mechanism for the development of complex systems.

The problem with this argument is that many systems cited in his book as examples of irreducible complexity have been shown, through scientific method, to be reducible after all. As a matter of fact, all three of the biological examples that Behe used in his book, the immune system, blood clotting, and the flagellum, have been shown to be reducible. Beyond that, Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin have shown that evolution can produce irreducibly complex mechanisms that satisfy Behe’s decription of irreducable complexity. In their research they have concluded that biological mechanisms develop â??redundant complexityâ? and that Behe greatly overestimated the importance of irreducable complexity because his biological models were far too simple.

Personally, I don’t find it difficult to imagine that a complex system such as an eyeball could be the result of millions of generations of imperfect genetic reproduction (in effect, mistakes) because of natural selection. Those â??mistakesâ? that do not hinder the performance of the organism, and when several â??mistakesâ? align to provide an advantage, those organisms will become more successful, and prolific. Somehow I think that Behe simply underestimates how long life has been on Earth, and how long natural selection has had to operate. No one ever said that evolution was an efficient process.

Specified Complexity is the idea that if something is both specified and complex, it must have arisen through the influence of some intelligent cause. Did that make any sense to you? It didn’t to me, either. The example that the creator, William Dembski, cites, is as follows:

â??A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.â? (Intelligent Design, p. 47)

The problem is that he simply defines anything as terribly unlikely to be CSI (complex specified information). Although he cites an awful lot of mathematics, many scholars argue that his reasoning is fatally flawed. For instance: It is terribly unlikely that I will ever win the lottery. However, it is downright probable that someone will win the lottery. To put this in evolutionary terms… it is terribly unlikely that humans would have evolved. But it is certainly more likely that something would have evolved. Much like the lottery, although any given outcome is extremely improbable, the fact that there are winning numbers happens all the time.

Personally, I do not find the argument of specified complexity compelling in any way whatsoever. It seems to miss the point, at least to me.

The concept of a fine tuned universe is closely related to that of specified complexity, in that it concerns ideas that proponents regard as incredibly unlikely. The idea is that the universe was not likely to have had all the features necessary for life to arise. There has not been much mainstream discussion of this idea, and it clearly the weakest of the three major tenets of intelligent design.

Criticism of this idea is widespread and compelling. Again I cite the lottery example: possibly it is unlikely for a universe to have arisen that allows us, but it is not unlikely that a universe would arise that allows someone. But, even this turns out not to be true, as Stephen Hawking and James Hartle have shown that from the conditions immediately following the Big Bang, there are a number of types of universes that could have formed. The type of universe that we live in will be formed over 90% of the time, however. So maybe the universe that we live in is not a long shot at all. I’m terribly biased, but I am going to believe the calculations of the preeminent physicist of our time before I believe many of the â??scientificâ? conclusions cited above.

If one is going to be a proponent of intelligent design, one has to have some idea as to what the intelligent force behind the creation of life is. As I cited earlier, this idea is commonly put forth by conservative Christians. Of course, there are other ideas: aliens (proposed by the Raelian movement, and some UFO conspiracy buffs), or through panspermia (an idea first proposed around 430 BCE, by Anaxagoras, and later used to explain why all the aliens look alike in Star Trek). Of course, neither of these alternate ideas propose an intelligence capable of creating the fine-tuned universe, nor do they answer the question of â??who made the aliens?â?

I have found it curious that the conservative Christians who back teaching intelligent design in the schools are the same people (usually) who believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and also who absolutely believe in the omnipotence and omniscience of God. Intelligent design is completely incompatible with first and last of these ideas, and is on dubious ground with the idea of omnipotence.

If you are going to back intelligent design, the very first thing you have to do is admit that the creation story in Genesis is not true. Not only is it not literal, it is flat out wrong. Intelligent design absolutely admits that life forms evolve, just that it is the hand of God, and not natural selection, that provides the impetus for change. This is not how Genesis reads. Not even if you try to take Genesis as figurative can you get any idea of evolving life forms from the first chapters of the Bible.

The strange thing is, though, intelligent design seems to imply that the guiding force is not quite sure what they are doing. Species go extinct, it took several tries to make modern man from a prehistoric chimpanzee, and you must admit that something designed the platypus on purpose. (Yeah, that was a little humor… is anyone still reading this far? Trust me, the best stuff is coming up.)

Personally, I have long felt that the idea of an omniscient God didn’t make sense to me… if God knows everything, then he not only knows how to create the universe, but he also knows how every event in the past 14 billion years (and in the next 14 billion) was going to turn out beforehand.

If that is the case, then why did He bother? What is the point if you know exactly how it is going to turn out? A phrase I like to use is: I give God more credit than that. He doesn’t know how things are going to turn out, we’re not predestined. He’s not omniscient. Of course, that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

The only possible interpretation of intelligent design (and I really hate to put it under the same umbrella) that I find compelling (and as a matter of fact, I probably regard as more likely than any other possibility) is the so called Clockmaker hypothesis. The idea is that the universe itself, and all the laws of physics that case it to work, were created by God (very possibly in the Big Bang itself) and then He stepped back to see what would happen. Life arose on Earth (and possibly other places) because of the way the universe was created, but not through the specific action of God. I have no problem with this idea, although I regard it as completely an article of faith, and schools should only concern themselves with the universe as it was created, and not the idea of who or how it was created.

One other idea that unquestionably deserves recognition here is the idea of â??Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM).â? FSM is the creation of Bobby Henderson, who wrote a letter in June 2005 to the Kansas Board of Education in â??supportâ? of intelligent design being taught in the schools.

Mr. Henderson asks that Kansas also require the teaching of â??otherâ? theories of intelligent design, including FSM, as practiced by â??Pastafarians.â? The tenets of his â??religionâ? are as follows:

• The universe was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster.
• All evidence pointing to evolutionary mechanisms operating in the world was placed there by the Flying Spaghetti monster.
• No amount of science can disprove the Flying Spaghetti monster, as he continues to guide the universe (and alter test results) with â??His Noodly Appendage.â?
• All instruction as to the FSM theory of intelligent design must be done while wearing full pirate regalia, as â??He becomes angry if we don’t.â?
• Global warming is caused by the decline in the number of pirates worldwide.
• There is documentation of the creation of the universe. Specifically, there is a written account (drawing) showing the FSM, a tree covered mountain, and a midgit [sic].

While many people find the FSM movement simply hilarious, it is very important to remember… there is exactly the same amount (and type) of evidence supporting FSM-ism as there is intelligent design guided by the Christian God.

My point being that is is a matter of faith, not science, and as such, does not belong in a school curriculum.

faith - n. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no material evidence for FSM, just as there is no material evidence for intelligent design. The guiding force is unknowable, invisible, and undetectable. It is, therefore, a matter of faith.

For those few of you still reading (this is the first blog entry I have ever written that I outlined beforehand, and consequently, I am fairly certain it is my longest entry ever) you may be wondering why I care? First of all, I have no children, so I’m not concerned about what they might be exposed to in the schools. Second of all, as I have already discussed, I am a Christian, and have no problem with the idea of a Creator. (Just to be clear, though, I have huge problems with the idea that the Creator then became a guiding force in the day to day operation of the universe.)

I care because I feel that this public debate is indicative of a larger issue in our society. An issue that has subtlely creeped into our daily lives, into our government, and into our schools. An issue that, believe it or not, at the very forefront of the possible adoption of a constitution in Iraq.

The idea that America is creeping ever closer to a fundamentalist government, of exactly the type we would like to prevent in Iraq. Can you imagine a non-Christian getting elected President? I can’t. Do you think that even 15 years ago the idea of an American President endorsing the idea of teaching fundamentalist Christian ideas instead of Darwin in science class would have been met with such… apathy? I don’t. Current public opinion is swinging toward support for tighter integration of Christian faith and our government.

Even as a Christian, this terrifies me.

Please explain to me how a fundamentalist Muslim government is bad, and a fundamentalist Christian government is good.

• Fundamentalist Muslim law is bad, because it opresses women and denies them basic rights. (Fundamentalist Christian government oppresses homosexuals and denies them basic rights, but that’s ok.)
• Fundamentalist Muslim governments fund terrorism, which kills thousands of Americans (Fundamentalist Christian governments fund invasions, which kill hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis)
• Fundamentalist Muslim governments oppress minority denominations, and kill them if they continue to insist upon representation (The minorities counter attack, further escalating hostilities) (Oh, wait… Christian governments do the same thing)

I’ll be fair. It’s been 120 years since Mormons and mainstream Protestant Christians have killed each other in cold blood. But it did happen. How is that different that the Shiite and Sunni muslims killing each other in Iraq?

I am sure that some of you reading this think that I am over-reacting, but the first amendment reads, in part:

â??Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ?

and I feel that the endorsement of faith-based ideas in the schools is certainly the first step to the establishment of an official religion. Maybe not a huge step, but it is a step nonetheless. Once any piece of the Bill of Rights is breached, all of the others are on shaky ground.

Parents who feel strongly that they want their children to receive religious instruction in their school have a perfectly viable option: private school. Or home schooling. Those that cannot afford private school have every moment outside school from the time their children wake up until they go to bed at night for spiritual instruction. That is what being a parent is all about. Be involved. Don’t ever forget that the most influential person, the most important teacher, in your child’s life, is you.

If you bothered to read this far, post a comment. Moreso than anything I have written in a long time, this topic warrants a debate. I’m interested in what you think. Liz, I know you are busy, so you are exempted

Note: I struggled for a while with whether or not to write this. While I will take on sex, drugs (ok, I have not taken on drugs) and religion, I wasn’t sure I wanted to write about anything racially charged. Because, you see, racism is in the eye of the beholder. Anything that someone chooses to see as racism, they can. I think Jesse Jackson is a racist. He sees skin color behind every issue that does not go his way. Yet, many African Americans see him as a role model.

I don’t think that this article is racist, but simply because I say that some folks get the most Katrina coverage because they are doing the least to help themselves, I’m sure I will be called a racist pig, and worse. Frankly, when I decided to write this anyway, I decided I didn’t care. Call me whatever you want. Many people, black and white, rich and poor, have been destroyed by the disaster, and no one is getting as much attention from the government or charitable organizations as they want. But the folks who are going to get back on their feet the quickest, the ones that will be earning a living the most quickly, are going to be the ones that quit waiting for a government handout first, and start work fixing their own lives.

I know everyone is familiar with the â??storyâ? of Katrina by now. Slow response, accusations of racism, completely unchecked crime in the shelters. General incompetence and stupidity all around (both on the government’s part and the residents’).

But there’s other pieces of this story that don’t get told as much, mainly because it would not sell as well. (â??What,â? you say, â??don’t you think the media seeks to cover all sides of a story, fairly and completely?â?) Uh… no. They cover what sells commercials. The more sensationalistic the better. Stranded black residents screaming and crying that they were abandoned by the government gets people watching. Affluent, self-motivated white people picking up their lives and moving on quietly doesn’t. There’s no hook. There’s no emotion.

(Let’s be clear here, I am not saying that black folks are not self motivated. I’m not saying that white folks cannot be whiners. Both are certainly true. But the picture that the media has been trying to present does not support that view. Both the presentation of the people, and the presentation of their attitude, has been very monochrome.)

Very, very few stories have been about people, standing in lines for their benefits, only to be turned away empty handed (with absolutely no aid at all) because they are â??homeownersâ?. I put that in quotes because no one in New Orleans is a homeowner any longer. They may own a pile of rubble, mold and rotted wood, but not a home.

Very few stories are about the fact that homeless, shelterless and hungry people going to collect their aid checks from the Red cross get… $365. Seriously now, how long could you live on $365? That’s not for an individual, that’s for a household. And that’s from the Red Cross, not the government.

As you may have figured out by now, I heard from my friend Marie yesterday. Thanks to everyone who asked me about her. She’s not â??hungry, cold or wetâ? so in the global scheme of things, she’s ok.

But she’s white, works for a living, and has not been crying on camera. Therefore, she does not seem to be getting a lot of help. Sh’es going to to pack every single thing she owns in the whole world (a few clothes, purchased with her $365, and an air mattress) in a Honda, and she’s coming to Dallas. Get an apartment, get a job, and start over.

Because that’s what responsible Americans do. When things don’t go the right way, they work to fix them. She didn’t own a house. There won’t be any insurance settlement. There likely won’t be any government aid, because by the time they get around to it, she’ll have a job. Anyone have any doubt that will disqualify her? I don’t. And that is the problem that I have with our welfare system. It systematically rewards those who do nothing to improve their situation. And penalizes those who do.

Case I

â??I donâ??t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.â?

– National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice

and yet…

â??Well, it is correct that the United States intelligence community had a great deal of intelligence suggesting that the terrorists, back since 1994, had plans, discussed plans, to use airplanes as weapons, loaded with fuel, loaded with bombs, loaded with explosives. The Algerians had a plan in â??94 to fly a plane into the Eiffel Tower. The Bojinka plot in â??95 discussed flying an explosive-laden small plane into CIA headquarters. Certainly CIA was well aware of that.â?

– 9/11 commission member Richard Ben-Veniste, during the appearances by two witnesses, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former FBI Director Louis Freeh

Case II

â??I don’t remember whether that was on thereâ?

– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, when asked whether insurgency appeared on a list [of about 15 things that could go terribly, terribly wrong in Iraq] that he gave to Vice President Cheney

and yet:

â??A U.S. intelligence report before the Iraq war warned that an American invasion could lead to rogue elements fighting the new Iraqi government and U.S. forces, sources familiar with the report said on Tuesday.â?

– Reuters news report from September 28, 2004 [regrettably, I was unable to find a copy of the original intelligence report]

Case III

â??I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.â?

– President George W. Bush (to be fair, Bill Clinton has said words to the same effect)

and yet:

â??A major hurricane could decimate the region… it’s just a matter of time.â?

â??The scene has been played out in computer models and emergency operations simulations… the levees would trap any water that gets inside - by breach, overtopping or torrential downpour in a catastrophic stormâ?

â??Thousands will drown while trapped in homes or cars by rising water. Others will be washed away or crushed by debris. Survivors will end up trapped on roofs, in buildings or on high ground surrounded by water, with no means of escape and little food or fresh water, perhaps for several days.â?

– All from a special report that appeared in the New Orleans Times Picayune, June 24, 2002

and this:

â??In the event of a slow-moving Category 4 or Category 5 hurricane (with winds up to or exceeding 155 miles per hour), it’s possible that only those crow’s nests would remain above the water level. Such a storm, plowing over the lake, could generate a 20-foot surge that would easily overwhelm the levees of New Orleans, which only protect against a hybrid Category 2 or Category 3 storm (with winds up to about 110 miles per hour and a storm surge up to 12 feet). Soon the geographical â?bowlâ?? of the Crescent City would fill up with the waters of the lake, leaving those unable to evacuate with little option but to cluster on rooftops — terrain they would have to share with hungry rats, fire ants, nutria, snakes, and perhaps alligators. The water itself would become a festering stew of sewage, gasoline, refinery chemicals, and debris.â?

– The American Prospect, May 2005

The floods in New Orleans following the deluge of hurricane Katrina, I think, are of a scope that few of us can imagine. They are certainly not as devastating as the tsunami in Indian Ocean was, but that is a little like saying that World War I was not all that bad, because World War II was worse.

Make no mistake, this is among the 10 biggest tragedies in American History. While the body count will likely not reach the levels of September 17, 1862 (the Civil War battle at Antietam), there is a very good chance it will surpass other dark days in American history such as December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001.

The desperation and behavior of the people left in New Orleans is something that I, like most Americans, assumed we would never see on our own shores in our lifetime. Riots for food, street gangs armed with pipes in broad daylight, and the looting of hospitals are only some of the bright spots in todays news reports. I certainly never thought that I would see an American city so devastated that they left dead bodies in the street, for lack of anything better to do with them.

And elsewhere in the country, equally despicable sniping and partisan bickering has begun. Already the articles are appearing declaring that New Orleans was a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed because of its catering to the gay community.

Elsewhere… an article is getting very wide blog coverage that the devastation was needlessly severe, due to budget cuts in levee maintenance to fund the war in Iraq.

I am quite confident that the self-righteous writers of the first article have a special spot reserved for them in the afterlife, probably right next to the fire, where it’s extra warm.

The problem with the second article is that it is probably right. After its establishment in 1995, the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA) provided levee repair and maintenance, as well as the construction of pumping stations. However, beginning in 2003, major budget cuts devastated SELA projects. It has been well documented that the money formerly used for flood control in SE Louisiana was being redirected to the conflict in Iraq, and the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security.

Allow me to editorialize for a moment: What could possibly be more within the domain of the Department of Homeland Security than building a great big wall between approximately 1 million people and two bodies of water (Lake Pontchartrain to the North, and the Gulf of Mexico to the south… not to mention a minor waterway called the Mississippi River that runs through the city)? But apparently Michael Chertoff didn’t see it that way. Neither did Tom Ridge before him. I can only assume that they were busy coming up with new colors to scare people with.

They did not have the money to repair levees that needed it in 2004. They didn’t have it in 2005, either. How much is it going to cost the U.S. Government to recover from this disaster? I’m certainly no expert, but the $250 million that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to fund all of the SELA projects is beginning to look like a bargain.

Slate.com just the other day featured an article about President Bush, handicapping his chances for becoming the most unpopular President in history. Given the above story, let’s just say he went from dark horse to strong contender (see the entry for August 29, among others).

Before I get a new reputation as a screaming liberal (especially with my recent thoughts on Iraq), let me turn hard hearted conservative for a moment…

• All of these people KNEW that they lived in a city below sea level.
• All of these people KNEW that the levees were in danger of failing (the Times-Picauyne had covered the story no less than 9 times)

And yet they stayed. I’m not a complete jerk, I do think the government should help these people, with all the resources (which, admittedly, have seemed slow to arrive) they have at their disposal.

But funds for rebuilding? In my opinion, only on one condition. If the rebuilding plans place the new structure above sea level. If that means New Orleans becomes a ghost town, so be it.

The government does not have an obligation to assist people to put themselves back in the same dangerous situation that they were in before this disaster. In a situation such as this, the government should help people improve their lot in life, not stick them back in the flood plain that got them into this mess in the first place. Help them move. Help them to live somewhere safer. Because, whether we like it or not, this will happen again.