Repeal McCain-Feingold!

From a Town Hall article, Harry Reid's transformation :

Harry Reid's transformation [/] Tony Snow [/] September 26, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Harry Reid was a famously nice guy before he became the Senate Democratic leader. Although reliably partisan, he built a well-earned reputation for playing the role of nice guy, the man of genial calm.

No more: The senator this week made official his descent into the Moonbat Grotto by issuing a lame rebuke of John Roberts, the president's choice to become the next chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Reid said he couldn't vote for Roberts because the nominee as a young attorney once used the phrase "illegal amigos" in a memorandum prepared for the Department of Justice. Reid considered this an insensitive way of describing people who steal over our borders, often bearing drugs, guns and contraband.

Note that Reid and his colleagues had access to 80,000 pages of documents dating back to Roberts' first federal employment as a twentysomething staff attorney at Justice, along with 50 or so opinions written as a federal judge. Despite having access to the largest-ever trove of nominee information, the "illegal amigo" quip was the worst Reid and his phalanx of opposition researchers could find. This could make Roberts the cleanest nominee in American history -- but not good enough for the New Harry.

Reid's performance raises an interesting and vital question: What on earth would persuade a naturally nice man to behave in such an inane manner -- and why would a majority of Democrats join him in voting against John Roberts, who may be the strongest high-court nominee in a century?

Here is the two-word answer: McCain-Feingold. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, designed grandly to "take money out of politics," predictably produced the opposite effect. It sucked in a flood of cash, gutted the major political parties and made poseurs more unaccountable than ever before.

The old villain, "soft money," merely changed names under McCain-Feingold. Lawyers now call it "527 money." Wealthy activists can spend like crazy through 527s, but with one significant difference from the old days: Before "reform," political parties could marginalize lunatics. Now, plutocrats rule without restraint from political pros.

Democrats find themselves beholden to a batch of petulant billionaires, led by George Soros, Peter Lewis and Steven Bing. That trio alone contributed nearly $65 million to Democratic candidates and causes during the 2004 election cycle.

All told, Democrats raised more than $318 million in 527 money between 2002 and 2004, while Republicans lagged far behind at $206 million.

These figures don't include presidential expenditures, which again show a huge advantage for the Plutocrat Party -- $182 million for Democrats; $64 million for Republicans.

[…] Their efforts failed because they offended people. As Americans shelled out millions of dollars to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, for instance, MoveOn broadcast ads that made George Bush the Satanic heavy for bad weather and poorly constructed levees. The spots reflected George Soros' apparent belief that his spite was more compelling than Katrina victims' plight.

Similarly, the raging plutocrats are underwriting the likes of Cindy Sheehan, who showed solidarity with hurricane victims by demanding the removal of all federal troops from New Orleans, and Michael Moore, who plans to produce a crockumentary on Hurricane Katrina.

Thus, the solution to our conundrum: Harry Reid has to act like a nut in public because money talks. As Senate leader, Reid has to tilt at every windmill, charge into every fusillade and dip his head into every wood-chipper just to please his billionaire bosses.

He's not alone. While the Senate approved Justice Antonin Scalia by a vote of 98-0 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (with arguably the dottiest paper record of any recent court nominee) sailed through by a 96-3 tally, Roberts will be lucky to break 70 votes. Worse, Democrats have all but promised to subject the president's next high-court nominee to an exuberant character assassination, likely culminating in a filibuster.

This is what McCain-Feingold has wrought: Nasty commercials, incoherent attack politics and ill will on Capitol Hill. The eccentric rich call the shots. Mild-mannered politicians behave like Batman villains -- and none of it will improve until Congress finally declares that it's time to un-reform the reform before someone really gets hurt. [Ellipses and emphasis mine.]

Exorcist Convention in Rome

From a Yahoo! Reuters article, Pssst...Where the devil is the exorcist convention? :

Pssst...Where the devil is the exorcist convention? By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Orthodontists have national conventions, as do lawyers and computer salespeople. So why not exorcists? At the end of his weekly general audience Wednesday Pope Benedict greeted Italian exorcists who, he disclosed, are currently holding their national convention.

[…] Problem was that until the Pope spoke few people outside the inner circle knew that a convention of Beelzebub-busters was going on, presumably in Rome. [/] And where were they holding it? In a church, a hotel, a graveyard? [/] "They try to keep these things quiet," said a Catholic professor who has dealings with exorcists.

The Roman Catholic Church has shown growing interest in exorcism in Italy. [/] In 1999, the Vatican issued its first updated ritual for exorcism since 1614 and warned that the devil is still at work. […]

Of particular interest in this forum may be the form in which the demon is commanded to leave the possessed. I intend to start a poll on agreement or various disagreements with this official formula.

It ends with an "imperative formula" in which the devil is ordered to leave the possessed.

The formula begins: "I order you, Satan..." It goes on to denounce Satan as "prince of the world" and "enemy of human salvation." It ends: "Go back, Satan."

New Orleans: Governors at Fault?

National Guard response to natural disasters is a state responsibility. The buck stops in the Louisiana governor's office. And some other governors might have been a bit more proactive.

From a Yahoo! AP article, National Guard Delay Likely to Be Examined :

National Guard Delay Likely to Be Examined By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer [/] Sat Sep 3, 2:45 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Several states ready and willing to send National Guard troops to the rescue in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans didn't get the go-ahead until days after the storm struck — a delay nearly certain to be investigated by Congress.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco help from his state's National Guard on Sunday, the day before Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana. Blanco accepted, but paperwork needed to get the troops en route didn't come from Washington until late Thursday.

Why did Gov. Richardson wait four days for paperwork? He is the responsible commander of New Mexico's National Guard?

California troops just began arriving in Louisiana on Friday, three days after flood waters devastated New Orleans and chaos broke out.

[…] Bush had the legal authority to order the National Guard to the disaster area himself, as he did after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks . But the troops four years ago were deployed for national security protection, and presidents of both parties traditionally defer to governors to deploy their own National Guardsmen and request help from other states when it comes to natural disasters. […]

This was and is a state responsibility. The buck stops in the Louisiana governor's office.

Among those headed in were several hundred from Wisconsin, where the governor took the unusual step of declaring a disaster outside his state to activate his Guard.

"This was the first time a governor ever declared a natural disaster in another state and activated to that other state," said Gov. Jim Doyle, who issued his order Wednesday. "We were ready to be deployed within 24 hours of that order." […] [my emphasis and ellipses]

Looks like one governor was on the ball.

New Orleans: Lack of Safety Valve

The central problem (as is often the case in our hi-tech world run by no-tech people) could very well be a lack of proper flood control design and implementation.

It is not the amount of funding that counts, but the wise use of what is available.

From a Tech Central Station article, Breaks in the Levee LogicBy Duane D. Freese Published 09/02/2005:

[…] ["]The levees broke, didn't they? That's what helped mess up the rescue effort, didn't it? And there were cuts in federal help, weren't there?["]

The answers to all these questions are yes. But, the fact is, they miss an important point, which The New York Times editorialists might have discovered had they read their own news story by Andrew Revkin and Christopher Drew. The reporters quoted Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, about how surprising it was that the break in the levee was "a section that was just upgraded."

"It did not have an earthen levee," he told them. "It had a vertical concrete wall several feet thick."

Worse for the editorial writers were statements by the chief engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lt. Gen Carl Strock: "I don't see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case. Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place."

The reason: the funding would only have completed an upgrade of the levees to a protect against a level 3 hurricane. Katrina was a level 4 plus. […] [my emphasis and ellipses]

It appears to me that the basic problem was a lack of basic system engineering design.

There was no safety valve.

There was no way to get rid of the excess water by deliberate partial flooding before the water poured over the concrete levee, undermined its foundations, caused a total collapse of the large section and flooded most of the city.

In the 1927 flood the city fathers dynamited a section of the levee below the city in order to save New Orleans and its citizens.

But despite history and a well known threat, there was no safety valve.

New Orleans: Local Government at Fault

From a Yahoo! Reuters article, Models predicted New Orleans disaster, experts say .

Key quotation:

[…] Craig Marks who runs Blue Horizons Consulting, an emergency management training company in North Carolina, said the authorities had mishandled the evacuation, neglecting to help those without transportation to leave the city.

"They could have packed people on trains or buses and gotten them out before the hurricane struck. They had enough time and access to federal funds. And now, we find we do not have a proper emergency communications infrastructure so aid workers get out into the field and they can't talk to one another," he said. […] [my emphasis and ellipses]

Other information from the article:

Models predicted New Orleans disaster, experts say By Alan Elsner
2 hours, 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Virtually everything that has happened in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina struck was predicted by experts and in computer models, so emergency management specialists wonder why authorities were so unprepared.

"The scenario of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans was well anticipated, predicted and drilled around," said Clare Rubin, an emergency management consultant who also teaches at the Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management at George Washington University.

Computer models developed at Louisiana State University and other institutions made detailed projections of what would happen if water flowed over the levees protecting the city or if they failed.

In July 2004, more than 40 federal, state, local and volunteer organizations practiced this very scenario in a five-day simulation code-named "Hurricane Pam," where they had to deal with an imaginary storm that destroyed over half a million buildings in New Orleans and forced the evacuation of a million residents.

At the end of the exercise Ron Castleman, regional director for the Federal Emergency Management Agency declared: "We made great progress this week in our preparedness efforts.

"Disaster response teams developed action plans in critical areas such as search and rescue, medical care, sheltering, temporary housing, school restoration and debris management. These plans are essential for quick response to a hurricane but will also help in other emergencies," he said.

In light of that, said disaster expert Bill Waugh of Georgia State University, "It's inexplicable how unprepared for the flooding they were." He said a slow decline over several years in funding for emergency management was partly to blame.

In comments on Thursday, President George W. Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

But Louisiana State University engineer Joseph Suhayda and others have warned for years that defenses [(levees)] could fail. In 2002, the New Orleans Times Picayune published a five-part series on "The Big One" examining what might happen if they did.

SCENARIO LAID OUT

It predicted that 200,000 people or more would be unwilling or unable to heed evacuation orders and thousands would die, that people would be housed in the Superdome, that aid workers would find it difficult to gain access to the city as roads became impassable, as well as many other of the consequences that actually unfolded after Katrina hit this week.

Craig Marks who runs Blue Horizons Consulting, an emergency management training company in North Carolina, said the authorities had mishandled the evacuation, neglecting to help those without transportation to leave the city.

"They could have packed people on trains or buses and gotten them out before the hurricane struck. They had enough time and access to federal funds. And now, we find we do not have a proper emergency communications infrastructure so aid workers get out into the field and they can't talk to one another," he said.

Most of those trapped by the floods in the city of some 500,000 people are the poor who had little chance to leave.

Ernest Sternberg, a professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Buffalo, said law enforcement agencies were often more eager to invest in high tech "toys" than basic communications.

"It's well known that communications go down in disasters but people on the frontlines still don't invest in them. A lot of the investments that have been made in homeland security have been misspent," he said.

[…] Underlying the situation has been the general reluctance of government at any level to invest in infrastructure or emergency management, said David McEntire, who teaches emergency management at the University of North Texas. […] [my emphasis and ellipses]