A year ago, Hurricane Katrina was churning towards the Gulf Coast and Louisiana officials kept an eye on it. Despite that, crucial figures such as New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Gov. Kathleen Blanco bungled, through poor planning followed by erroneous execution, attempts to cope with and minimize the loss of property and lives that would result from the storm’s landfall.
How they have coped with that spawned a new phrase, courtesy of a no-nonsense military man, for the Louisiana political lexicon, “stuck on stupid.” It’s the attitude demonstrated when public policy problems created by these officials’ own actions instead are blamed by those officials on others; they are incapable of understanding that it is their own beliefs and doings causing problems, and so they have to try to blame others for their own faults. Unfortunately, Louisiana has demonstrated in the past year that it has far too many politicians emblematic of this phrase (hence my nineteenth such named column), and it frequently has been lead from the top by Blanco.
Her latest exposition of why she remains stuck on stupid comes from her remarks at the grand opening of a state branch office of the Road Home program, designed to assist Louisianans in rebuilding their residences. Or, as wags have put in deference to the fact that a large number of state citizens have picked up on Blanco’s poor term in office, the “Road to the Governor’s Mansion,” as Democrat Blanco tries to use the program’s giving away of lots of money to entice people to support her for reelection next year.
It was all vintage stuck-on-stupid Blanco at the New Orleans ceremony. Trying to forestall criticism that it took nearly a year to get all of this going, she said the center's opening “culminates extraordinary days, extraordinary battles” in which the state had to spend months demanding greater help from federal officials who “at first didn't want to help us.” She spouted more such nonsense when she said part of the delay occurred because the White House decided to oppose Rep. Richard Baker’s bill in Congress to create a public corporation that would have bought hurricane-damaged homes and resold them to developers.
In truth, the delay mostly was Blanco’s doing. First, she took forever to get things going, in terms of providing leadership for institutions and laws to deal with recovery. (By contrast, Mississippi, which in some places had everything flattened as far as 60 miles inland, immediately got going and is far ahead of Louisiana as a result in all but the most severely damaged places.) Then, she refused to support important measures such as flood control legislation proposed to better protect the state and to show the rest of the country the state meant business, that recovery monies wouldn’t be poured into the same untenable situation, until a barrage of criticism made her change her mind.
Instead, she wasted time and efforts first by backing a ludicrously-large, few-strings attached $250 billion gift request to the federal government, then by backing the Baker bill which would have created a huge wasteful bureaucracy and likely would have put the U.S. taxpayer much more on the hook with fewer protections of their monies. National lawmakers derided the first and wisely deferred on the second. She wasted valuable time and effort conducting a public relations campaign, even in the halls of Congress, trying to blame others for her shortcomings in dealing with the storm during and after it (even being less than candid about it all).
What we know of as the “Road Home” came about only after all of this, where Blanco had to call another special session of the Legislature just to make up for errors she made regarding the first – and then in the regular session she had to wait for approval of the government structure to carry it out because her suggestion how to run it was too bureaucratic and put too much power in her hands, leading to Legislative modification. Only after all of this then did the federal government feel it could trust Louisiana to use wisely its tens of billions of dollars of gift monies.
A real leader would have lopped six months off this process. And so, almost a year later, with heavy hearts we’re still forced to proclaim (all together now), “Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, you remain thoroughly stuck on stupid.”
22.8.06
Shreveport mayor's poll tells little now, maybe more later
The Shreveport Times commissioned an exit poll concerning the city’s mayor’s race and it tells us … really nothing.
That’s perhaps a bit terse. Actually, it does tell us a few things. It says that state Sen. Max Malone has a long hill to climb to get himself into City Plaza – not impossible, but such a late start is not going to make it easy for it. It also reveals that Liz Swaine, relatively speaking, is doing stronger-than-expected – but probably some of the choices of her are a reflection of residual name-recognition from her television anchorwoman past rather than a genuine commitment to vote, meaning her overall strength is overstated because some of her supporters now will turn out the be unreliable later (and with such a high name recognition, she doesn’t have much upside).
But the utility of this poll is doubtful because barely half of the polled electorate even professes a choice, unusual in a situation where the campaign has been going on for months with only fifty-odd days out from the contest. This should be most worrisome to state Rep. Cedric Glover, who barely polls above his presumed closest competitor for votes, retired television executive Ed Bradley, and who trails Swaine. Somebody who would be expected to roll up more than half of the black vote at a minimum should be expected to have higher figures barely a month before the election.
However, all in all, the poll leaves us with far more questions than it can answer. Are Swaine’s totals firm? Are Malone’s a reflection of his late entry or that former city attorney Jerry Jones has done a solid job of building committed support among a significant number of voters that could carry him into a general election runoff? Can Bradley broaden his base beyond a few white liberals and angrier black supporters, indicated as a possibility given Glover’s relative weakness? Could a poll also-ran like city director of economic development Arlena Acree, with so much of the vote still outstanding, take advantage of the large proportion of undecided voters to disproportionately improve her standing?
(Tentative answers in reverse order are: (1) Acree has a lot of room to move up with the favorable ratings she has, but whether she can trigger this is another matter, (2) Bradley’s upside with his ratings looks pretty limited, while Glover does has some room to move up, and (3) with so many saying they don’t know of Malone, expect a dramatic rise in his fortunes if he can make himself know which, again, is a problem given his late entry – but forget about the absolutely inane comment about Malone’s placement that “He's got a very incendiary rhetoric. Those who will vote for him don't want that to be known,” because it’s the lack of name recognition, not undercounting, driving his total as of now.)
With 34 percent of the vote still unpledged, so much still could happen. That’s the real message this poll gives us.
That’s perhaps a bit terse. Actually, it does tell us a few things. It says that state Sen. Max Malone has a long hill to climb to get himself into City Plaza – not impossible, but such a late start is not going to make it easy for it. It also reveals that Liz Swaine, relatively speaking, is doing stronger-than-expected – but probably some of the choices of her are a reflection of residual name-recognition from her television anchorwoman past rather than a genuine commitment to vote, meaning her overall strength is overstated because some of her supporters now will turn out the be unreliable later (and with such a high name recognition, she doesn’t have much upside).
But the utility of this poll is doubtful because barely half of the polled electorate even professes a choice, unusual in a situation where the campaign has been going on for months with only fifty-odd days out from the contest. This should be most worrisome to state Rep. Cedric Glover, who barely polls above his presumed closest competitor for votes, retired television executive Ed Bradley, and who trails Swaine. Somebody who would be expected to roll up more than half of the black vote at a minimum should be expected to have higher figures barely a month before the election.
However, all in all, the poll leaves us with far more questions than it can answer. Are Swaine’s totals firm? Are Malone’s a reflection of his late entry or that former city attorney Jerry Jones has done a solid job of building committed support among a significant number of voters that could carry him into a general election runoff? Can Bradley broaden his base beyond a few white liberals and angrier black supporters, indicated as a possibility given Glover’s relative weakness? Could a poll also-ran like city director of economic development Arlena Acree, with so much of the vote still outstanding, take advantage of the large proportion of undecided voters to disproportionately improve her standing?
(Tentative answers in reverse order are: (1) Acree has a lot of room to move up with the favorable ratings she has, but whether she can trigger this is another matter, (2) Bradley’s upside with his ratings looks pretty limited, while Glover does has some room to move up, and (3) with so many saying they don’t know of Malone, expect a dramatic rise in his fortunes if he can make himself know which, again, is a problem given his late entry – but forget about the absolutely inane comment about Malone’s placement that “He's got a very incendiary rhetoric. Those who will vote for him don't want that to be known,” because it’s the lack of name recognition, not undercounting, driving his total as of now.)
With 34 percent of the vote still unpledged, so much still could happen. That’s the real message this poll gives us.
Senators' grandstanding impedes real insurance solutions
You know there are elections around the corner when you get a bunch of grandstanding by members of the Louisiana Senate who make a lot of silly, unhelpful statements, but who really offer no serious solution to insurance problems in the wake of the 2005 hurricane disasters.
We seem to be having Senate Insurance Committee meetings left and right across the state, even though the Legislature won’t convene for another eight months. Chalk that up to its chairman’s Republican John David Cain running in the Sep. 30 special election for insurance commissioner, as if doing this makes it look like he’s doing anything constructive at all.
Other members seemed to have seized the opportunity for free publicity to make themselves sound like champions of the little people in order to win votes – a dangerous but prevalent mentality among Louisiana politicians which casts aside the desire to thoughtfully analyze public policy problems and has lead the state to being at or close to the bottom of every measure of quality of life.
Running for Congress, Republican Craig Romero sputters about how allowing insurer Farm Bureau to cancel policies after previously being allowed to raise rates – in essence, pocketing all of this money during a period of low risk – was akin to theft. Well, I don’t know the minute details about how the state’s Department of Insurance works, but I do know that the Department’s actuaries regularly review rates with a company’s financial position being part of that calculation. If Farm Bureau sopped up this money now, then in the future the higher balances will mean they will be forced to charge lower rates. That’s not theft; it’s the “pay me now or pay me later” choice where the company has opted for the latter.
Running for mayor of Opelousas, Democrat Donald Cravins thundered about “companies are basically exercising a free hand to do as they will with very little regulation from the state Department of Insurance. There's a law in effect that says a company can raise a premium 10 percent. They're raising them 20, 30 and 40 percent.” Well, I’m no senator, but I do know that R.S. 22:1401 says the Insurance Rating Commission may permit an increase of any size after appropriate review by the Deaprtment. So is Cravins charging, because he sees a “free hand to do as they will” by the presence of some large increases that the Department of Insurance is not properly vetting rate increase requests, and that the Insurance Rating Commission is derelict in its duty? Unless he has proof of these things, making such allegations is irresponsible.
Running for reelection next year, Democrat Nick Gautreaux wants to introduce a bill to allow the state-owned insurer to lower its rates. What Gautreaux doesn’t seem to understand is rates are going up because they have been under-priced relative to actual market conditions – and the subsidizer in the past to compensate still are Louisiana taxpayers and home insurance ratepayers, who thusly are compelled to transfer some of their wealth to other individuals who live in high risk areas. This would just under-price risk even more and put greater redistribution demands on those who chose not to buy home insurance in risky areas.
You get foolishness (and bottom-shelf state rankings) like this because of an attitude that too many have in this state that other people ought to pay instead of you paying for your own decisions. For those who go around saying home insurance now is “price-gouging,” and that if rates aren’t forced lower that “quitting, going on welfare and letting everybody else pay my stuff” is the preferred alternative (as if somebody hasn’t been paying for part of their insurance all along because of under-pricing revealed by the disasters), let’s be clear: nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you own a home wherever you want to live. If you think home insurance is too high, sell out and rent. Or, move away to a lower-risk area or to a less-grandiose property if you want lower rates.
I’m sorry, it’s just that simple. There’s no grand conspiracy among insurers to artificially inflate rates; even in a heavily-regulated industry such as insurance there’s enough of the free market left to prevent collusion and to ensure that private insurance will be made available to all who want it – if the state doesn’t allow the reward to not compensate for the risk involved by pursuing a populist solution of lower rates just because they were under-priced for so long. And it’s certainly unfair to make others pay for a few to have the privilege of artificially lower rates. But perhaps the worst thing of all is to hear these politicians, instead of offering serious analysis based upon some understanding about how the real world works, spout off with drivel that only makes coming up with the optimal solution all the more difficult.
We seem to be having Senate Insurance Committee meetings left and right across the state, even though the Legislature won’t convene for another eight months. Chalk that up to its chairman’s Republican John David Cain running in the Sep. 30 special election for insurance commissioner, as if doing this makes it look like he’s doing anything constructive at all.
Other members seemed to have seized the opportunity for free publicity to make themselves sound like champions of the little people in order to win votes – a dangerous but prevalent mentality among Louisiana politicians which casts aside the desire to thoughtfully analyze public policy problems and has lead the state to being at or close to the bottom of every measure of quality of life.
Running for Congress, Republican Craig Romero sputters about how allowing insurer Farm Bureau to cancel policies after previously being allowed to raise rates – in essence, pocketing all of this money during a period of low risk – was akin to theft. Well, I don’t know the minute details about how the state’s Department of Insurance works, but I do know that the Department’s actuaries regularly review rates with a company’s financial position being part of that calculation. If Farm Bureau sopped up this money now, then in the future the higher balances will mean they will be forced to charge lower rates. That’s not theft; it’s the “pay me now or pay me later” choice where the company has opted for the latter.
Running for mayor of Opelousas, Democrat Donald Cravins thundered about “companies are basically exercising a free hand to do as they will with very little regulation from the state Department of Insurance. There's a law in effect that says a company can raise a premium 10 percent. They're raising them 20, 30 and 40 percent.” Well, I’m no senator, but I do know that R.S. 22:1401 says the Insurance Rating Commission may permit an increase of any size after appropriate review by the Deaprtment. So is Cravins charging, because he sees a “free hand to do as they will” by the presence of some large increases that the Department of Insurance is not properly vetting rate increase requests, and that the Insurance Rating Commission is derelict in its duty? Unless he has proof of these things, making such allegations is irresponsible.
Running for reelection next year, Democrat Nick Gautreaux wants to introduce a bill to allow the state-owned insurer to lower its rates. What Gautreaux doesn’t seem to understand is rates are going up because they have been under-priced relative to actual market conditions – and the subsidizer in the past to compensate still are Louisiana taxpayers and home insurance ratepayers, who thusly are compelled to transfer some of their wealth to other individuals who live in high risk areas. This would just under-price risk even more and put greater redistribution demands on those who chose not to buy home insurance in risky areas.
You get foolishness (and bottom-shelf state rankings) like this because of an attitude that too many have in this state that other people ought to pay instead of you paying for your own decisions. For those who go around saying home insurance now is “price-gouging,” and that if rates aren’t forced lower that “quitting, going on welfare and letting everybody else pay my stuff” is the preferred alternative (as if somebody hasn’t been paying for part of their insurance all along because of under-pricing revealed by the disasters), let’s be clear: nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you own a home wherever you want to live. If you think home insurance is too high, sell out and rent. Or, move away to a lower-risk area or to a less-grandiose property if you want lower rates.
I’m sorry, it’s just that simple. There’s no grand conspiracy among insurers to artificially inflate rates; even in a heavily-regulated industry such as insurance there’s enough of the free market left to prevent collusion and to ensure that private insurance will be made available to all who want it – if the state doesn’t allow the reward to not compensate for the risk involved by pursuing a populist solution of lower rates just because they were under-priced for so long. And it’s certainly unfair to make others pay for a few to have the privilege of artificially lower rates. But perhaps the worst thing of all is to hear these politicians, instead of offering serious analysis based upon some understanding about how the real world works, spout off with drivel that only makes coming up with the optimal solution all the more difficult.
21.8.06
Challenge should negate ex-con, felon candidacy
Maybe starting tomorrow we’ll finally get a clarification about Article 1, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution to see just how airtight it is in preventing felons unpardoned for their crimes from running for elective office in the state before 15 years have passed (assuming their sentence has been completed).
Prisoner #08515-035, Joe Shyne, was convicted in 1994 of soliciting a bribe while performing duties as a Shreveport city councilman office, a federal crime. He served his time in prison, a year, but then came back to win back the seat in 1998. State Sen. Max Malone (now running for mayor) didn’t think this was right, as did a large majority of Louisiana citizens, when he introduced a constitutional amendment that they approved that theoretically should keep Shyne from running for that office again until 2010.
But Shyne claims a governor’s pardon, which he got in 2003 from former Gov. Mike Foster, will suffice, even though the state’s Pardon Board a year later concluded the governor had no power to affect a federal conviction (this done to determine whether election rights could be restored to Prisoner #03312-095; no doubt he sees that decision as part of the massive conspiracy of the federal government and its judicial system against him, despite any real evidence). Malone and Shyne’s opponent current councilman James Green, disagree and challenged his candidacy.
Prisoner #08515-035, Joe Shyne, was convicted in 1994 of soliciting a bribe while performing duties as a Shreveport city councilman office, a federal crime. He served his time in prison, a year, but then came back to win back the seat in 1998. State Sen. Max Malone (now running for mayor) didn’t think this was right, as did a large majority of Louisiana citizens, when he introduced a constitutional amendment that they approved that theoretically should keep Shyne from running for that office again until 2010.
But Shyne claims a governor’s pardon, which he got in 2003 from former Gov. Mike Foster, will suffice, even though the state’s Pardon Board a year later concluded the governor had no power to affect a federal conviction (this done to determine whether election rights could be restored to Prisoner #03312-095; no doubt he sees that decision as part of the massive conspiracy of the federal government and its judicial system against him, despite any real evidence). Malone and Shyne’s opponent current councilman James Green, disagree and challenged his candidacy.
20.8.06
Stuck on stupid XVIII: it's the competence, stupid
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is opening mouth, inserting foot once again. And, once again, he displays the tragic ignorance of so many politicians from the Crescent City that ends up exactly disproving the point he tried to make.
Once again speaking before what he considered a friendly audience (the National Association of Black Journalists), Nagin alleged the federal governments’ actions towards New Orleans were biased against its recovery, intimating it was because New Orleans’ is a poorer city with a higher proportions of black citizens. Doing a derivative rap of Spike Lee, Nagin argued, “if that would have happened in Orange County, California, if that would have happened in South Beach, Miami, it would have been a different response.”
Actually, it’s funny he should mention those places, since they aren’t so different from New Orleans in terms of competence of local government. South Beach, which actually is a term of the southern part of Miami Beach which is governed in part by the famously corrupt Miami-Dade County, FL consolidated government, is part of an area with a huge Hispanic population. Orange County, CA famously mismanaged itself through the use of derivatives to lose over $1 billion, and is an area with a rapidly-growing Hispanic population. Nagin didn’t seem to know or couldn’t recognize the effectiveness problems of these governments.
Which is the entire point of why the federal government has appeared so meddlesome, so halting, to turn on the money taps to New Orleans: it does not trust politicians like Nagin, and those potentially far more corrupt, who have run New Orleans into the ground over the past several decades. The federal government understands that if you have a reprobate on your hands, you just don’t turn over the keys to the kingdom to him, you have to guide him, with tough love as needed, to maximize the chances that the best decisions get made. And then the reprobate’s representative accusing the donors of bad intentions is really going to get them to loosen up their wallets.
It is a sign of Nagin’s cluelessness that he doesn’t seem to realize any of this, that he and his ilk have been part of the problem in the past (and now are derided by many who say it’s not other governments’ not greasing city government’s palms enough that’s the problem, it’s that Nagin isn’t doing much of anything). Nagin is ignorant or dishonest to blame race and class for retarding the recovery of New Orleans; if he kindly will line himself up and almost all city elected officials of the recent past in front of a mirror, they will see who ultimately are responsible not only for that, but for depleting New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina that will make a comeback even more difficult.
Once again speaking before what he considered a friendly audience (the National Association of Black Journalists), Nagin alleged the federal governments’ actions towards New Orleans were biased against its recovery, intimating it was because New Orleans’ is a poorer city with a higher proportions of black citizens. Doing a derivative rap of Spike Lee, Nagin argued, “if that would have happened in Orange County, California, if that would have happened in South Beach, Miami, it would have been a different response.”
Actually, it’s funny he should mention those places, since they aren’t so different from New Orleans in terms of competence of local government. South Beach, which actually is a term of the southern part of Miami Beach which is governed in part by the famously corrupt Miami-Dade County, FL consolidated government, is part of an area with a huge Hispanic population. Orange County, CA famously mismanaged itself through the use of derivatives to lose over $1 billion, and is an area with a rapidly-growing Hispanic population. Nagin didn’t seem to know or couldn’t recognize the effectiveness problems of these governments.
Which is the entire point of why the federal government has appeared so meddlesome, so halting, to turn on the money taps to New Orleans: it does not trust politicians like Nagin, and those potentially far more corrupt, who have run New Orleans into the ground over the past several decades. The federal government understands that if you have a reprobate on your hands, you just don’t turn over the keys to the kingdom to him, you have to guide him, with tough love as needed, to maximize the chances that the best decisions get made. And then the reprobate’s representative accusing the donors of bad intentions is really going to get them to loosen up their wallets.
It is a sign of Nagin’s cluelessness that he doesn’t seem to realize any of this, that he and his ilk have been part of the problem in the past (and now are derided by many who say it’s not other governments’ not greasing city government’s palms enough that’s the problem, it’s that Nagin isn’t doing much of anything). Nagin is ignorant or dishonest to blame race and class for retarding the recovery of New Orleans; if he kindly will line himself up and almost all city elected officials of the recent past in front of a mirror, they will see who ultimately are responsible not only for that, but for depleting New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina that will make a comeback even more difficult.
17.8.06
Lee film ready to show biased, simpleton Katrina picture
One of my special interests is politics in the cinema, having taught a course on it for nearly 15 years and publishing in the area. One of the films covered in the class is Spike Lee’s “Do the Right Thing” (1989) which displays both Lee’s skill as a filmmaker and his dishonesty in doing so. Early indications are we can expect the same from his film about Hurricane Katrina’s impact on New Orleans, “When the Levees Broke.”
I didn’t get invited to see its premiere (imagine that), but New Orleans Times-Picayune television critic David Walker saw it prior to that and, while he avers that he will leave analyzing the politics of the films to others, he can’t avoid pointing out some himself, for Lee is a relentlessly political filmmaker who makes his opinion clear, to varying degrees of subtlety, regardless of whether the facts support his views. This has marked his entire film career.
“Do the Right Thing” was Lee’s first excursion into politics, The film recounts events, loosely based on some real-life occurrences, of a day leading to a race riot in an imaginary neighborhood in Brooklyn, a work Lee expressly made to try to influence the 1989 New York City mayor’s election to oust Ed Koch and put David Dinkins, the city’s first black in the office. Whether by his film, that’s what happened, leading the city into a decline requiring the rescue of Rudy Giuliani.
In this film, Lee shows some nuance in illustrating the events leading up to some residents of a black neighborhood destroying the only restaurant willing to operate there, owned by a guy of Italian descent. The grievances that mount on both sides appear legitimate even as they place emotion ahead of reason. But just because he shows both sides doesn’t mean he doesn’t present one as the legitimate one – the riot was understandable because, he argues, the non-white community was tired of being subjugated and had a right to “defend” itself against its oppressors.
He does a great artistic job but, in the end, it is a fraud. Lee wants to make audiences think he is dispassionately presenting the arguments of which the superior validity lies with “black self-defense” side. Instead, the film is rigged with biased, if not absolutely false information, about the larger issue of race relations in America. There are numerous examples in the film, but to name perhaps the most notorious of them, at one point graffiti is shown proclaiming “Tawana told the truth.” Presented as such, without context or further explication, signals that Lee considers this to be unimpeachable.
The phrase refers to the sensational charges made by a young black woman, Tawana Brawley, who a couple of years earlier claimed she was kidnapped and abused by white law enforcement men. Professional activists like Al Sharpton (who appears in this latest film) immediately took her side and used the claim as evidence of continued white suppression of blacks. But it quickly came out that Brawley had manufactured the entire story to escape parental discipline from being out too late. Even after that, Sharpton and others continued to insist that “Tawana told the truth” (and were successfully sued for defamation as a result). Lee knew she had lied when he made the film.
For this reason, we can expect nothing less from Lee with this film; specifically, Lee will try to throw more blame on white and/or conservative America than on the storm itself. His lineup of commentators interviewed in the film shows no hint of any balance to what Lee calls a “documentary:” Gov. Kathleen Blanco, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, and Kanye West among others, all vocal critics of Pres. George W. Bush and the Republican majority in America, if not of Bush’s response to the aftermath of the storm. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin seems the best he’s willing to do to provide any mediocre balance to this biased presentation.
Lee, of course, is an avowed hater of Bush and even more of Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice (clips framed unflatteringly of both of them appear in the film) and who has not repudiated the ridiculous, absolutely unsubstantiated myth that the levees in New Orleans were not intentionally breached to wreak havoc on blacks. Perhaps the imagery of tragedy will be moving, but any value it has gets cancelled by its simplistic, sophomoric screed. This is why we cannot expect an honest look at the tragedy from this waste of celluloid – especially from an activist who has the audacity to claim he presents things honestly.
I didn’t get invited to see its premiere (imagine that), but New Orleans Times-Picayune television critic David Walker saw it prior to that and, while he avers that he will leave analyzing the politics of the films to others, he can’t avoid pointing out some himself, for Lee is a relentlessly political filmmaker who makes his opinion clear, to varying degrees of subtlety, regardless of whether the facts support his views. This has marked his entire film career.
“Do the Right Thing” was Lee’s first excursion into politics, The film recounts events, loosely based on some real-life occurrences, of a day leading to a race riot in an imaginary neighborhood in Brooklyn, a work Lee expressly made to try to influence the 1989 New York City mayor’s election to oust Ed Koch and put David Dinkins, the city’s first black in the office. Whether by his film, that’s what happened, leading the city into a decline requiring the rescue of Rudy Giuliani.
In this film, Lee shows some nuance in illustrating the events leading up to some residents of a black neighborhood destroying the only restaurant willing to operate there, owned by a guy of Italian descent. The grievances that mount on both sides appear legitimate even as they place emotion ahead of reason. But just because he shows both sides doesn’t mean he doesn’t present one as the legitimate one – the riot was understandable because, he argues, the non-white community was tired of being subjugated and had a right to “defend” itself against its oppressors.
He does a great artistic job but, in the end, it is a fraud. Lee wants to make audiences think he is dispassionately presenting the arguments of which the superior validity lies with “black self-defense” side. Instead, the film is rigged with biased, if not absolutely false information, about the larger issue of race relations in America. There are numerous examples in the film, but to name perhaps the most notorious of them, at one point graffiti is shown proclaiming “Tawana told the truth.” Presented as such, without context or further explication, signals that Lee considers this to be unimpeachable.
The phrase refers to the sensational charges made by a young black woman, Tawana Brawley, who a couple of years earlier claimed she was kidnapped and abused by white law enforcement men. Professional activists like Al Sharpton (who appears in this latest film) immediately took her side and used the claim as evidence of continued white suppression of blacks. But it quickly came out that Brawley had manufactured the entire story to escape parental discipline from being out too late. Even after that, Sharpton and others continued to insist that “Tawana told the truth” (and were successfully sued for defamation as a result). Lee knew she had lied when he made the film.
For this reason, we can expect nothing less from Lee with this film; specifically, Lee will try to throw more blame on white and/or conservative America than on the storm itself. His lineup of commentators interviewed in the film shows no hint of any balance to what Lee calls a “documentary:” Gov. Kathleen Blanco, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, and Kanye West among others, all vocal critics of Pres. George W. Bush and the Republican majority in America, if not of Bush’s response to the aftermath of the storm. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin seems the best he’s willing to do to provide any mediocre balance to this biased presentation.
Lee, of course, is an avowed hater of Bush and even more of Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice (clips framed unflatteringly of both of them appear in the film) and who has not repudiated the ridiculous, absolutely unsubstantiated myth that the levees in New Orleans were not intentionally breached to wreak havoc on blacks. Perhaps the imagery of tragedy will be moving, but any value it has gets cancelled by its simplistic, sophomoric screed. This is why we cannot expect an honest look at the tragedy from this waste of celluloid – especially from an activist who has the audacity to claim he presents things honestly.
16.8.06
Blanco wasting taxpayer dollars with nuisance suit
The oil lease sale scheduled for today will go on, but it’s anybody’s guess as to which will conclude first, the start of actual production of the leases, or the state’s nuisance suit that, at best, will end up wasting precious state taxpayers’ dollars.
At the beginning of the week, U.S. District Court Judge Kurt Englehardt ruled that the suit by Gov. Kathleen Blanco to stop the sale, on the basis that the U.S. Mineral Management Service had not conducted a serious environmental impact review (that is, not incorporating the effects of the 2005 hurricanes) of the results of the sale on Louisiana, could not stop it. Yet, interestingly he opined that the state had a strong case and, when heard in full, could well render the state’s position a winner.
In other words, the ruling was that letting the sale go on would cause no irreparable harm to Louisiana if, in fact, a flawed review process had occurred and the MMS had underestimated the environmental damage. The judge did indicate that there were points on which he would agree, when he heard the case in full in November, that the process had been flawed.
Allowing the sale to go forward made sense for three reasons. First, the case is about a process, not about the actual assessments made about environmental degradation. Second, it will be years before any activity can take place concerning development of the leases, so holding it up wasn’t going to change anything. Third, the lease sale itself is really off the coast of Texas, not Louisiana, so it may be difficult to argue there is any impact at all even if the process is found to be flawed.
Naturally, Blanco misidentified what happened, asserting that the suit is about an outcome, not a process. Much like her Democrat colleagues in Washington who want to declare a rebuilt Iraq can stand on its own and withdraw American forces contrary to objective conditions that such forces still are needed, the state tried to tell the media that it meant “our concerns are valid regarding the impact of this activity on our environment and that the federal government is acting in disregard of our environment.”
Not at all. Let’s say that MMS was found not to have reviewed all current relevant information about the environmental impact. Assuming that it doesn’t appeal the case to a higher court which well could reverse a single judge’s decision, it could get the new information, review it, and come up with the same no-impact judgment. Then what is the state going to do, file a suit disagreeing with the outcome on its merits? That would be like somebody denied Social Security disability benefits by an examiner suing the government because he disagreed with the outcome by saying the examiner did a bad job. For something like that, even if the judiciary would grant standing to such a political suit between two parts of government, it would take a blatant case of incompetence or bias to rule in the state’s favor – and that’s very unlikely to be the case as long as MMS shows they consulted expertise on the matter. And it all will take years to sort out while lease sales go on and production commences.
So, in the final analysis, this all is just a political stunt that really wastes state taxpayers’ dollars twice (at both the state and federal levels). Because Blanco has failed in exerting leadership on the matter of hurricane protection and coastal erosion, and to cover up her incompetent handling of the hurricane disasters of 2005, this is a ploy to make it look like she’s doing something, drawing upon the latent populism of Louisiana’s political culture to try to make somebody else (the federal government, conveniently in the hands of the opposing political party) look like the bad guy to divert examination of her own record.
If she really wanted to help, she needs to support publicly and vigorously the efforts of Rep. Bobby Jindal and others to secure in federal law the state a greater share of offshore drilling loyalties. (But she won’t because he is her likely opponent in next year’s governor’s race and it would cement in the public’s mind her failures as well as give him credit.) For the good of the state, she needs to put its interests first and stop this nonsense.
At the beginning of the week, U.S. District Court Judge Kurt Englehardt ruled that the suit by Gov. Kathleen Blanco to stop the sale, on the basis that the U.S. Mineral Management Service had not conducted a serious environmental impact review (that is, not incorporating the effects of the 2005 hurricanes) of the results of the sale on Louisiana, could not stop it. Yet, interestingly he opined that the state had a strong case and, when heard in full, could well render the state’s position a winner.
In other words, the ruling was that letting the sale go on would cause no irreparable harm to Louisiana if, in fact, a flawed review process had occurred and the MMS had underestimated the environmental damage. The judge did indicate that there were points on which he would agree, when he heard the case in full in November, that the process had been flawed.
Allowing the sale to go forward made sense for three reasons. First, the case is about a process, not about the actual assessments made about environmental degradation. Second, it will be years before any activity can take place concerning development of the leases, so holding it up wasn’t going to change anything. Third, the lease sale itself is really off the coast of Texas, not Louisiana, so it may be difficult to argue there is any impact at all even if the process is found to be flawed.
Naturally, Blanco misidentified what happened, asserting that the suit is about an outcome, not a process. Much like her Democrat colleagues in Washington who want to declare a rebuilt Iraq can stand on its own and withdraw American forces contrary to objective conditions that such forces still are needed, the state tried to tell the media that it meant “our concerns are valid regarding the impact of this activity on our environment and that the federal government is acting in disregard of our environment.”
Not at all. Let’s say that MMS was found not to have reviewed all current relevant information about the environmental impact. Assuming that it doesn’t appeal the case to a higher court which well could reverse a single judge’s decision, it could get the new information, review it, and come up with the same no-impact judgment. Then what is the state going to do, file a suit disagreeing with the outcome on its merits? That would be like somebody denied Social Security disability benefits by an examiner suing the government because he disagreed with the outcome by saying the examiner did a bad job. For something like that, even if the judiciary would grant standing to such a political suit between two parts of government, it would take a blatant case of incompetence or bias to rule in the state’s favor – and that’s very unlikely to be the case as long as MMS shows they consulted expertise on the matter. And it all will take years to sort out while lease sales go on and production commences.
So, in the final analysis, this all is just a political stunt that really wastes state taxpayers’ dollars twice (at both the state and federal levels). Because Blanco has failed in exerting leadership on the matter of hurricane protection and coastal erosion, and to cover up her incompetent handling of the hurricane disasters of 2005, this is a ploy to make it look like she’s doing something, drawing upon the latent populism of Louisiana’s political culture to try to make somebody else (the federal government, conveniently in the hands of the opposing political party) look like the bad guy to divert examination of her own record.
If she really wanted to help, she needs to support publicly and vigorously the efforts of Rep. Bobby Jindal and others to secure in federal law the state a greater share of offshore drilling loyalties. (But she won’t because he is her likely opponent in next year’s governor’s race and it would cement in the public’s mind her failures as well as give him credit.) For the good of the state, she needs to put its interests first and stop this nonsense.
15.8.06
Louisiana spending spree contrary to other states' saving
Astute observers of the actions of the Louisiana Legislature and Gov. Kathleen Blanco developed queasy feelings watching state government’s budget machinations over the past year. After initially making cuts (but of an indiscriminate kind), much of what had been saved got recommitted, often for the same purposes. These actions seemed mistaken at the time, and now evidence comes to verify that they also are out of step with the rest of America.
At its ongoing annual meeting the National Conference of State Legislatures issued a report showing that, in the past year, even if only three states cut spending, many saved surprise excess revenues, or spent them on one-time projects. New continuing spending was shunned because many states remain cautious about their economic futures (an entirely valid concern should Democrats take charge of Congress and/or the presidency within the next three years).
Naturally, Louisiana remained an outlier to this trend. In an absolute sense, its spending ballooned, but even taking out federal funds pumped in for hurricane recovery spending increased year over year. But, unlike states which bolstered their emergency savings funds, Louisiana withdrew from its. (The state did put in $150 million for anticipated emergency spending, which is really more like an appropriation for continuing expenses, but even this amount is several times smaller than the amount withdrawn from the Budget Stabilization Fund in 2005).
Worse, as some have argued all along, the overall budget picture remains risky and presumed surge in revenues coming from federal relief spending has created a false sense of security. Studies of previous disasters show a pattern of a rapid, temporary boost in state revenues followed by a decline. If any state should have been shoring up its savings this year, it should have been Louisiana.
Instead, Blanco and the Legislature spent like drunken sailors. They called this lousy tune, and soon the people may have to pay the piper as a result.
At its ongoing annual meeting the National Conference of State Legislatures issued a report showing that, in the past year, even if only three states cut spending, many saved surprise excess revenues, or spent them on one-time projects. New continuing spending was shunned because many states remain cautious about their economic futures (an entirely valid concern should Democrats take charge of Congress and/or the presidency within the next three years).
Naturally, Louisiana remained an outlier to this trend. In an absolute sense, its spending ballooned, but even taking out federal funds pumped in for hurricane recovery spending increased year over year. But, unlike states which bolstered their emergency savings funds, Louisiana withdrew from its. (The state did put in $150 million for anticipated emergency spending, which is really more like an appropriation for continuing expenses, but even this amount is several times smaller than the amount withdrawn from the Budget Stabilization Fund in 2005).
Worse, as some have argued all along, the overall budget picture remains risky and presumed surge in revenues coming from federal relief spending has created a false sense of security. Studies of previous disasters show a pattern of a rapid, temporary boost in state revenues followed by a decline. If any state should have been shoring up its savings this year, it should have been Louisiana.
Instead, Blanco and the Legislature spent like drunken sailors. They called this lousy tune, and soon the people may have to pay the piper as a result.
14.8.06
More evidence reaffirms benefit of education vouchers
The obvious yet again has been confirmed – students educated at Catholic schools in Louisiana not only do far better in assessment of their learning than do students in the state’s public schools, but also do better than national averages. So when will the state’s public policy finally take advantage of this condition?
This past legislative session, not unlike other recent sessions, bills were offered to allow greater choice to students to attend private schools such as Catholic ones in order to take advantage of this. Despite knowing the advantages of this kind of education and despite the fact that the tuition charged by Catholic institutions (and in general at the national level all private schools) is significantly less than spending per pupil by public schools, in recent years while the Louisiana House has been progressive on this issue, the Senate has been the roadblock towards positive change by never allowing voucher legislation to come to a vote.
Why do private schools do a better job of educating than public schools in both effectiveness and efficiency terms? First, while private schools encounter many bureaucratic hurdles, public schools must deal with even more, wasting resources. This is a consequence of the second reason that with private schools educating is far and away the primary function of these schools, while public schools too often get enmeshed in other politicized goals such as “diversity” or “socialization.” Both of these reasons are related to the third, that in private education with less bureaucracy, fewer distractions, and, perhaps most importantly, reduction of union power (which care only for their members self-enrichment, not in the quality of education), the productivity level of teachers is much higher and they can be held much more accountable for their performances.
Naturally, teachers’ unions and other interests who harbor political agendas (such as getting their hands on as much money as possible for government education spending) that differ from providing quality education oppose vouchers precisely because they will interfere with those agendas. They trot out the same discredited arguments and myths time and time again that, unfortunately, have stalled the necessary reform of education vouchers in Louisiana.
Hopefully, this news – and the fact 2007 is an election year – will create more momentum to get state funding of education vouchers (beyond that of pre-kindergarten) enacted by the Legislature and signed by a governor who formerly was the member of a teacher’s union.
This past legislative session, not unlike other recent sessions, bills were offered to allow greater choice to students to attend private schools such as Catholic ones in order to take advantage of this. Despite knowing the advantages of this kind of education and despite the fact that the tuition charged by Catholic institutions (and in general at the national level all private schools) is significantly less than spending per pupil by public schools, in recent years while the Louisiana House has been progressive on this issue, the Senate has been the roadblock towards positive change by never allowing voucher legislation to come to a vote.
Why do private schools do a better job of educating than public schools in both effectiveness and efficiency terms? First, while private schools encounter many bureaucratic hurdles, public schools must deal with even more, wasting resources. This is a consequence of the second reason that with private schools educating is far and away the primary function of these schools, while public schools too often get enmeshed in other politicized goals such as “diversity” or “socialization.” Both of these reasons are related to the third, that in private education with less bureaucracy, fewer distractions, and, perhaps most importantly, reduction of union power (which care only for their members self-enrichment, not in the quality of education), the productivity level of teachers is much higher and they can be held much more accountable for their performances.
Naturally, teachers’ unions and other interests who harbor political agendas (such as getting their hands on as much money as possible for government education spending) that differ from providing quality education oppose vouchers precisely because they will interfere with those agendas. They trot out the same discredited arguments and myths time and time again that, unfortunately, have stalled the necessary reform of education vouchers in Louisiana.
Hopefully, this news – and the fact 2007 is an election year – will create more momentum to get state funding of education vouchers (beyond that of pre-kindergarten) enacted by the Legislature and signed by a governor who formerly was the member of a teacher’s union.
11.8.06
Looks like Blanco got hand caught in tollhouse cookie jar
As with how Floyd Landis could have registered too high of a ratio of testosterone in one isolated blood test, something doesn’t add up concerning the idea to put tolls on Interstates 10 and 12 in Louisiana. And the surface evidence points to Gov. Kathleen Blanco being less than forthcoming about an attempt to raise fees on Louisianans.
If you believe the story spun by her Department of Transportation and Development Secretary Johnny Bradberry, in March the state made a preliminary indication of interest to join in a pilot program that would allow state greater latitude in conversion of federal interstate highways into toll highways. In June, Bradberry alleged that he briefly informed Sen. David Vitter, and left information pertaining to the request, of that request.
However, earlier this week Vitter claimed he had just learned the previous week that the state for a fact was pursuing this alternative, and that Bradberry never had informed him of the fact the state wanted in on the toll program, leading him to denounce the idea publicly. For her part, Blanco remained mum until the end of the week, refusing to have media comments made, until she launched into a blistering, not-entirely-coherent tirade on the syndicated Moon Griffon radio program accusing Vitter of making misleading statements.
Somebody’s not telling the full truth. First, let’s imagine what Vitter’s motivation could be for suddenly launching a public relations offensive against Blanco on a contrived issue. And that is … none. There’s no election coming up that could help him, no event for him to try to distract the public from. There’s little reason to believe he woke up one day and said to himself, “Let’s see what mud I could sling at Blanco today.” It’s very credible that some contact of his at the federal level, or the state level, or constituent, or somebody who knew something about this only alerted him last week, and he sensed that sending a letter (with copies to other officials) to Blanco was his best bet of stopping this.
By contrast, Blanco and Bradberry’s stories sound implausible at best. Bradberry claims he’s the one pursuing the notion (but Blanco therefore gave him the order), and it is conceivable that he told and left the pertinent information with Vitter – but highly improbable as this would mean Vitter and/or his entire staff (that’s what his staffers are there for, so he catches these things) missed the importance of what Bradberry communicated in both word and document, something that you’ll seldom see a senator and his staff do.
And why would Blanco lash out at Vitter so publicly and with such vitriol unless she was trying to distract the public from the real issue – that she had been deliberately keeping obscurant the request because of what Vitter essentially said about it, that it would be injurious to Louisiana as well as she knows she is building a reputation as a governor who would rather spend and squeeze more money out Louisianans than do to the things necessary to reduce state spending and to redirect existing spending to more sensible purposes. This perception will forfeit any chance she has for reelection next year.
No doubt the state’s citizens increasingly are restless with the state pouring more and more money into roads with sub-optimal results. The last thing Blanco needed was revelation of this plan to feed this discontent, either because she eventually would have decided not to pursue it and it wouldn’t ever have become public knowledge, or because she needed more time to engage in a public relations campaign to make it appear more acceptable to the public. Now it’s what Vitter intended to make it with his remarks – dead, and Blanco brought into disrepute instead of her being able to use it to create a more positive perception of her leadership (along the lines of, “these are desperate times and Gov. Blanco has a solution”).
Landis says one thing, a lab says another, and maybe the Court of Arbitration in Sport will figure it all out. But we don’t have a formal court of arbitration of testimonies in political disputes. Instead, we have public opinion, and, from the looks of this controversy, a majority of the public probably will think it was Blanco caught with her hand in an embarrassing tollhouse cookie jar.
If you believe the story spun by her Department of Transportation and Development Secretary Johnny Bradberry, in March the state made a preliminary indication of interest to join in a pilot program that would allow state greater latitude in conversion of federal interstate highways into toll highways. In June, Bradberry alleged that he briefly informed Sen. David Vitter, and left information pertaining to the request, of that request.
However, earlier this week Vitter claimed he had just learned the previous week that the state for a fact was pursuing this alternative, and that Bradberry never had informed him of the fact the state wanted in on the toll program, leading him to denounce the idea publicly. For her part, Blanco remained mum until the end of the week, refusing to have media comments made, until she launched into a blistering, not-entirely-coherent tirade on the syndicated Moon Griffon radio program accusing Vitter of making misleading statements.
Somebody’s not telling the full truth. First, let’s imagine what Vitter’s motivation could be for suddenly launching a public relations offensive against Blanco on a contrived issue. And that is … none. There’s no election coming up that could help him, no event for him to try to distract the public from. There’s little reason to believe he woke up one day and said to himself, “Let’s see what mud I could sling at Blanco today.” It’s very credible that some contact of his at the federal level, or the state level, or constituent, or somebody who knew something about this only alerted him last week, and he sensed that sending a letter (with copies to other officials) to Blanco was his best bet of stopping this.
By contrast, Blanco and Bradberry’s stories sound implausible at best. Bradberry claims he’s the one pursuing the notion (but Blanco therefore gave him the order), and it is conceivable that he told and left the pertinent information with Vitter – but highly improbable as this would mean Vitter and/or his entire staff (that’s what his staffers are there for, so he catches these things) missed the importance of what Bradberry communicated in both word and document, something that you’ll seldom see a senator and his staff do.
And why would Blanco lash out at Vitter so publicly and with such vitriol unless she was trying to distract the public from the real issue – that she had been deliberately keeping obscurant the request because of what Vitter essentially said about it, that it would be injurious to Louisiana as well as she knows she is building a reputation as a governor who would rather spend and squeeze more money out Louisianans than do to the things necessary to reduce state spending and to redirect existing spending to more sensible purposes. This perception will forfeit any chance she has for reelection next year.
No doubt the state’s citizens increasingly are restless with the state pouring more and more money into roads with sub-optimal results. The last thing Blanco needed was revelation of this plan to feed this discontent, either because she eventually would have decided not to pursue it and it wouldn’t ever have become public knowledge, or because she needed more time to engage in a public relations campaign to make it appear more acceptable to the public. Now it’s what Vitter intended to make it with his remarks – dead, and Blanco brought into disrepute instead of her being able to use it to create a more positive perception of her leadership (along the lines of, “these are desperate times and Gov. Blanco has a solution”).
Landis says one thing, a lab says another, and maybe the Court of Arbitration in Sport will figure it all out. But we don’t have a formal court of arbitration of testimonies in political disputes. Instead, we have public opinion, and, from the looks of this controversy, a majority of the public probably will think it was Blanco caught with her hand in an embarrassing tollhouse cookie jar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)