I was reading another blog today that presented arguments for why the military should bring back the draft. As evidence to support the position the blogger cited the military's failure to meet its recruiting objectives. See the post here.
Regardless of the need for troops in peace time or in war time, I agree with the blogger and think there should be a collective responsibility to defend this country. The military should be mostly composed of draftees. Perhaps I don't really understand the practical implications of such a drastic shift. I acknowledge the point that a military probably operates more effectively if the members choose to be there. I'm not old enought to remember any of the problems with a draftee military fighting wars, so my position here does not benefit from that perspective. But to me it is a very compelling argument that the sacrifices should be borne by all segments of society (rich, poor, middle-class, well-connected, "nobodies", famous, everyone). It's also compelling to me the arguments that such a military would help social cohesion, help break down class and race barriers, and inject the leadership of this country with a true sense of the cost and consequences of sending the military to fight wars. If more leaders in congress, the cabinet, the white house, etc... had sons and daughters in the line of fire I can't help but think that their decision making process would be radically altered. Too many segments of American society, including the civilian government leaders, are insulated form the sacrifices and the cost. The war doesn't affect the majority of us all that much. We fund it through our tax dollars, although with such huge deficits we aren't really funding it, it's the kids in diapers and the yet-to-be-born that will pay for it. We see plenty of media coverage on the war. We hear plenty of debate, and we all [should] have an opinion on whether we support or oppose the war. But if random young americans, from all segments of society, were being called on to serve in the military I think we'd all have a real sense that this directly impacts our lives. I think we'd all be strongly for or against certain military actions and it wouldn't be based on partisanship or ideology, it would be based on very real and difficult choices.

The bad news for the Republican Party seems to be coming out all at once. The way things are looking I think things will get worse before they get better. But the growing list of political trouble spots would really just be bumps in the road and business as usual if the administration had adequately responded to Katrina.

1. FEMA's Katrina relief debacle.
2. Slipping support for the war in Iraq.
3. Tom Delay indicted on conspiracy charges.
4. Sentator Frist's financial dealings investigated.
5. White House leak of Plame's identity and possible involvement of Karl Rove.

This list would have been manageable and any political fallout limited if it were not for item #1. The Katrina relief disaster is what really hurt the Bush administration and will have lasting effects that could potentially magnify any other troubles that arise. Just like how 9/11 solidified support for the president and gave him wide latitude in pushing forward policy initiatives, the seemingly impotent response to this crisis has eroded the president's support and given him no room to move. The reason this has been particularly damaging is because Bush predicated his leadership on "preparedness" and protecting America. Time and time again he stood in front of the American people and told them how he was making them safer with things like the patriot act, the Department of Homeland Security, terror alert levels and the war in Iraq. His administration defined itself with security. The government's Katrina response opens up all kinds of questions and doubt about how prepared the government is for a crisis, whether we are any safer now than we were on 9/11 and the president's leadership abilities. The Katrina response exposes the Bush administration to attacks on all fronts. Suddenly the other four items on the list become a much bigger problem. Take for instance item #2, the war in Iraq; a growing political liability for the Bush administration and the republicans. If support for the war was fading before Katrina now opponents of the war can point to Bush's failed leadership on Katrina as reason to question his leadership on the war. They can also point to the cost of the war in Iraq as money that is needed for rebuilding the gulf coast. They can also claim that the failed relief effort was partly due to the lack of National Guard resources that are currently deployed in Iraq. The other items on the list also become amplified because of the now infamous former FEMA directory Michael Brown; an appointment that has been widely reported to be an example of cronyism in the worst degree. The appointment of a seemingly unqualified person to such an important position raises questions about the level of nepotism going on in the Bush administration.

Allegations of corruption rarely seem to derail political objectives, at least when it just involves plain, good old-fashioned greed. But what will really hurt the Bush administration is the appearance that cronyism lead to incompetence and ineptitude that threatened the safety and lives of Americans. Certainly Bush’s legislative goals will be substantially diminished if not largely defeated, and with another Supreme Court nomination looming he may find himself having the tread lightly.

Last night Bill Nye the Science guy was on "Scarborough Country" and talked about the relationship between increased hurricane frequency and intensity and global warming.
Here is an excerpt from the show's transcript:
----------------
NYE: And, in my view, there is no question that global climate change will exacerbate the hurricane problem. When you have more heat in the atmosphere, these big cyclonic storms, as they are called, storms that go in a big cycle, a big circle, they are going to get bigger, both in the mid-Atlantic and in the Pacific Ocean. And this is consistent with every climate change model.

Now, whether or not Greenland is going to get a little warmer, Norway colder, the Pacific Northwest dryer, these are details that are very important. But, fundamentally, more heat energy in the atmosphere means more hurricanes and, in general, bigger ones.

The thing that—the thing is, see, though, if we all got to work on it right now, we could, as the saying goes, have it all. That is to say, we could have reduced energy use, less dependence on foreign oil. We could have a much higher quality of life for our citizens, and we could have a future without catastrophic global climate change, if we got on it right now.

So, I am hoping that these storms, as miserable as they are, I am hoping that the death and destruction as a result of this will not, if you will, be in vain. I am hoping we will take a cue that this is time to really address global climate change...

SCARBOROUGH: All right.

NYE: And, dare I say it, Joe, change the world.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Bill Nye, let‘s try to do that tonight.
-------------

I'm hoping that the issue of climate change get's more and more coverage in the media. Although talking about it won't fix the problem, perhaps more awareness will bring about more action. What would be good to see is more analysis and debate of how government policy can address the problems, and how private industry can be encouraged to be part of the solution. The recent energy bill passed by the federal government did not get nearly as much discussion and analysis in the media before it was drafted and after it was voted on. A Washington Post article highlights how the energy bill is yet another squandered opportunity for this country to get on the right track. The CATO institute also has an article that is heavily critical of the energy bill. There needs to be more coverage of these issues in the mainstream media. I think "Scarborough Country" and the MSM in general will need to do a better job of addressing big issues like this and try a lot harder if they are going to try to change the world (for the better).

This is a great article published by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) that shows, through quantitative analysis, how the MSM have failed to accurately present the scientific consensus behind global warming and how the majority of the reporting on climate change is misleading people to conclude that there is some kind of scientific debate about whether or not human activity is contributing global warming. In a previous post I linked to this article, by Science Magazine, which demonstrates the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. I just wish the MSM weren't so ignorant about science and would stop trying to tell "both sides" of a scientifically proven, well-understood and widely accepted phenomena.

Joe Scarborough appeared on Bill Maher's HBO show "Real Time" on Friday, September 9th, 2005. To be clear, Joe Scarborough was not a panelist on the show (those who sit at a table with Bill Maher and converse for the better part of the hour long broadcast). Joe was one of the two or three guests that also usually appear on each show via a remote video connection. Bill Maher usually has a brief one or two minute conversation with each guest.

I was happy to see Joe Scarborough appear on Bill Maher's show as the two have clear differences of opinion on many issues, but can usually have a respectful exchange of ideas and points of view. In this case the two seemed to have more common ground than usual. Bill Maher started off by saying that most of the blame for the botched Katrina relief efforts should be put on president Bush. Although Joe Scarborough was clearly not going to go to the level of criticism and blame of Bill Maher, the two found themselves in the rare position of agreeing (at least to a degree). But the eerie lack of confrontation and discord between the two men was not so much a shinning example of bi-partisan consensus and agreement as it was more the eerie calm before a storm.

Before the weekend was over whatever respect and cordiality existed between Maher and Scarborough seemed to vaporize when Joe Scarborough let off the fuming anger that was building up from his appearance on "Real Time". On Sunday the safety valve in Joe Scarborough's head blew open and he vented out into cyberspace his scathing indictment of Bill Maher, his show and its audience, blasting the show for being a bastion of left wing partisans seizing on the tragedy of hurricane Katrina to score political points against Bush. Calling the program a sickening horror show Joe Scarborough also likened the audience to trained apes. Joe went further in his criticism and accusations against the show and its fans with the following charge:
"These idiots in the audience were obviously comfortable using the brutal deaths of women, children, grandfathers, and babies to score some political points against a Republican President."
Now I'm sure Bill Maher would be the first to admit that his audience acts like a bunch of animals. The show's primary purpose is entertainment, hosted by a comedian, so I guess "trained" means they were on their best behavior. But the implication of the last charge quoted above is that anyone who is not republican and is critical of Bush's handling of the hurricane aftermath must be using the deaths of their follow Americans to score political points. Although certainly true for some partisan zealots, a blanket statement like that, directed towards the audience of a late night show, is just completely ridiculous. I fear that if Joe Scarborough makes another appearance on "Real Time" he may end up giving himself a massive aneurism.

The basic premise behind Joe's post, titled "Katrina and political partisans", is best summarized with the title itself and Joe's own concluding remarks:
"...even in the face of epic human suffering, their political loyalties remain more important than gaining an understanding of what went wrong and how we can stop it from happening again."
Blind political partisanship is one of my favorite topics, and I absolutely agree with Joe's concluding statement as it applies to partisan zealots, of which I think it's safe to say there were a few in that audience. But Joe Scarborough's main point gets lost in his palpable fury over the predictable and expected laughter and gearing that happens on a late night comedy show. Why couldn't Joe just make his point without resorting to name calling and assuming the absolute worst about the people in the audience, their intensions and motivations, of which he knows very little? Making gross generalizations and assumptions about the audience makes Joe come across like a raving mad man who is trying desperately to score his own cheap shots. Joe Scarborough should save his attacks for a legitimate target. There's a surplus of partisan hypocrisy in American politics and Joe Scarborough should spend his time and energy exposing the great harm that it does instead of attacking the audience of a late night program.

"Mr. President, Governor Blanco and Governor Barbour, all is not well with your relief teams. We deserve answers sooner rather than later."
- Joe Scarborough, 09/05/2005

The political waters are getting pretty rough for the Bush administration when stalwart supports like Joe Scarborough are demanding answers to the blistering criticism over the government's hurricane disaster response. Ever since Katrina made landfall every politician in Washington and the affected states has been shamelessly fleeing and clamouring for the high-ground, desperately trying to get out of the path of the political shit storm that has gained immense strength churning in the sea of government ineptitude. Members of congress are coming out of the woodwork calling for investigations, hearings, and yes, they're already calling for the undoing of the multi-billion dollar paper shuffle known as the "Homeland Security Act". The first major test of the Department of Homeland Security and congress already wants another crack at reorganizing federal agencies.

"members of Congress such as Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) are pushing to move FEMA out of its department and back to Cabinet-level status. "
- Washington Post, 09/05/2005

"we should not have ever put FEMA in Homeland Security. We thought about it. Heck, we did it. Who are we going to blame for that? We did that. Maybe it was recommended, I don't know. But you make mistakes. Last time I checked, we are still human beings."
- Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.), US Senate floor, 09/06/2005

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic, but right now it looks like the only thing that the federal government will accomplish after spending untold millions of tax-payer dollars on the inevitable congressional hearings and investigations will be another expensive paper shuffle. The federal government doesn't need a new org chart, they need leadership! No org chart, no matter how cleverly devised, will remedy poor leadership in a time of crisis.

It was the duty of those in charge to make do with the system that was in place and take action. As Secretary Rumsfeld said: "You go to war with the military you have, not the military you wish you had", and the same applies for DHS and FEMA. You aid disaster stricken Americans with the agencies you have, not the agencies you wish you had. Someone needed to step up and take charge.

Given the scope of the disaster and the various levels of government and agencies involved, the responsibility to take action squarely rests on the president. True leaders shine in the chaos, uncertainty and pressure of a crisis. True leaders forge clarity, certainty and confidence from the fog of disarray swirling around a calamity. The president failed the American people, either by appointing inept, inexperienced, incompetent people to critical positions or by sheer lack of his own ability to comprehend, react and rally the government's resources in a time of crisis.

What's really amazing to me is that this entire hurricane nightmare scenario has been predicted for some time. Experts have identified for years steps that needed to be taken to lessen the devastation and prepare for the eventual large scale relief effort needed. I was forwarded an article from the Houston Chronicle dated 12/01/2001 (that's right, 2001!) that details almost exactly this type of scenario in New Orleans. My prediction is that there will be calls for a congressional investigation, similar to the 9/11 commission, to look into how the local and federal officials failed to prepare and respond.

Yesterday Joe Scarborough did his show from Biloxi, Mississippi. Scarborough Country is one of the many shows reporting on the recovery and relief effort. It seems that the media has inundated the disaster areas almost as much as hurricane Katrina did. In this case though I have to say that I think the media frenzy surrounding this story is a good thing. I wonder what would happen if there were little or no media coverage of how badly the relief efforts have been miss-managed. I think the only reason things seem to be getting on track now is because of the wide-spread reporting on how bad the situation is and how the relief effort was not even coming close to meeting the scope of the challenge. The clear lack of coordination of various government agencies and NGOs is quite disturbing. Certainly the disaster response system in this country has had billions of dollars poured into it since 9/11. So where have all those homeland security dollars gone? If a storm, which was literally seen coming miles away, can apparently catch this country's disaster response system completely off guard, then how is it capable of reacting to an unforeseen event like a terrorist attack? A nuclear, radiological or chemical/biological attack could require a similarly sized evacuation and relief effort. I consider this a big "F" on government's report card for homeland security preparedness.