Aftermath

Last weekend, I met up with some old friends in New Orleans. Our "mancation" in the French Quarter was filled with the level of debauchery we expected of ourselves, and yet, I can't say that I left town with completely positive feelings.

Our New Orleans friends had asked about taking us on a "Katrina tour". I was reluctant, remembering all those asshole disaster tourists who flocked to the World Trade Center site after 9/11 to snap photos and pose in front of the epicenter of the worst event of my lifetime. But it was important to my local friends, so off we went.

First off, let me say that I had been through the Lower 9 ^th Ward before Katrina, and was never impressed with its aesthetic. To say that it looks worse now is a horrendous understatement. It used to look like a poor neighborhood and had sections that were stereotypically "ghetto". Today that would be a vast improvement.

As bad as the Lower 9^th was and is, at least the media has done an adequate job of reporting on the area. What I had not heard anything about was an area in which several of my friends lived – just east of the 9 ^th in St. Bernard Parish.

My friends lived in a town called Chalmette, only 8 miles or so from downtown New Orleans. It was a middle- to upper-middle class neighborhood. Homes sold for $175 - $400,000, which in that part of the country, equates to a lot more than it does within 10 miles of most major American cities.

Today, the neighborhood looks worse than any place I've seen in my limited travels through the Third World. Most homes are empty, many are gutted, nearly all are for sale (asking price $30-$45,000). Contractors are charging 10 times their pre-Katrina rates, and the few people who are trying to rebuild on their own live in FEMA trailers parked on the front lawn. About 1 in 20 houses have been rebuilt, and it is incredibly disarming to see a beautiful home and landscaped yard surrounded by run down messes, weeds and the absence of life or activity.

I saw a home in which the garage had collapsed on itself, with the family car still inside. A year and a half after the storm, and this station wagon hasn't been touched – except by whomever shattered the back window to grab whatever could be found inside.

We drove past a beautiful long wall with antique features and wrought iron fencing that was to serve as the border for a new gated community. Only the model had been built and it was gorgeous – large but modest, extravagant but tasteful – with the entire property bordering one of the levees. Needless to say, no construction has taken place since the storm. The fence and model still stand strong, mocking the desolation of the hundreds of bare acres that surround them.

As bad as it was, things have gotten better recently. My friend told me that large piles on debris (two stories high and spread out over a plot or two of land) had been removed just this month, finally helping some of the stench to clear. Most of the worst and most physically dangerous properties had finally been demolished. And yet, most folks haven't gotten more than $4,500 (from the government or insurance companies) to rebuild their lives.

After the storm, my friends let me know that they were all OK and I was never truly concerned about them again. Not only did they fail to tell me about their house being destroyed, but they also didn't tell me about the aftermath. Last weekend, they told me (and showed photos) about their "commandeering" of a boat and riding it up and down the streets ferrying people to shelters and supplies back into town. They told me about the guns pointed at their heads, and the guns they had to point at other people. They told me about the woman with MS who could not be moved, so they flew emergency flags that were ignored by dozens of passing helicopters. They told me about the guy who trudged around in a chef's coat for three days because he had no other clothes. They told me about siphoning gasoline from any source to help keep their boat powered as long as possible.

Needless to say, I was floored.

I hadn't been able to talk, write or really think about everything I saw until this minute – five days after my "tour". It is bad down there – still…and I don't know how anyone could hold onto any optimism. But somehow they do. I asked my friend's dad what one thing people need – not a billion dollars, but something tangible – and he said "nails". Their community is gone, and he wants nails?!? Can you imagine?

You have to drive down the street in this "good neighborhood" with your doors locked AND gun chambered in your lap. There were FOUR policemen working last Thursday in one of the towns. The streets are riddled with potholes – and those are the good blocks.

I don't know who is doing anything, and I don't know what I expect this rant to do. I simply needed to write down what I saw and remind people that we all share a responsibility to care. I've never seen anything worse (I still refuse to visit Ground Zero) and would selfishly hope I never have to again…except such sights are a fact of life for people I care about.

Something has to be done. Any ideas?

Maybe, just maybe…

Despite the fact that PatRoW legions failed to nominate me for Best New Weblog of 2006, my public service continues. And today I revisit an old, yet oddly forgotten theme – the bastardization of the word "liberal" by right-wing pundits.

A few months ago, I compared Republican tactics to some dialogue from one of my favorite movies: " There's a line in 'The Usual Suspects' in which Kevin Spacey's character opined that 'the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist'. Well, the greatest trick the Republicans ever pulled was convincing the country that 'liberal' is a 4-letter word." Today I've read something that expands upon my point as it explains the genesis and historical connotations of "The L Word".

I've always been in the JFK school of thought about the word "liberal", even as I never actually realized we occupied the same intellectual space. And yes, I realize that statement can be taken as both incredibly egotistical (I'm as smart as a former president!) and incredibly self-deprecating (I'm as smart as a dead guy!):

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label 'liberal'? If by a 'liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people--their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties--someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'liberal,' then I'm proud to say that I'm a 'liberal.'

FDR, the godfather of the notion of Democrats as "the bearer of liberalism and of progress", went even further in his definition of the term. He recognized "a deeper need--the need to find through government the instrument of our united purpose to solve for the individual the ever-rising problems of a complex civilization."

That need – the need for a government that serves its citizens is at the root of liberalism and seems difficult (for me at least) to argue against. And yet, it meets with outrage and contempt from not only Republican political opponents, but from the very middle- and lower-class Americans who would seem to benefit most from this highest of liberalism's high ideals.

The smear campaign began (in earnest) with Ronald Reagan, who "openly attacked both liberals and liberalism--painting them as soft on crime, foreign policy, and the work ethic--and won two presidential elections in the process". Liberals began to run away from the tag that had political benefited and accurately defined them after those slurs, yet it was still prevalent enough to be used as the focal point for Newt Gingrich's ire in 1994 – a race that drove the left from Congressional majorities for the first time in decades.

After reassuming control of the House and Senate a few months ago, one would assume there would be a race to embrace the symbolism of true liberalism, but alas, that has not proven to be the case. After decades of lies, damn lies and Rovian lies against our beloved ideals, liberals are still thought of as pansies and our proud label dismissed as irrelevant by some INSIDE OUR OWN PARTY who want Democrats to back away from a fight about semantics.

But here's the thing: I want to fight about semantics. I want to embrace the label that most accurately defines my ideals. I want to reclaim the word "liberal" from the black hole of political exile and restore it to its rightful place at the forefront of national debate.

Do we need a national re-branding campaign? Or maybe, just maybe, liberals around the country need to own up to what and who they are. Maybe, just maybe, there is one politician brave enough to stand in front of his constituency and declare, "My name is (insert imaginary representative here) and I am a liberal".

Maybe, just maybe, that's possible. Then again, maybe being an idealist serves no practical purpose, maybe I'm a condescending asshole who can't or won't relate to mainstream America, and maybe, just maybe, conservatives are right in saying liberals like me are pussies.

Nah…that can’t be right. Except the condescending asshole part – that’s probably a valid observation.

‘The last man to die for a mistake’

We all know I think John Kerry got a raw deal in 2004 and again with "Botched Joke-Gate" last November, and – rambling Senate floor speeches not withstanding – I think he is a fine and responsible politician.

One thing John Kerry is not, however, is the next President of the United States. Yesterday he announced that he will not enter the wide-open fray in a statement that showcased the sometimes overly-eloquent senator at his plain-spoken best:

His voice cracking with emotion, Kerry said that what the Senate does now may determine the future of Iraq, the Middle East and the United States. Kerry recalled the question he asked after returning from Vietnam -- "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- and said he "never thought" he'd be "reliving the need to ask that question again."

"We are there," he said. Kerry acknowledged that one of the reasons we're there is that he and other senators voted to authorize George W. Bush to use force in Iraq. Because of that vote, he said, members of the Senate now have a "moral obligation" to bring the war to a close.

Wow. John Kerry is making sense both as a politician and a human being. Jim Webb – supposedly a man lacking basic communication skills – is channeling his inner Obama. Barack and Hillary are early front runners in the Democratic presidential primaries. Are all Senate Dems such strong, influential leaders capable of leading a national debate and serving as the conscious of the people? Have they collectively and suddenly become the voice of reason and rational thought?

Oh wait, there's still Joe Lieberman. It's good to know some things never change.

This one is for the ladies

I have developed quite an affinity for the headlines, if not content, at Salon's Broadsheet. Actually, that's not fair; I've never read any of the articles. How could I? They couldn't help but be a disappointment after the bar was set so high by some anonymous headline writer.

Anyway, as part of a new feature on PatRoW, I bring you the Best of Broadsheet (fourth week of January, 2007 edition). As always, my comments are on the headlines only, not the story itself…which I don't care enough to read:

Prostitution or a "humanitarian" solution? – I don't know…are the two mutually exclusive?

A tutorial in selling sex – finally, someone is willing to teach young ladies about the do's and don'ts of hooking!

Do kids make you fat? – no, and neither do those pants…it's your ass that makes you look fat!

Child rape in the movies – outside of Sundance, is this such a pervasive theme in cinema, or just a pedophile's fantasy?

Skinny girls to blame for train delays – and fat girls to blame for potholes, global warming and killing Jesus.

When are girls too young to go wild? – seven? Eight? Any younger and that's just sick, mister.

Rhetorical subtleties even I can’t stomach

Apparently, I wasn't the only one taken aback by yesterday's Salon piece about Barack Obama not being black. Today, another of the online magazine's writers weighs in and quite strongly states his premise that Obama is, in fact, black -- he just isn't "black."

Did you get that? How about this:

People whose race or ethnicity defines their identity, or at least makes up a major part of it, are what I think of as quotation-mark people. They are not only mixed-race, they are "mixed-race." Those whose race or ethnicity has little or nothing to do with their identity, with their sense of themselves, are non-quotation-mark people. They may recognize themselves as black or Latino or Asian, be whatever race or ethnicity they are to the core, and proudly affirm they are such, but they aren't "black" or "Latino" or "Asian."

What the fuck is going on here people? Obama is African-American (he is quite literally the son of an African and an American), but despite the OBVIOUS AND (hopefully) IRRELEVENT color of his skin, he's not black and/or "black" enough for some folks?

The Iowa Caucuses are one year away, and we've allowed barely a week to pass between the official announcement of Obama's candidacy to slip into ridiculous rhetoric about race. Let's talk about America's silent racism and sexism – an important issue on which all primary voters need to seriously soul search. However, debating this kind of race label is as silly as talking about augmentations vs. escalations.

‘Homie has some rings to kiss and a kente-cloth pocket square to buy’

As I've documented in the past, nobody loves hyperbole more than me. That's why I couldn't pass up reading an editorial that claimed as its main argument that Barack Obama is not black.

Read that line again. I'll wait.

Salon's Debra J. Dickerson holds off on harsh criticisms of the senator's platform, but she does go after the one fact that everyone seems to agree on

"Black," in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both "black" as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term.

Wow. And you thought Scott McClellan was the king of spin (truth be told, he was *so* 2006).

Though I am wholly unqualified to debate the attribution of "blackness" in 21^st Century America, I can't get behind the argument…even as I find it intoxicatingly original.

Barack Obama is not black? What's next – Hillary Clinton is not a woman (I knew her hands were too big! Someone check under the skirt).

Maybe John McCain isn't really a war hero (in reality, he spent four years at Cambodia's Club Med).

Perhaps George W. Bush isn't really a douchebag (uh…well…uh…no, I can't come up with a plausible defense. He really is a douche).

George Bush makes sense about Iraq! Uh, not *that* George Bush

One of the great things about the internet is that nothing ever goes away – and yes, I realize that will come back to haunt me when testifying in front of Congress (or trying to persuade the parole board) 30 years from now.

Anyway, an essay co-written by George H. W. Bush in the March 2, 1998 issue of Time Magazine has resurfaced, despite an apparent conspiracy to cover it up. In it, the former president gives some fairly solid reasons why he did not, despite significant pressure, force Saddam Hussein's ouster in the first Gulf War. And guess what? The rationale seems applicable today as well:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have… incurred incalculable human and political costs. ...The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. …Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

The Interloper's desire to distance himself from daddy has been long documented and he has infamously not turned to his father for counsel, despite the former president's considerable depth of international experience and familiarity with diplomatic nuance. No one will remember HW as an especially good president ("Read my lips: no new taxes" and puking on the Japanese guy – that's his legacy), but clearly he had a sense of the delicate political climate in the Middle East and an appreciation for the cost of American lives it would have taken to enact regime change. Is that too much to ask from our president?

And did I just pine for the wisdom of George H. W. Bush?

Independent Democrat or Insincere Douchebag?

Uh oh – we're picking up Joe-mentum again.

Joe Lieberman, the selfish, grandstanding, traitorous senator from Connecticut, has taken a perilous stance defending the Interloper's Iraq surge plan – a plan that isn't being so vociferously defended in the president's own party.

One has to wonder if the White House is blackmailing him with photos that would make Mark Foley blush, because Lieberman' support of the troop surge counters both the insight of our most experienced military professionals and the will of the American people. And he's so smug about it to boot!

Lieberman appears desperate to shed his former blue ties. A profile in Salon today reveals that:

After the election, Lieberman advertised himself as the least reliable member of the Democratic caucus by insisting that he be listed by the secretary of the Senate as an "Independent Democrat." Last week, in a development noted by few, Lieberman's office admitted to Congressional Quarterly that the whole I.D. thing seemed not to be catching on, and that, if Lieberman had to choose one or the other, he'd rather be known as an Independent than as a Democrat.

C.Q., at least, reported that it is going to consider Lieberman an Independent from now on: "With Lieberman's latest shift, the Senate now has 49 Republicans and 49 Democrats…"

Gee, Lieberman is showing less than enthusiastic allegiance for the Democratic Party. Who would have guessed it? Oh yeah – me!

He doesn't want us, and we only tolerate him to keep up the appearance of a Senate majority. While the dysfunctional relationship between Lieberman and his supposed party can continue, shouldn't we all be asking "why" in our loudest, outside voices? Mr. Senator – why did you run for reelection on a platform that stated "troop reduction" as an immediate goal, yet turn around at betray that sentiment less than two months later? Why did you claim outrage at the administration's handling of post-Katrina affairs, only to slink away from the issue once you retained your seat?

And why, Joe, why should we label you with anything other than the tag that most loudly speaks every time you open your mouth? For those of you still trying to do the math, it rhymes with "ducking fooshbag".

Un-fucking-believable

For the most part, I have avoided posting about the Iraq War, as no-win situations offer little ground for know-it-alls like me to sound smart and offer a reality check. Iraq is a depressing situation with no real solution that will continue to worsen. How/when/why will our troops get out? How can I get passionate about an answer when there are only questions?

On Wednesday, the Interloper interrupted my primetime TV viewing schedule to announce he was augmenting (apparently, in an image is everything administration, this is different than an "escalation") troop levels by 21,000. In their testimonies in front of both House and Senate committees Thursday, Secretary of State Condi Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were greeted by bipartisan opposition to the president's plan. That's right – questions about strategy and sincerity were voiced from both sides of the aisle, as some of the administration's most loyal congressional lackeys have begun to eat crow and distance themselves from Dubya's Folly.

Happily, however, for the Wonderful Wizard of the White House, one man had the courage to applaud the president's plan: you guessed it – Democratic (ahem) Senator Joe Lieberman!

In a statement released by his office, Joe Lieberman wraps his arms around the president's "correct and courageous" new strategy. "I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," Lieberman says. He says that Bush has offered up "a comprehensive program to chart a new course in both winning the military struggle to establish order and in achieving the political and economic objectives to build a more promising future for Iraqis."

I had a few words about Lieberman this fall after he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, then selfishly ran and won as an independent. I will admit I was wrong about one thing – he has chosen to caucus with the Democrats and seems willing to support the Party's main objectives. Small miracles, right?

But the fucking balls on this prick! How can any Democrat, any elected official, any sane person, still have such enthusiastic support for Dubya's dumbass plan? More than just an embarrassment to his party, Lieberman is in embarrassment to the human race; running onto a sinking ship while even the dirtiest rats escape is not as heroic as Joe would have us believe – it's a disgusting betrayal of his constituency and a treasonous insult to his office, party and nation.

Electability and Hypocrites – the peanut butter and jelly of 21st century American politics

I know what you're thinking. "Two posts in one day? Dude, pace yourself." And yet, perhaps this is the pace that should be expected of me, especially when there is so much to say. Furthermore, don't call me "dude"; I think I've earned the respect to be called "sir".

Anyway, I read a few pieces that I just couldn't sit on. One, written by Jonathan Cohn focuses on Democrats' obsession with the notion of electability and how it affected the party's last two wide-open primaries. He remembers how the desire to nominate someone – anyone, really – who could conceivably defeat the Interloper in 2004 drove the rise of John Kerry and initiated reasons to reject all his competitors: Wesley Clark was a novice, Howard Dean was a lefty extremist, John Edwards was too inexperienced, Dick Gephardt was too closely tied to the old, wasteful Democratic Party. And yet, " the calculation of voters was curiously one-sided--measuring candidates almost exclusively in terms of their flaws, rather than taking stock of their attributes, as well". One could argue that Kerry's loss was inevitable:

If Kerry lacked the vulnerabilities of some of his rivals, he also lacked their skills. He couldn't win people over with charm or inspiration. And, while he had a bevy of nifty policy proposals, he had no grandiose, overarching message with which to sell them. So when the general campaign got tough, Kerry had no reservoir of public enthusiasm or support on which to draw. And, when the Republicans attacked what was supposedly his best asset--his record of heroism in Vietnam--Kerry didn't have the tools to fight back successfully.

As a useful counter, Cohn reflects on Bill Clinton's early campaign – a candidacy that would likely have sputtered at its onset if held to 2004's standards. After all, Clinton was the governor of an illiteracy-heavy state, had little international experience and was a documented womanizer. And yet:

… when the time came for Democrats to cast their ballots, they embraced Clinton anyway--for the very simple reason that he reached them in a way other candidates didn't. For some, it was his sheer charisma. For others, it was his ability to identify with the anxiety they were feeling. And for more, it was his serious discussion of ideas that held real promise for improving their lives.

On one hand, Cohn seems to caution against discounting Hillary Clinton's chances simply because we fear her ability to carry a general election. On the other, he clearly believes that the Democrats' best chance is to nominate a candidate who is charismatic and fosters idealism and faith (you know, the antithesis of Hillary). I suppose I will follow Cohn's logic on both ends; maybe I can no longer dismiss Hillary simply because of her low Q rating, just as I will be that much more fervent in my support for Obama, Edwards or any other candidate who seems to possess the ability to make me *want* to believe.

I realize I've approached the perilous 500-word barrier, but I would be remiss if I didn't also comment on the Democrats' plans for making the most of their new congressional majorities. The Washington Post reports that:

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Uh…Nancy? I love the big ideas, but what use is our idealism if we can't be held to our word? I don't want those Republican douchebags clogging up the wheels of change any more than you do, but we're the party that *doesn't* believe that the ends justify the means.

And how about this? Then Speaker Dennis Hastert wouldn't acknowledge Pelosi's 2004 proposed "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Now, Republicans are proposing – wait for it – a "bill of rights" for members of Congress in the minority party. Who saw that coming?

Three years ago, Pelosi said, " the people's business would be well served" if Congress followed the principles behind her "bill of rights", "no matter which party is in control of the House." Now she will be put to the test; as much as I believe in her platform, I hope she also realizes this: hypocrites can maintain power in the short-term, but can easily lose the support of even the most historic national consensus with a brash disregard for integrity.

Off and Running

It has been a slow two months in PatRoWland, and I'm sure you are as sick as I am of YouTube videos and flash animations. So as we stand on the precipice of a new Democratic majority in Congress (and hope, with baited breath, that they can last a few weeks before their first major fuck up), the time has come to address THE issue of the day in progressive politics:

The Race to Not Do Something Stupid and Nominate an Intelligent and Competent Woman for a Job for which She is Entirely Qualified Yet Stands No Chance of Winning an Electoral or Popular Majority (or, as you call it, the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Tomato, toe-mah-toe).

As I stated back in November, I still believe that Hillary's presidential campaign will serve as a smoke screen used to attract the Right's attacks and allow our REAL nominee to rise to the party's forefront virtually unscathed from widespread criticism. Oh sure, there will be hotly contested primaries, but state-wide Democratic races will help us all figure out who is the best-suited to lead the presidential charge in 2008. Not a coronation or manifest destiny as some pro-Hillary folks would have us believe, the best Democrat will emerge from a large field of prospects ranging from likely (Obama, Edwards) to possible (Vilsack, Kerry) to laughable (Kucinich, Sharpton).

The first big name candidate to declare, John Edwards has a real platform, exudes charm and possesses ability to live in and understand the "two Americas" – something vital to relate to the masses and attract funding from the elite. His absence from elected office since his ill-fated 2004 run with John Kerry may prove to be more of a blessing than a hindrance; Edwards has spent the last 2+ years cultivating his resume on matters of international politics, while his lack of a constituency has allowed him to be the only major American political figure talking about poverty and offering a realistic plan for universal health coverage. Plus, relative lack of practical experience shouldn't be held against him, as Edwards himself points out:

"Look at Rumsfeld and Cheney. Both of them had extraordinary experience -- but we've seen that experience does not equal good judgment, and experience is not the same as having a vision, and experience does not guarantee adaptability. We've seen absolutely no capacity to adjust, to move with the world's changes."

The other big names likely to be on the 2008 campaign trail are still clinging to the ridiculous notions that they have yet to decide about their presidential ambitions. An old friend of ours measures up three juggernauts on his Obameter, and finds that the junior senator from Illinois may have an edge over his more experienced chamber-mates (I know I just spoiled his conclusion, but please read the article anyway. You won't regret it…plus YPC needs all the hits it can get).

I suppose it may still be a bit premature to start measuring horses in a race they haven't officially entered, but that's what modern politics has become. Besides, with less than absolute confidence in the ability of Team Pelosi to govern efficiently and effectively, the 2008 presidential campaign may be our only hope to ensure our country doesn't regress back into Republican control of all three branches of government.

And although such a scenario would be conducive for blog content, it's one I'm hoping doesn't come to fruition.