Et tu, Ilsa: It's hard to oppose the Miers nomination when she's even getting dissed by the Brownshirts:

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court. First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years.

Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all
the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right. To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon — or on John Kerry — while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.

Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.

Of all the reasons that may exist to oppose Harriet Miers, the fact that she graduated from a non-prestigious law school thirty years ago is perhaps the weakest, and the one least likely to garner sympathy from the public. If anything, lawyers who reach the top of their profession, as Ms. Miers surely has, after attending such a school is all the more reason to judge her credentials positively. The Supreme Court is not a law review, thank god. It should have a diverse representation of members, representing the broad sweep of America, limited only by achievement and knowledge of law.

Notwithstanding her positions on the constitutionality of abortion or of civil rights for homosexuals, she has accomplished a great deal in her legal career, a career not limited to running the Texas State Lottery, as Ann of a Thousand Lays so condescendingly mentions. She broke the barrier against her sex at a major law firm in Texas, ran the Bar Association in Dallas, then later in the whole state of Texas, and served on the Dallas City Council, before becoming White House Counsel. It may not be unfair to label her a "crony" of the President, but Byron White was no less a "crony" of JFK when he got tabbed, and his credentials were every bit as similar as Miers'. If Bush's other crony appointments were akin to Harriet Miers, the issue probably wouldn't come up, just as it didn't with President Kennedy. Even if I choose to oppose her nomination, her accomplishments entitle her to my respect.

UPDATE: Greetings and salutations to the people joining us from Reason. Some interesting critiques in the comments section over there, but one I'd like to address concerns a number of posters who took exception with my comparison of the qualifications of Harriet Miers and Byron White. One person noted, somewhat ironically, that White, unlike Miers, was a Rhodes Scholar, the top graduate in his class at Yale Law School, and clerked for the Supreme Court. That indeed is an impressive track record, and I might also add that he finished second in balloting for the Heisman Trophy and played a bit for the Detroit Lions and Pittsburgh Steelers.

What any of that has to do with his qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court two decades later escapes me, except showing that Whizzer White did very well in school. So did Harriet Miers; although her law school grades haven't been released, as far as I know, we do know that she clerked for a U.S. District Court judge after graduating, and was the first woman to be hired as an associate by one of the more prestigious firms in her state. Remembering that she doesn't come from one of the prominent families in the Lone Star State, those credentials suggest that someone back then thought she exhibited talent. SMU wasn't Yale Law School, obviously, but it should be noted that during the period Byron White matriculated there, and on through to Ms. Miers' final year of law school (1969), Yale was a mens-only college. It took an Act of Parliament in 1977 to open the selection criteria for the Rhodes Scholarship to include women. Being a Rhodes Scholar or finishing first at Yale simply wasn't going to be in the cards for her.

When JFK nominated his WWII buddy (White had been an investigator for the Navy looking into the future President's PT-boat mishap), his legal career was remarkeably similar to Harriet Miers. Both had spent most of their time in private practice in Flyover Country before hooking up with a future President. Both worked in the White House for the new President (White as an Assistant-AG; Miers in a number of positions, including White House counsel) before being nominated to the Supreme Court. Neither had exhibited much professional inclination to constitutional law before being nominated. I stand by my comparison.

Doodoodoodoodoo, today is my birthday.
Doodoodoodoodoo, I'm goin' have a good time...

In the meantime, check out this column from Slate, on "guilty pleasures" at the cinema. He's right about Denise Richards, by the way....

YBK [Part 23]: What was foreseen back on June 1 has come to pass. From today's Washington Post:

Two weeks before a new, more restrictive national bankruptcy law goes into effect, financially strapped Americans are rushing to file for protection from their creditors, with filings climbing to an unprecedented average of 13,000 a day last week.

Week after week records are toppled. Last week's 68,287 filings surpassed the record set the week before by 24 percent, and this week's total is likely to be higher, according to data released yesterday by Lundquist Consulting Inc., a financial research firm. Daily filings averaged 10,367 in September, compared with an average of 6,079 in September 2004.

The surge is in anticipation of the new bankruptcy law, long sought by the financial industry, which takes effect Oct. 17. The law will make it harder and more expensive for people to completely wipe out their debts under Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

"We are seeing a rush, mainly from people we saw a year ago," Northern Virginia bankruptcy lawyer Robert Weed said. A year ago his clients thought they would be able to work their way out of debt without filing for bankruptcy, he said, "but now they're in a panic to get in before the law is changed."

That is what prompted Samantha Gordon, 28, of Woodbridge to file. "I was putting it off and putting it off," the single mother of three said. Gordon, a patient-care coordinator, said she kept hoping to pay off her debts, but every time she had thought she was close, "a new bill, mostly medical, came up." She decided to take action after her father alerted her about the new law.

Along with using the "P-word" (as in "panic"), the Post did report some good news today: the office of the U.S. Trustee, the branch of the Justice Department that administers the Bankruptcy Court, agreed to temporarily waive enforcement of the provisions of the new law that mandate credit counseling to residents in Louisiana and the Southern District in Mississippi due to this season's hurricanes. Since none of the approved credit counseling agencies is physically located in the state (in fact, the new law specifically permits "credit counseling" to be done over the internet), this may have been done, as Prof. Robert Lawless suggests, to alleviate some of the pressure now on Congress to suspend the effective date of the bill by tossing a bone to hurricane survivors.

In the meantime, other provisions of the new law are set to further the devastation started by the Furies named Rita and Katrina. With homes and businesses still underwater, the local courts out of operation, trained professionals in the bankruptcy field having to relocate their offices, and the paperwork necessary under the new law now part of the debris rimming the Gulf Coast, victims of the storms are now placed in a predicament. Without any time to prepare for the traumatic experience of filing a bankruptcy petition (most of my clients struggle through their debts for years before finally succumbing to the inevitable), and now without the means of proving hardship that Congress, in its infinite wisdom, demanded when it passed the Bankruptcy Reform Act last spring, residents of the Gulf Coast now have nine days to decide whether to take this step, or risk the onerous provisions when the Bankruptcy Code changes on October 17.

Proponents of the new law point to 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2)(B), which states that "...the presumption of abuse may only be rebutted by demonstrating special circumstances, such as a serious medical condition or a call or order to active duty in the Armed Forces, to the extent such special circumstances that justify additional expenses or adjustments of current monthly income for which there is no reasonable alternative." Thus, the argument goes, all a filer will have to do is explain to the judge that Hurricane Katrina destroyed his home, removed his livelihood, and all will be hunky-dory in the end. Former Bush Administration appointee Todd Zywicki observes:

The legislation simply requires high-income filers who can repay some or all of their debts to do so as a condition for filing bankruptcy. If a person has lost his job and income because of the hurricane, then the legislation permits that person to file bankruptcy just like under the current rules. The means-testing provisions of the legislation specifically allow for "special circumstances" that mean that those provisions of the legislation should not apply to a given bankruptcy filer--clearly the destruction of a person's house and job easily fit within those provisions of the legislation.

Assuming that a debtor, defined by Prof. Zywicki as being "upper income" because he earns over the median income for his state, which in Louisiana was $35,523 per year last year, will be able to retain a lawyer, dredge up the tax returns and credit card invoices and submit the proper paperwork that will be necessary to prove "special circumstances", there remains one tiny problem: Congress already explicitly rejected an attempt to include natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, as "special circumstances". As Professor Elizabeth Warren points out,

Indeed, the "special circumstances" provision doesn't come close to doing the work the Congressman claims. In one of the many ironies that mark the amendments to the bankruptcy bill, any adjustment requires additional documentation, and, for those whose papers are somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, the plain language of the statute seems to provide no relief. For hundreds of other blows inflicted by the bankruptcy amendments, such as the increased rights of landlords to toss out tenants or the new risks facing someone who has drawn down a cash advance on a credit card, there is no pretense of relief of any kind....

Of course, there are some judges who will gladly rule that Hurricane Katrina is a "special circumstance"; as I pointed out back in March, there will be judges who will pretty much carve out a "special circumstances" exception to any vicissitude of life, while other judges will limit themselves to the examples specifically enumerated in the statute (ie., "a serious medical condition" or "order to active duty"). The fact that Congress voted down an attempt to include natural disasters as an enumerated exception will be a powerful aid to those judges who are willing to follow the more draconian course; it may be years before any of the appellate courts has a chance to spell out what the provision means, and provide some degree of consistency in how it is interpreted. In the meantime, without Congressional intervention at this late stage, we are set to witness pandemonium the likes of which haven't been seen in the federal courts in our nation's history, all of which will create many losers, but only one small class of winners: Lawyers. Special circumstances? Laissez les bons temps rouler !!

The nomination of Harriet Miers has led to some predictable backsniping from lefty bloggers, as well as some unexpected opposition from our cohorts to the right. As the first nominee to the high court since Lewis Powell not to have had previous judicial experience, the "c-word" (as in "crony") has been getting a workout today, as well as some unnuanced criticism that she's a "third-rater", a "D-minus pick". More importantly, though, the endorsement of her nomination by Senators Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and Patrick Leahy will deflate much of the partisan opposition (and TalkLeft's Jerralyn Merritt has kind words for Ms. Miers as well), and barring anything shocking that may turn up in the next few months, she should win confirmation easily.

In desperation, one avenue a number of bloggers from both sides are pursuing is a claim that she is not only a crony, but a crooked one at that. Conservative UCLA prof Bainbridge notes that Ms. Miers' firm paid a $22 million settlement in 2000 over their representation of a client, former U of T placekicker Russell Erxleben, who ran a ponzi scheme. From the left, Nathan Newman quotes the routine post-settlement denial of liability by Ms. Miers, who was the managing partner of the firm at that time, and compares her with Ken Lay: "Boy, no wonder Bush loves her. She never admits responsibility for actions by her underlings either.
But do we really want someone on the Supreme Court whose law firm is a poster child in Texas for lawyer malfeasance?"

Going even further, David Sirota attacks the nominee for having led a

...firm (that) represented the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly a Ponzi scheme. The lawfirm admitted that it 'knew in March 1998 that $ 8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to investors" but didn't tell regulators. This wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2001 that Miers' lawfirm was forced to pay another $8 million for a similar scheme to defraud investors. The suit, which dealt with actions the firm took under Miers in the late 1990s, was again quite troubling. As the 9/20/00 Texas Lawyer reported, Miers' firm helped a now-convicted con man 'defraud investors and allowed the firm's [bank] account to be used as a 'conduit.' The suit said "money from investors that went into the firm's trust account was deposited into [the con man's] bank accounts and was used to pay for his 'expensive toys.'"

If you think Miers wasn't involved in any of this - think again. Miers wasn't just any old lawyer at the firm. She was the Managing Partner - the big cheese. True, she could claim she had no idea this was going on. But that would be as laughable/pathetic/transparent as the Enron executives who made the same ones after they ripped off investors.

Harriett Miers may be as crooked as the day is long, but the examples disingenuously cited above do not show that. She was the President, then Managing Partner, of an office which employed close to 400 attorneys. There was no evidence that she had any direct supervisorial role over the attorneys who were implicated, nor was she named as a defendant in any of the lawsuits. Far from running a crooked shell game, a la Enron, or laundering money, a number of lawyers at her firm were accused of committing legal malpractice, not against their clients, but by way of a novel Texas legal theory, against investors of their clients. The attorneys who were involved may or may not have had guilty knowledge of their clients' misdeeds, but the specific accusation against them dealt with whether they had an obligation to betray their clients' confidence, in potential violation of the attorney-client privilege, by informing investors of their suspicions.

Moreover, the operative term in this situation is that the cases settled. There was no admission of liability, simply an agreement by the parties not to litigate the matter further upon an exchange of money. There are numerous reasons a law firm may wish to settle a malpractice action, including some understandable arm-twisting by its insurers, that have nothing to do with its actual culpability. And any large firm is going to settle a legal malpractice claim at some point, regardless of its innocence.

Ms. Miers should no more be held accountable for the sleaziness of some of her firm's clients than public defenders or ACLU counsel are. Lawyers represent people who need legal counsel, and a lot of those people are, interestingly enough, criminals. Unlike Kenneth Lay, there is no evidence that Harriet Miers broke the law herself, or looked the other way while another lawyer at her office did.

We should remember that any chance of defeating the Roberts nomination died when one of the advocacy groups ran an ad exaggerating a legal argument he made in a case involving an abortion clinic bombing. After the ads aired, it was impossible to make a cogent ideological argument against the nomination without seeming to be hysterical, and Roberts breezed through. There will probably be enough legitimate reasons to question her nomination without making stuff up, or exaggerating alleged malfeasance on her part. Lets try to use an Indoor Voice this time.

For those of you interested in how rising home values, political allegiance, and/or population density correllates with bankruptcy filings in all 50 states, an updated chart comparing appreciation rate of home values and bankruptcy totals, as well as some other odds and ends, can be found here.

YBK [Part 22]: Bankruptcy Reform Determined to Strike at U.S.

During the months necessary for economic stabilization, thousands of Gulf Coast residents will be without a paycheck. For some, savings will deplete within a month or two. Others never had any. While incomes plummet, bills pile up: car payments are due regardless of the operability of the vehicle; medical bills, credit card debt, car loans, mortgages and student loans have to be repaid.

One of the consequences of so many Americans living paycheck to paycheck is their extreme vulnerability during crises. About half of families roll over credit card balances every month, and balances average almost $5,000. Last year 1.6 million cardholders declared bankruptcy. To meet their financial obligations, many Americans have refinanced their homes; about 42 percent of new mortgages are refinances, and 77 percent strip equity from homeowners, leaving them with higher monthly payments. Many of the victims fell into that camp even before the hurricane. The federal bankruptcy reform is on a collision course with those left behind.

Evacuees will be eligible for disaster assistance, but such aid will be inadequate to protect them from bankruptcy reform scheduled to strike on October 17. FEMA has promised each evacuee household $2,000, which will hardly cover the expenses of hotel rooms, food and other necessities, let alone mounting loan payments. Some will be eligible for Disaster Unemployment Assistance, but beneficiaries will receive 50 to 70 percent of their weekly salary for only 26 weeks. Private charities, especially the Red Cross, will also assist victims, but such assistance is short-term and often capricious.

--Howard Karger, Alternet

"...an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do." My favorite part of Bill Bennett's Final Solution to the crime problem is the nethercutting sentence that followed. I mean, we could compel them to have abortions, but it would be wrong.

Roberts Confirmed: In open defiance of this blogger's advice, Senate Democrats refused to filibuster the nomination, and half of them voted for confirmation. Hard to generate much passion over Roberts; too many of the people who had worked with him over the years, particularly liberals, raved about the guy, and once he became the replacement for Rehnquist, there was no longer the urgency to defeat him. Both sides tried to explain away his pro bono work on the Romer case, but the fact was, Rehnquist wouldn't have involved himself with a case broadening the civil rights of others at the same point in his career. No one gives a rat's ass about legal memos he drafted in his late-20's, and his silence before the Judiciary Committee on the legal issues of the day is pretty typical for any nominee to the high court. Whether he becomes a Souter or a Scalia can not be predicted by anything that he did the last two months.

If the next pick is a wack job, then we go to the mattresses. The Roberts nomination was less a dress rehearsal than a walk-through.

Dallas: The Movie? Seriously, and they're looking to cast Mel Gibson or John Travolta in the role of "JR Ewing". Is nothing sacred?

YBK [Part 21]: Although the underlying reasons for bankruptcy usually range from medical disasters to job losses, the canaries in the coalmine are usually defaulted credit cards and lagging home sales. The first event indicates that a person is no longer able to keep current on his borrowing, while the second means that the indebted is finding it harder to use the equity on his home to pay off his debts. So, here's some miscellany to consider as we head into October 17:

1. According to the American Bankers Association, the number of credit card holders that were at least 30 days delinquent on their accounts rose to 4.81% in the quarter ending in June, setting an all-time record.

2. Home sales dropped precipitously in August, falling 9.7% from its record total in July. Consumer confidence also plunged: in the 30-days ending September 20, the consumer confidence index fell nearly 20 points, a drop larger than what resulted from the September 11 attacks.

3. A personal observation. I practice law in the Central District of California, which has been the national pacesetter for bankruptcy filings since the early-90's. In recent years, the number of filings, which peaked around 1997-8, have been declining, even as the numbers have gone up everywhere else, and even the signing of the new law didn't spark as dramatic a rise as we've seen elsewhere.

That is now changing. Lines to file new petitions are snaking through the Federal Building downtown, even though the new law isn't scheduled to go into effect for three weeks. Chapter 7 filings for August were up 30% for the month over the same time last year. Los Angeles has seen its fair share of Katrina survivors, many of whom are too far away to use the courts in their home district, so potential efforts to obtain debt forgiveness may occur in our local bankruptcy court as well. The closer we get to October 14, the more similar those lines are going to be to the lines at the post office on April 15 every year. Yikes.

As a practicing attorney, I file my cases electronically, so I don't wait in line, and usually expect to receive confirmation from the court that a case was filed successfully a few hours after I transmit the package to the court. Thanks to the backlog, it now takes 2-4 days to get confirmation. Since a rejection by the court of any bankruptcy petition might soon be tantamount to legal malpractice if the YBK deadline is missed, that's a very scary prospect for me and other local professionals.

It's worth noting that the California Congressman set to replace the recently-indicted Tom Delay, Representative David Dreier, is gay. Self-hating or not, it is history.

[UPDATE: Or not. CNN is reporting that the GOP caucus elected Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt instead, perhaps due to the gay issue, and perhaps because Dreier was viewed as a placesitter for Delay, when a sharper break was desired]

[UPDATE: Kevin Drum asks, "Is every single liberal blog in the world planning to post a slobbery, wink-wink-nudge-nudge mention that David Dreier is rumored to be gay? Pardon me while I throw up. And spare me the drivel about the "principled" case for outing gay politicians. I'm not buying, and there's nothing principled going on here in any case. It's just childish nonsense that perpetuates the notion that there's something sordid about being gay."

Since when is the truth "childish nonsense"? I believe that a "just-the-facts" post is all that's required on this issue. I am no more judgmental about that than I am about Barney Frank being gay, or Mary Chaney, or Ken Mehlman. The GOP had a chance this afternoon to make a positive statement about civil rights and tolerance, and didn't take it. That's not "childish nonsense".]

Los Angeles [A] 4, Oakland 3: SWEET!!! Bring on the Sox?!?

YBK [Part 20]: From today's New York Times-

Right after Hurricane Katrina struck, several lawmakers - mostly Democrats but including some Senate Republicans - suggested that storm victims along the Gulf Coast should get relief from the new law's stricter provisions, which are intended to screen filers by income and make those with higher incomes repay their debts over several years.

(snip)

But House Republicans, who fought off a proposed amendment that would have made bankruptcy filings easier for victims of natural disasters, said there was no reason to carve out a broad exemption just because of the storm.

Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, rejected the notion of reopening the legislation, saying it already included provisions that would ensure that people left "down and out" by the storm would still be able to shed most of their debts. Lawmakers who lost the long fight over the law, he said, "ought to get over it," according to The Associated Press.

A White House spokesman, Trent Duffy, said the administration "doesn't see a lot of merit" in calls to delay the law's effective date but was considering making allowances for hurricane victims.

In the meantime, many victims of Hurricane Katrina - and the much smaller group ruined by Hurricane Rita - will face a kind of Catch-22. Those who try to beat the Oct. 17 deadline in hopes of filing under the less-onerous current law may find it impossible to do so, because residence rules generally require that individuals seek protection against creditors in their hometowns. (Assuming people in New Orleans can find their lawyers and records, they can file for bankruptcy protection in their bankruptcy court, which has reopened and is sharing space with another court in Baton Rouge.)

Moreover, most people displaced by the storm will probably not know for months if they even need to file for bankruptcy. By that time, the tougher new law will be in force.

"Ought to get over it"!!! These people really are soulless bastards.

Roger L. Simon has an approving link to an article, here, which argues that the cronyism that has so afflicted this President is nevertheless excusable, because "nepotism" is also endemic in Hollywood and the news media. Needless to say, cronyism and nepotism are not the same thing; Bush, to his credit, has not tried to nominate daughter Jenna to the Supreme Court, or name brother Neil to be his Secretary of the Treasury. Even so, the notion that Kate Hudson being cast in a movie is somehow morally equivalent to putting a campaign advance man in charge of emergency preparation and relief is absurd.

More to the point, the writer seems to confuse nepotism (ie., the appointment of a family member to a position to which he is not qualified) with the phenomenon that exists in most professions: children pursue occupations similar to their parents. It is routine to the point of banality for the children of attorneys to enter into the legal profession, or the children of doctors to become heart surgeons. Men and women who work on the assembly line at GM or Ford may be joined by their offspring a generation later. It is understandable for kids to want to emulate their closest role models, and observing how someone practicing a particular livelihood behaves is a good way to get a step forward on those who are starting from scratch. In fact, I dare say the idea that one may be able to pass on to the next generation a business or craft is part of the American Dream.

And the same has been true with acting since the days of the Barrymores and Booths. Regardless of whether you believe that Gwyneth Paltrow, Nicholas Cage, Mira Sorvino or Sean Penn deserved their Oscars, the fact they get cast in roles today has nothing to do with who their parents are. Their success is based on whether people see their movies, or whether the right sort of people like their movies. And similarly, Kate Hudson's floundering career can only be redeemed by her own efforts at mastering the thespian craft; even Goldie Hawn's power is limited in that regard.

It might have helped those actors at the beginning of their careers to have a parent in the biz, just as it helped athletes like Kobe Bryant, Barry Bonds and Peyton Manning get an extra look from scouts on the basis of their names and pedigrees, but they ultimately had to get the job done. Notwithstanding the fact that Mike Piazza was drafted by the Dodgers almost entirely because Tommy Lasorda was friendly with his dad, he's still going to the Hall of Fame. Piazza, like those other athletes, had to put in the hard work necessary to show he belonged, and he had to display his talent to the fullest extent.

And the same is true in the Business of Show. When Francis Coppola cast his daughter in Godfather III, that was clearly a demonstration of nepotism, and the move backfired. But that has nothing to do, ten years later, with whether Lost in Translation is a great film, or whether Sofia Coppola earned her Best Screenplay Oscar. Whether or not Gwyneth Paltrow gets cast in Proof or Sylvia is determined by her talent, her perceived compatibility for the roles, and her ability to sell enough tickets to make those movies profitable, not by the fact that her mom is Blythe Danner.

The problem with Bush isn't that he has appointed so many pals and stalwarts to important positions, it's the fact that a high percentage of them can't do their jobs competently, and the man at the top won't hold them accountable when they fail. If FEMA had efficiently gotten supplies to Mississippi and Louisiana, would anyone have cared that Michael Brown's expertise was in judging Arabian stallions? I doubt the subject would have even come up, anymore than Harry Truman's occupation as a haberdasher was relevant when he integrated the military or fired Douglas MacArthur (who, it should be pointed out, was himself the son of a general).

Administrations are always filled with people like Michael Brown, people who are honored for their partisan service and friendships, not their qualifications, dating back to George Washington. Sometimes, even an unqualified hack like Brown will rise to the occasion, and evidence talents heretofore unrecognized; that, after all, is the life story of Harry Truman in a nutshell. Good Presidents put them in positions where they can do little harm, and act quickly to replace them when they do. Unforgivably, Bush has put his party above the interests of his country. His passivity in the face of incompetence must be judged as willful.

American Hero: This story is almost too painful to read. Think of the sacrifice and love of country a man must have to forsake a high-paying career (and one in which the window to participate is inherently short-lived) to fight what he was led to believe would be a war against terrorists, only to be sent to fight a chimera. Every time I read some warblogger deny they have a responsibility to take up arms in the war they've cheerleading for, I think of Pat Tillman.

Perhaps the clearest indication that stopping the Roberts nomination is now a lost cause:

According to a report from The Canadian Press, Martha Burk, the chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, said she intends to write letters of protest to the NHL and NBC over the NHL's new ad campaign, which is set to begin next week.

The first spot, titled "It's Time," shows a player (an actor, not an NHL player) in a locker room, surrounded by candles and accompanied by a woman who ceremoniously helps him don his hockey garb. The ads feature quotes from Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" along with dramatic camera work and music reminiscent of the film "Braveheart."

Burk told The Canadian Press that the ad is "offensive on many levels."

"The woman is dressed provocatively and when she asks the player if he's ready, it's a double-entendre in my view," Burk told The CP. "She's in the ad as a groomer, a sex object.

"The commercial is clearly selling sex and violence and the last image in that commercial is a young boy watching this, so he's clearly the customer they're after, or it's a misguided attempt to draw in families."

This is stupid on so many levels I really don't want to get into it. At least with Augusta, NOW was taking on a racist country club which hosted a tournament people cared about.

YBK [Part 19]: Three weeks to go. From the Associated Press:

File bankruptcy now -- before the law changes!

That's the message -- or exhortation -- that attorneys are making across the country, in TV commercials, print ads and mailings, urging Americans to seek bankruptcy court protection before a new law makes it harder for them to walk away from their debts.

Debtors are responding. Counting down toward the Oct. 17 effective date for the biggest reform in U.S. bankruptcy law in a generation, personal bankruptcy filings have jumped this month to the highest on record. Filings averaged more than 9,000 per day, up roughly 50 percent from last year's average daily volume, during the first two weeks of September. (emphasis mine)

It will get worse. One wonders whether the devastation to be wrought by Hurricane Rita will finally spur Congress to act on suspending the law, lest we witness a financial panic not seen since 1929.

The greatest Onion article, ever.

An interesting bookend to the Giambi-Palmeiro-Bonds controversy, where another industry suddenly wakes up one morning and decides that the drug use it was previously willing to condone, even encourage, has suddenly become bad for the bottom line. As with steroids and the like, heroin and cocaine provided career advantages to its users on the catwalk, regardless of the resulting medical damage; one set of drugs puts muscle on, the other allows it to wither away.

I doubt we'll see a panel of defiant supermodels perjuring themselves before Congress in the near-future, though....

Three generations of imbeciles are enough! Wouldn't it be a better question to ask which Bush appointees/nominees are actually qualified to hold their positions, rather than listing the endless supply of his mind-numbingly incompetent picks? Perhaps a more fruitful task would be to compare the current crop of hacks with the people his father had in the same position; I don't think it's necessarily a Republican, or even a conservative trait, to staff the government with morons. It bears repeating that the Presidential Medal of Freedom didn't used to be a symbol of failure.

My guess is that it's a lethal combination of ideology and faith that leads a political leader to surround himself with those who've failed in all other aspects of life before they enter public service, but who nevertheless have the right political connections. Someone who believes that "intelligent design" should be taught to our young'uns is not going to be obsessed with having qualified appointees doing the people's business. If the United States is going to remain a superpower and a beacon of freedom and all that, we need to have a good strong dose of elitism. We need to put grown-ups in charge of things again.

Miscellany:

1. The editors of the Dallas Morning News have a rather entertaining blog, in the tradition of the National Review Online. My post two weeks ago on "Norquist's Bathtub" was referred to one of their editors (thankfully, the prediction that the death toll from the hurricane would "dwarf" that of 9/11 has not been borne out to date), so I'm getting a big hunk o' Lone Star link-love today.

2. My take on Bush's speech Thursday night: not bad. In fact, it was perhaps the best he's sounded since right after 9/11; acknowledging that the buck ultimately stops with him will surely help him politically, as it is a refreshing change from his typical avoidance of responsibility. Focusing in on the racial aspect of the disaster was especially important. The problem, of course, is that his initial proposals indicate that nothing will change. Karl Rove is in charge of the Gulf Coast Reconstruction, the housecleaning he needs to do at FEMA and DHS has not started, and his vow not to raise taxes while cutting spending elsewhere to pay for reconstruction has the tinny sound of a man trying to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic; if rebuilding New Orleans is to be the trade-off for cutting funds that might prevent a disaster elsewhere, that is not acceptable. Liberals must increase the pressure on this government.

3. Matt Welch has converted his blog into a daily diary of the Angels for the final weeks of the season. Those who wish to follow the missteps of L.A.'s pursuit of the AL West title should check it out.

4. A friend of mine from Georgia calls the annual Florida-Tennessee battle, the "Meteor Bowl"; he hates both the Gators and Vols, and for him the optimal result would be for a meteor to crash into the stadium during the game. That's kind of what I thought of the Hitchens-Galloway tussle in New York City this past week.

5. Speaking of college football, I'm off to Over/Under for some Santa Monica fun. See ya Monday.

Read this, and I dare you to tell met that you can drive a nail up this guy's ass with a sledgehammer.

The worst team nickname in the world. [link via Ragged Thots]

After three days of testimony, the one thing I can safely conclude about John Roberts is that he's one hell of a lawyer. Slick, evasive, brilliant, mendacious, smooth as silk; he's Thomas Dewey without the moustache. Trying to get him to answer a question truthfully is like attempting to crack someone's skull open with a pillow, yet I doubt anyone could point to a single false statement he made this week.

I'm skeptical there'll be any public groundswell demanding that Roberts' confirmation sail through the Senate. If he doesn't want to give a straight answer to questions, or if he continues to assert whatever lame-ass privilege he's using to hide his records from his time at the Solicitor General's office, then filibuster him.

That would accomplish several things: it would be a symbolic sign of defiance aimed at our lame duck President, at a time when public contempt for Bush is at a level not seen since the final days of Nixon; it would signal that every nominee will have to face a battle, and a more conservative appointee will be on notice for next time(and Roberts' deceptiveness aside, his public record indicates he's a bit closer to the center than the person he's succeeding; at a time in his career when Rehnquist was trying to intimidate black voters into forgoing their franchise, Roberts was working behind the scenes to overturn anti-gay legislation); and it will allow swing-state and Red State Democrats in the Senate the chance to publicly distance themselves from the progressive wing by voting against the filibuster. It's a no-lose situation.

YBK [Part 18]: Not one, but two of the largest airlines went double-toothpicks within minutes of each other. The new bankruptcy laws are going to be brutal on business reorganizations, so expect to see this story replayed quite a bit in the next four weeks. In the meantime, what does this say about airlines when three of the four biggest airlines in the country (plus U.S. Air) are currently in Chapter 11? Can someone say "Amtrak"?

Because 10,000 would be unforgivable: There's something positively odious about complaining that not enough people died along the Gulf Coast the past two weeks.

Clueless:

You never gave five seconds of thought to the risk of flooding in New Orleans until it became impossible to think about anything else? Me neither. Nor have I given much thought to the risk of a big earthquake along the West Coast — the only one of the top three catastrophes that hasn't happened yet — even though I live and work in the earthquake zone.

Question for Mr. Kinsley: What planet do you live on? I dare you to name anyone who has lived on the West Coast (particularly California), and experienced at least a 6.0+ quake, who does not think about The Big One constantly (ie., 8.0+ on the Richter Scale). I think about it every time I drive under a freeway overpass, or walk next to a brick building, or wake up at 4:00 in the morning. I think about it whenever I see glass or china sitting precariously on a shelf, or turn on a flashlight. Earthquakes are part of the reality of living in LA, and the certainty that a major quake will rattle us again in the near future is something everyone thinks about. And I think its fair for any Angeleno to make the assumption that our government will be accountable in the event some major building or piece of infrastructure isn't seismically capable of withstanding such a shock.

Did I ever think about New Orleans being wiped off the face of the earth because of a flood before August 29, 2005? In all honesty, no; I had never studied the topology of that region. But I assume that many, if not most, Louisianians did, largely because major floods occurred every so often. They had a right to assume their government was looking after them, and that predictable threats, such as the corruption of the levees, were going to be dealt with.

And to simply shrug at a calamity like Hurricane Katrina or the 9/11 attacks and say that it's human nature not to focus in on the problem until its too late is rather lame. The state and local governments knew enough to wargame contingency plans, however ineffectual they turned out to be. The Army Corps of Engineers knew that the levees probably wouldn't be able to survive a Category-4 hurricane as far back as 2000, and the local newspaper predicted the devastation that would occur two weeks ago all the way back in 2002, facts which Kinsley acknowledges. Money was budgeted towards doing something to shore up the levees, but not nearly enough. The people who needed to know knew, but they just couldn't get the people who had the power to do something about it to act accordingly. And that's unforgiveable.

We don't expect government to guarantee that all disasters be averted. But it's not unfair to demand that avoidable, predictable mistakes not be made. And treating FEMA like a patronage cow, the federal version of state boxing or parole boards on which to stack cronies and hacks, is inexcusable.

UPDATE: Reader MK informs me that Michael Kinsley actually was in town for the '94 Northridge quake. I guess the collapse of the 10 Freeway didn't leave much an impression....

Gone fishin'....

A blackout has wiped out electrical service to most of Los Angeles (that is, the city; the greater metropolitan area, including Beverly Hills, Long Beach, and Santa Monica, gets its power from another source, and all systems are normal in those cities). Sherman Oaks, where I live, is dark, but Woodland Hills, where I work, has been unaffected. If that changes, I won't let you know, because, well, I won't have power to blog anything.

Quote of the Day:

I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. I'd seen it in the theater, but I'd brought Apple, and she was tiny, so I left like 70 times because I was trying to calm her down and I missed the end and stuff. And now, since the film has finished, what's going on in Iraq and what's going on every day? And you see that footage of Bush landing and saying 'Mission accomplished' and he just looks like the biggest moron of all time.

--Gwyneth Paltrow

Earlier this week, as most of you already know, Bob Denver passed away. Most famous today for playing the title character in the TV crapfest "Gilligan's Island", his obits also contained fleeting references to an earlier TV role, as Maynard G. Krebs in the series, "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis". This LA Times column recounts the uniqueness of that character, a goateed, jazz-loving, bongo-playing hipster.

What is truly odd about this is the fact that Denver would have become so well-known for one character, but almost forgotten for the other. "Gilligan's Island" has been a staple on TV for generations, even though it was astonishingly bad and unfunny, and lasted for only four seasons. Very few people younger than 50, on the other hand, have any memory of "Dobie Gillis". In fact, that show lasted longer than "Gilligan", is said to have been a much better comedy (I have to rely on the opinions of others for this, since I have never seen a single episode of the show in the nearly forty-two years I've been on the planet), and had a much more famous cast. Besides Denver, the show also included a young Warren Beatty, who is only one of the most famous actors in the world, Tuesday Weld (as Dobie's infatuation), who came pretty close to becoming a star, and who was nominated for an Oscar for Looking for Mr. Goodbar, Michael J. Pollard, who was also Oscar-nominated, for Bonnie and Clyde, and Sheila Kuhle, who might not be a name many of you have heard of, but in California she is a pretty well-known political figure. And yet, other than a few odd episodes that might have been shown on Nickelodeon once upon a time, I don't know if its ever been syndicated. Strange.

The Buck Stops Nowhere: Now that the hapless FEMA Director has been "reassigned" to other duties in the capital, when is the incompetent moron who nominated him in the first place going to take the hint?

TalkLeft reports that displaced lawyers from the Gulf Coast will be permitted to practice law in Arkansas for the next two months. Don't be surprised if other state bars provide the same exemption, as the judicial system in that area has collapsed.

Seems like I might have to retract my earlier post about how Michael Brown had "disaster management" experience with the city of Edmund, OK in the late-70's. TIME is reporting that it was more like a college internship; Brown also padded his resume in other areas as well. The obvious question, after reading the transcript of his Senate confirmation hearing, below, is didn't the FBI do a background check on this guy? Did anyone perform due diligence?

Something for liberals to ponder: Mike Brown, the clearly-unqualified show horse official and unaccredited law school graduate, who went from being a non-practicing lawyer in Colorado to running FEMA, had to undergo one confirmation hearing before the Senate. In 2002, as the President's nominee to be Deputy Director of FEMA, he went before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman (yes, the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time), and the hearing lasted forty-two minutes.

From there, his nomination went to the floor of the Senate, where he was confirmed without opposition by voice vote. Rather than blaming the local elected officials, such as Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin, who may have made mistakes but were clearly overwhelmed by the scope of the catastrophe, I think any conservative with a smidgen of intellectual integrity should hang his hat on this example, of how "vigorously" Senate Democrats exercised their Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent when the Brown nomination came before them. [link via TPM Cafe]

Thought of the Day:

Because they don't see blacks as a current or potential constituency, Bush and his fellow Republicans do not respond out of the instinct of self-interest when dealing with their concerns. Helping low-income blacks is a matter of charity to them, not necessity. The condescension in their attitude intensifies when it comes to New Orleans, which is 67 percent black and largely irrelevant to GOP political ambitions. Cities with large African-American population that happen to be in important swing states may command some of Karl Rove's respect as election time approaches. But Louisiana is small (9 electoral votes) and not much of a swinger these days. In 2004, Bush carried it by a 57-42 margin. If Bush and Rove didn't experience the spontaneous political reflex to help New Orleans, it may be because they don't think of New Orleans as a place that helps them.

Considered in this light, the actions and inactions now being picked apart are readily explicable. The president drastically reduced budget requests from the Army Corps of Engineers to strengthen the levees around New Orleans because there was no effective pressure on him to agree. When the levees broke on Tuesday, Aug. 30, no urge from the political gut overrode his natural instinct to spend another day vacationing at his ranch. When Bush finally got himself to the Gulf Coast three days later, he did his hugging in Biloxi, Miss., which is 71 percent white, with a mayor, governor, and two senators who are all Republicans. Bush's memorable comments were about rebuilding Sen. Trent Lott's porch and about how he used to enjoy getting hammered in New Orleans. Only when a firestorm of criticism and political damage broke out over the federal government's callousness did Bush open his eyes to black suffering.

Had the residents of New Orleans been white Republicans in a state that mattered politically, instead of poor blacks in city that didn't, Bush's response surely would have been different. Compare what happened when hurricanes Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004. Though the damage from those storms was negligible in relation to Katrina's, the reaction from the White House was instinctive, rapid, and generous to the point of profligacy. Bush visited hurricane victims four times in six weeks and delivered relief checks personally. Michael Brown of FEMA, now widely regarded as an incompetent political hack, was so responsive that local officials praised the agency's performance.

The kind of constituency politics that results in a big life-preserver for whites in Florida and a tiny one for blacks in Louisiana may not be racist by design or intent. But the inevitable result is clear racial discrimination. It won't change when Republicans care more about blacks. It will change when they have more reason to care.

--Jacob Weisburg, Slate.

YBK [Part 17]: Not surprisingly, Hurricane Katrina will have a major impact on the bankruptcy numbers in the three states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama) that have been devastated. The L.A. Times reports that after every major hurricane in the last 25 years, bankruptcy filing rates have gone up at a rate of over fifty percent over unaffected states in the three years following the disaster.

Ironically, with the new law set to go into effect less than six months from now, the people who are most likely to be screwed by its provisions aren't the now-homeless African-Americans of New Orleans, whose annual income was too low to qualify for the new means test, but instead are the middle-class whites who lived on the outskirts:

But unless changes are made to an overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy law due to kick in next month, many of those affected by Hurricane Katrina and the resulting floods will have a substantially harder time winning court relief from loans they incurred for homes and businesses that are now gone, according to a variety of judges, lawyers and policy experts.

"Just because your house or car is somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico doesn't mean that your auto loan or mortgage went with it," said Brady C. Williamson, who was appointed by President Clinton to head a national bankruptcy commission in the mid-1990s.

UCLA professor Kenneth N. Klee said, "The new law is going to make it much more difficult for people to put their lives back together." Klee is a former Republican congressional staffer who was a chief author of the previous major bankruptcy-law change in the late 1970s.

House and Senate Democrats are expected to propose, perhaps as early as today, delaying the effective date for the new measure and easing some of its most stringent requirements. When it passed the bankruptcy overhaul last spring, the Republican-controlled House rejected an exemption for victims of natural disasters.

There is an exception within the new law for waiving the means testing and credit counseling upon a showing of "special circumstances", language that was deliberately kept vague by Congress, but how that will be interpreted is going to be left to the individual judges; some will apply a very broad standard, no doubt, allowing anyone who can show that the means test is unrealistic in their situation to remain in Chapter 7, while other judges will approve exemptions only in rare instances. Congress explicitly refused to grant an exception for victims of natural disasters, so there are no assurances that the victims of Hurricane Katrina will be able to use the "special circumstances" exemption.

I suspect that unless federal action on this front isn't enacted shortly, there will be a veritable stampede to the courts before the new law goes into effect on October 17.

A mortician associated with the DHS has been told to prepare for up to 40,000 dead. My God. [link via Josh Marshall]

Tony Pierce, the poet laureate of blogtopia, explains who is ultimately to blame for Norquist's Bathtub.

Tens of thousands of people may be dead, a great city and cultural center destroyed, and Stephen Fry is inspired to write a tasteless article about the stench of the suffering. We could use compassion, and instead we get derivative Wildean mockery. What an asshole.

Norquist's Bathtub: In many respects, August 29, 2005 is already turning out to be a more important date than 9/11, and not just because the number of fatalities caused by Hurricane Katrina will dwarf the best efforts at savagery by Osama's thugs. The collapse of the levees of Lake Ponchartrain seems to have awakened us to the rotten underpinnings of our institutions, our government, our leaders.

We are undergoing an ideological, not a partisan, reawakening. Historian Timothy Naftali compared the events of the past week to the core meltdown at Chernobyl, where the inability of the Soviet Union to protect its own people was laid bare, leading to the fall of Communism, but we need not look overseas for historical precedent. The combination of the Watts Riots and the first heavy casualty figures from Southeast Asia in 1965 brought about the beginning of the end of Cold War liberalism, coincidentally in the first year following the reelection of a President, just as the ineffectual responses to crises led to the obliteration of the Republicans in 1932 and the Democrats in 1980.

Although the blame has deservedly focused on the Bush Administration, and their typically inept response to Hurricane Katrina, the Democrats bear a great deal of responsibility for what happened. Obviously, there were failures at the state and local level to quickly respond to the impending disaster; the call to evacuate came less than 48 hours from impact, not enough time to get safely away from the storm, and certainly not enough time to prepare the mass evacuations of the destitute. If anything symbolizes the local failure, it was the row after row of empty buses that were parked in a flooded lot in New Orleans, instead of being used to transport people out of the area. That neither the state of Louisiana nor New Orleans and its surrounding parishes can be considered well-governed sovereignties even in the best of times (a problem shared throughout the South, as the slothlike measures taken by the buffoonish Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, while his state's coastline disappeared, attest) exacerbated the problem, particularly afterwards.

More important than the failure of its local politicians, though, the Democrats have failed to provide any effective opposition. Just as with 9/11, we were victimized by our own lack of imagination. You can go through all the preparedness drills and make all the contingency plans that you like, but if you don't have political leaders who will make a stand and insist that we be prepared for any contingency, if your party lacks the will to stake out unpopular stands, even in the best of times, then democracy fails. The most telling fact so far is that even if the funding to repair the levees had come through, in full, they still probably wouldn't have been ready in time to stop what happened.

So, Republicans didn't think that budgeting money to protect a city from a semi-centennial disaster was important, and the Democrats didn't put up enough of a fight. Bush nominates a political crony to head FEMA, then a small-town lawyer straight from the world of show horse competitions, and the Democrats silently assent; both Joe Allbaugh and Michael Brown breezed to confirmation, with no Democratic filibuster. This disaster was predictable, inevitable, and overdue, something we knew for decades, and still the Democrats failed to do enough, either in opposition, or even in those brief times we controlled the government. No wonder Clinton was so reticent about attacking his successor over what happened last week.

But in the end, the events of the past week, when combined with the ongoing debacle in Iraq, has thoroughly discredited the governing ideology this country has had since 1980. It is a philosophy that holds that tax cuts are the panacea to prosperity, that no one need sacrifice for the common good, and is best encapsulated by Grover Norquist's infamous phrase that his aim was "...to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub". Although the federal budget has increased during the Reagan-Bush Era, its effectiveness, its ability to accomplish things, has diminished. "Conservatives" have, with malice aforethought, strangled the initiative of society to publicly confront issues of poverty, racism, and inequality, and to adequately protect the safety of the public. This week, the Gulf Coast is that bathtub.

It is the Republican philosophy of governance. Our infrastructure rots, our military is undermanned, our environmental protections are being sabotaged. Starve the beast, and let the private sphere, the realm of Enron and Halliburton, take care of things. As Naftali points out,

Not all of the questioning about the rapid growth in government since the 1960s was wrongheaded and Reagan at least admired Franklin Roosevelt and having experienced the depression first hand understood that government had a positive role to play. But Reagan's imitators ever since, mainly Republicans but also some Democrats, have lacked that historical perspective and have mechanically espoused the view that government had to be lean and mean and, when in doubt, could be underfunded lest money be taken from the pockets of "ordinary Americans," who knew best how to spend it. Underlying this was another, more amoral, message that those who fall behind in this society get what they deserve.

For a quarter of a century, we have also been told we could have our cake and eat it, too. Local property taxes could be kept low, state budgets could be balanced and federal taxes could be reduced progressively with nothing but a positive effect on our national quality of living. For fifteen years, we have been told that the US military is large enough to handle every conceivable threat to the country because high technology would allow us to project force more efficiently. For three years we have been assured that our government is reorganizing to ensure that an urban disaster such as we witnessed on 9/11 would not happen again. Many Americans, unfortunately, came to believe these assertions and forgot not only the value of good government but that it costs money.

This week we saw the cumulative effect of these illusions. For six days thousands of babies were starved of formula, countless old people died of exposure and families lived with almost no water and had to defecate in public by a city Convention Center because the federal government lacked the resources, skill and troops to rescue them.

David Brooks, who is no liberal, noted over the weekend that "the first rule of the social fabric - that in times of crisis you protect the vulnerable - was trampled. Leaving the poor in New Orleans was the moral equivalent of leaving the injured on the battlefield." It is pathetic that the Bush Administration, whose greatest innovation to conservatism has been to honor political loyalty at the expense of talent or competence, would attempt to (dishonestly, as it turns out) shift the blame to local officials. Ineffectual local government is to be expected when dealing with a Category-4 hurricane; in Mississippi and Louisiana, corrupt politicians are a feature, not a bug. In the post-9/11 world, we expected the Federal Government to handle the big stuff, and, as in the War against Terrorism, the Bush Administration was not up to the task.

If any good is to come out of the horrors of this past week, it will require us to abandon the notion that the public sphere can accomplish nothing worthwhile, that people must settle for inefficient, cheap government, or that individual desires must always trump the needs of the rest. I have a feeling we might have already begun to turn down that path.

A correction, and a silver lining:

1. Friday's post, about the previous job held by FEMA Director Michael Brown, may have implied that he was completely without experience in the field of emergency management. In fact, before he was the "czar" of Arabian Horse breeding, he was a city manager for the town of Edmund, Oklahoma, from 1975 to 1978, where he supervised the emergency services division. At that time, the population for Edmund, a suburb of Oklahoma City, was a little under 30,000.

2. At least one emergency professional sees an advantage of having someone of Mr. Brown's background in charge of things right now. According to Kate Hale, former Miami-Dade emergency management chief, "He's done a hell of a job, because I'm not aware of any Arabian horses being killed in this storm."

[links via Billmon]

But wait, there's more: What bloggers (and others) were saying two years ago, at around this time:

I'm a little late to this subject, but isn't it interesting that the fabled solidarity of French socialism leaves old people alone to die from the heat as the whole country goes on vacation at the same time? Yet that seems to be a consensus view of what happened...At least they have solidarity about when to take vacations--none of that evil American individualism and workaholism. (citation omitted)

--Virginia Postrel

13,500 people dead, in a modern nation, due to a heatwave the would scarcely get notice in Texas? True, France isn't prepared for the heat like Dallas is -- but neither was my old home (ed-St. Louis). Even 5,000 seems much, much too high.

Were there no emergency A/C shelters? Did the hydrants stay closed? Did the Seine dry up? Lord knows, the French know to keep their wine cool in cellars -- so what about people?

What the hell went wrong?

--Vodkapundit

French President Jacques Chirac has promised to remedy defects in his country’s health service in the wake of the heat wave that has killed thousands of mainly elderly people.

We’ve proudly decided to become even more socialist!

The French funeral directors association said 10,416 had died during the first three weeks of August because of the heat wave and projected the death toll for the month from the heat wave would be 13,632.

10,000 people! Jeez! 100 degrees isn’t that hot, people... its that hot everyday in Texaaaas... what gives?

France, which normally has temperatures in upper 20s Celsius (80s Fahrenheit) was hit with temperatures in the upper 30s (90s to over 100 Fahrenheit). After the first week of the heat wave, French officials, many of whom had been on vacation,

that’s what we call in here in the good ol’ U.S. of A "being asleep at the wheel"

rushed back to work. The death toll soared by 3,000 in that week. In a bid to divert criticism, Chirac added: "Today, the time is for contemplation, solidarity and action. I think about each of these victims and hold out my hand and express the solidarity of the nation."

what a schmuck...

--Rantburg

And with that, I send heartwaves to the Land of the Free and the Brave on this second anniversary of 9/11. I'm glad to have found Carine, Dissident Frogman and Damian...proof that Hope lives on both sides of the Atlantic. Now, if I could just find the magic formula to spread that Hope all over the world...

Of course, the French would refuse the formula AND the Hope, claiming them a menace to their oh so sacred culture. They would threaten to veto it or ask to renegotiate their share. They would leave it to die of thirst and bury it in an unmarked grave (which would later be defiled) without ceremony. And then, when held to account, blame everyone but themselves for the death of Hope.

God Bless America.

--Valerie, at "Pave France"

France received a shock this summer, when more than 10,000 of its elderly citizens died in distress during a heat wave--some while supposedly under medical care in hospitals. Thanks to the 35-hour workweek and the long August holiday, these institutions were short-staffed. The families of those who died were on holiday, too.

Yet another shock--and at the same time--the French government discovered that its unemployment-benefit plan for part-time workers in the entertainment industry, though generous, was underfunded and in danger of imminent collapse. The government suddenly decided to cut the benefits radically. As a result, the workers went on strike, and virtually all the great cultural festivals that are the pride of France's tourist industry had to be canceled.

These are all symptoms of a painful disease, a continental depression born of the realization that EU prosperity is a house built upon sand. While the American economy is picking up, the EU's remains in stagnation, bordering on recession. The 35-hour workweek is splendid, provided you have a job. But what of the growing millions who are out of work and whose social security payments are now threatened with reduction or cut-off dates? Unemployment, already high, is rising in France and Germany.

(snip)

The omens for continental Europe, however, are sinister. The entire plan for perpetual improvement upon which the EU depends is based on continuous economic expansion. There is no provision for stagnation. As we see in Japan, once stagnation sets in, it can last many years. Americans should count their blessings, above all the supreme blessing of having an economy that is run by businessmen not bureaucrats, or that--under wise governance--runs itself.

--Paul Johnson

I don't know what M. Chirac heard in the dépanneurs and resto-bars of Quebec this week, but what I heard south of the border was complete amazement at how a nominally First World country could be so insouciant about an entirely avoidable Third World death toll. President Bush and the entire Washington press corps are spending a month in heat equal to the brutal Parisian summer, and he's playing golf in it all day while they stand around watching; in Phoenix tomorrow and Monday, it will be an unremarkable 105. This isn't about the weather.

In Paris this spring, a government official explained to me how Europeans had created a more civilised society than America - socialised healthcare, shorter work weeks, more holidays. We've just seen where that leads: gran'ma turned away from the hospital to die in an airless apartment because junior's sur la plage. M Chirac's somewhat tetchy suggestion that his people should rethink their attitude to the elderly was well taken. But Big Government inevitably diminishes its citizens' capacity to take responsibility, to the point where even your dead mum is just one more inconvenience the state should do something about.

Meanwhile, Maggie Pernot wrote the other day to chide me for my continued defence of the Rumsfeld Death Camps at Guantanamo. The prisoners, she complains, are "kept in tiny, chainlink outdoor cages where they were likely to be rained upon". In fact, they have sloping roofs and cool concrete floors, perfect for the climate. If they had solid walls rather than airy wire mesh, they'd be Parisian sweatboxes and everyone would be dead. By contrast, if those thousands of French pensioners had been captured by the Marines and detained by Rummy in Cuba, they'd be alive today.

Mme. Pernot writes from St Julien, France. That's right: she's surrounded by an actual humanitarian scandal on all sides but she'd rather obsess about an entirely fictional one. Heat getting to you, Madame? Or just the unusual odour from the flat next door?

--Mark Steyn (again!)

I'm surprised they had people who could buy it. After all, over 10,000 French people supposedly died from the heat wave.

Perhaps we could collaborate on a book where Frenchmen are doing the nasty while dehydrating.

We can call it, "Sweating Up The Sheets."

--Jay Caruso (in reference to a book that was on the Best Seller list in France)

Incredible. The man in charge of FEMA, the government agency that was supposed to coordinate disaster relief in New Orleans, Mike Brown, had to resign from his previous job, as the "Judges and Stewards Commissioner" for the International Arabian Horses Association, due to incompentence and mismanagement. After 9/11, the notion that the President would cull from the ranks of failed executives at horse breeding associations for a position like FEMA Director is mind-boggling.

What they were saying last year at around this time:

There was a heatwave in Europe this summer. It made life uncomfortable everywhere, from London to Rome. But only in France did the death toll climb up and up. The "brutal Iraqi summer" so eagerly anticipated by the Continent's anti-Americans is believed to have killed two US soldiers. The brutal Gallic summer wound up killing well over 10,000.

Why? It seems to have been a combination of factors.

Snobbery: The French regard air-conditioners as vulgar and American. Big government: The French healthcare system is designed for the convenience of its employees, so in summer it's on vacation. Heartlessness: The entire country goes to the beach in August, and having grand-mere along would be too much of a drag, so it's easier to leave her in her airless city apartment.

Bernard Mazeyrie, managing director of France's largest undertakers', noted that many of the bereaved were in no hurry to bury their aged loved ones, preferring to leave them on ice while they stayed sur la plage to finish their holidays.

By the standards of the world, Iran, China and France are all wealthy societies. They're vulnerable to "events" because of their organizational principles – a primitive theocracy which disdains modernity; a modified totalitarianism which thinks you can reap the benefits of capitalism without the institutions of liberty; and a cradle-to-grave welfare state that has so enfeebled its citizens' ability to act as responsible adults that even your dead mum is just one more inconvenience the government should do something about.

--Mark Steyn

In a period of two weeks during August, more than 11,000 elderly French men and women died of heat stroke. It is important to note this is not nearly the scandal in France that it would be in America. In fact, upon hearing the news, French president Jacques Chirac decided to stay on vacation in Quebec, Canada.

Why not? Because, in the words of British historian Paul Johnson, the French – like most Europeans, and like most left-thinking people anywhere – love ideas more than people.

(snip)

[T]he future of the world is either European secular socialism, Islamic totalitarianism or the unique American combination of Judeo-Christian religiosity and political and economic liberty.

Few Americans are attracted to the second possibility, but vast numbers look to Europe as a model. One hopes that the next time they do, they will note the 11,000 elderly dead in France. But don't bet on it.

--Dennis Prager

As of writing, there are in excess of 300 corpses yet unclaimed. It is the normal policy in France that if a body is not claimed within six days, it is buried in a pauper’s grave. But, given that it’s the month of the grande vacance, the French are cutting the relatives a little slack. As an official indicated understandingly, it’s August and many of the relatives may not wish to cut into their month long vacation to come home early to claim a body.

As the numbers of heat deaths climb, a final figure of close to 20,000 is being seen as not unrealistic – in other words, a humanitarian disaster.

Meanwhile, the death toll in Guantanamo Bay, which the French are in the habit of condemning with dainty disgust as barbaric, sweltering, fetid and inhuman, remains remarkably stable: None.

--Dennis McQueen, World Net Daily

Does anyone else find this claim suspicious? "France's worst heat wave on record has killed an estimated 3,000 people across the nation, the Health Ministry said Thursday, as the government faced accusations that it failed to respond to a major health crisis," the Associated Press reports from Paris.

Three thousand deaths? In a Western European country? Because of the weather? This is the kind of death toll usually reserved for Third World natural disasters--Chinese earthquakes, Bangladeshi floods and the like. Has the heat really killed 3,000 Frenchmen?

--James Taranto, WSJ

I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong--Mother Nature's fist of fury, Gaia's stern rebuke. Considering the havoc mankind has wreaked upon nature with deforesting, stripmining, and the destruction of animal habitat, it only seems fair that nature get some of its own back and teach us that there are forces greater than our own.

--James Wolcott

[all links via Crooked Timber, exc. for the Wolcott post, which the author had the good sense to apologize for before Katrina struck landfall]

UPDATE: My bad. The French heat wave occurred two years ago, and most of the above quotes originated then.

The combination of cataclysmic property damage and the near-doubling of gasoline prices in the wake of Hurricane Katrina will certainly exacerbate the YBK problem. The personal devastation that millions in the Gulf Coast area have suffered has led a number of Congressman to propose an amendment to the recently-passed bankruptcy law, which will waive the hardships imposed by the new law on victims of this disaster. Let's hope Congress speedily passes this legislation before the draconian provisions go into effect.

One area where it is fair to take the current regime to task is their complete lack of preparation for the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It was not simply a matter of levee repairs that were never funded, or grasslands that were allowed to atrophy; those were problems that existed before the 2000 Election, and the fact that Democrats never used their position in the opposition to draw a line in the sand on those issues is a pretty good indicator that blame for those problems crossed party lines.

Instead, FEMA has been made to look utterly incompetent over the last few days, dealing with problems that one would have thought would have been in the forefront of this Administration's priorities, since those were problems dealing with refugees, emergency rescue and damage control: in other words, the same problems that would exist after a major terrorist attack. Bush chose to handpick political cronies to run the agency, and the utter lack of preparation in evacuating masses of people without access to cars, getting food and water to survivors, and having immediate access to medical care is unforgivable. [link via Smirking Chimp]

Ironically, the professional ran FEMA during the Clinton Administration, James Lee Witt, is a major reason why Bush made it to the White House in the first place. Prior to their first debate in 2000, major fires broke out in Texas, and FEMA assistance was required. In that debate, Mr. Witt's decisive actions drew praise from then-Governor Bush, and Vice President Gore seconded that praise, stating that he had accompanied Mr. Witt down to Texas. It turned out that he had accompanied Mr. Witt's assistant, and hadn't spoken to the FEMA director until later, but the Bush camp was able to spin that discrepancy into yet another Gore "prevarication" (in an age of fictitious WMD's, Nigerian Yellow Cake, and the billions of dollars that have disappeared in the reconstruction of Iraq, it is poignant what we used to be consider "dishonest"). What had been a debate that most of the public thought had been decisively won by Al Gore suddenly shifted, and Bush moved out to a lead in the polls that he didn't relinquish until Election Day.

Hell:

The sick and the disabled were the first to be led out. But late Wednesday afternoon, as the slow evacuation of the Superdome began, it was not always easy to distinguish them from the rest of the 20,000 or more storm refugees who had steeped for days in the arena's sickening heat and stench, unbathed, exhausted and hungry.

They had been crammed into the Superdome's shadowy ramps and corridors, spread across its vast artificial turf field and plopped into small family encampments in the plush orange, teal and purple seats that rise toward the top of the dome.

They had flocked to the arena seeking sanctuary from the winds and waters of Hurricane Katrina. But understaffed, undersupplied and without air-conditioning or even much lighting, the domed stadium quickly became a sweltering and surreal vault, a place of overflowing toilets and no showers. Food and water, blankets and sheets, were in short supply. And the dome's reluctant residents exchanged horror stories, including reports, which could not be confirmed by the authorities, of a suicide and of rapes.

By Wednesday the stink was staggering. Heaps of rotting garbage in bulging white plastic bags baked under a blazing Louisiana sun on the main entry plaza, choking new arrivals as they made their way into the stadium after being plucked off rooftops and balconies.

The odor billowing from toilets was even fouler. Trash spilled across corridors and aisles, slippery with smelly mud and scraps of food.

"They're housing us like animals," said Iiesha Rousell, 31, unemployed after four years in the Army in Germany, dripping with perspiration in the heat, unable to contain her fury and disappointment at being left with only National Guardsmen as overseers and no information about what might lie ahead.

--New York Times, 9-1-2005

UPDATE: Billmon has a more detailed list of relief providers. Check it out.

Eric Alterman has a list of relief agencies and philanthropies that are providing assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, here.

There has been an unhealthy desire of many bloggers to use Katrina to justify their political position, whether pro- or anti-Bush. Hurricanes of the size and devastation we've seen this week, although rare, do happen, and will continue to happen, regardless of whether we deal with global warming, maintain the wetlands, or keep a sufficient National Guard presence in the homeland. Of all people, the son of Robert F. Kennedy should be the last person who uses human misfortune as orginating from the temper of a vengeful god. And rightists who are attempting to shift the blame to the state and local government of Louisiana as a way of scoring racist points (not to mention the coverage of "looting", which is suspiciously focused on African-Americans) may try to explain the similar destruction in Republican Mississippi and Alabama.

Anyone would be hard-pressed to point to a single policy that this President pursued that would have alleviated the damage, or stengthened our ability to protect the Gulf Coast from such a disaster, although it's not Bush's (or Congress') fault New Orleans is 20 feet under water; it just happened. Being unprepared for the Worst Case Scenario is an all-too-human fault. That was true last week, before the hurricane, and it will be true next week as well. Partisan blame has nothing to do with the immediate problem, which is saving lives.

But if the Democratic Party doesn't heed the lessons of this tragedy, than it truly is unworthy to be an opposition party. As with the tsunami in the Indian Ocean last year, we, as a species, should be well past the point where thousands of people get killed in a disaster of this magnitude. Tsunami warning systems, reinforcing dikes, retrofitting building to withstand most earthquakes: we can do all of that, right now. We know Bush and the Republican Congress have a misplaced set of priorities, and that money has been drained from FEMA to pursue less important objectives. But what have liberals done to sound the trumpets? What did Clinton do? Why was the possibility that a disaster like this could strike perceived by all sides as less important in the last election than abortion or gay marriage?

As a society, our first priority should be to protect each other from predictable disasters, even before we focus on luxuries like fighting wars and such. This wasn't the first hurricane to hit the Gulf Coast, and New Orleans is not the first American city to be nearly destroyed by such a disaster. Even if it is in poor taste to immediately point accusatory fingers at your ideological adversaries right now, it is not inappropriate to ask what we do now to make sure that something like this, or something like the Christmas Day Tsunami, does not have the same impact on humanity in the future.

UPDATE: A challenge to progressive bloggers. Clearly, this project is going to entail more than just donating money and blogging up a storm.

Why Bush sucks, or at least why that suckiness has brought us to defeat in the War on Terror. To put it another way, if Clinton had been President, is there any doubt that at the very least, bin Laden would have been killed or captured by now? Or that Iraq would have been pacified? Of course not. I'm not saying he could have prevented 9/11, or that there wouldn't have been other problems with terrorism, but Clinton would have done a better job managing them. Elvis was knowledgeable, listened to other people, and knew how to charm his political adversaries. Bush, on the other hand, is an asshole, perhaps the biggest asshole in the White House since Nixon, but without Tricky Dick's shrewdness and understanding of the big picture.

To answer Prof. Kleiman's question, the last (and heretofore only) child of a President who was eligible to serve in the Armed Forces at a time of war, but failed to do so was...John Payne Todd, step-son of James Madison. Very interesting character, that Mr. Todd. He was the only surviving son of Dolley Madison from her first marriage, and was still a toddler when his mother met the future President in 1794 (at the time, Todd's guardian was a friend and political ally of Madison's named Aaron Burr). When the War of 1812 started, he had just turned 20.

He seems to have been spoiled by his mother, and spent much of his early years at school, far away from the political world his parents occupied. He quickly gathered some worrisome vices, including a proclivity for drinking and gambling that would, over the fullness of time, bankrupt his widowed mother. Rather than putting the boy in harm's way, at a time when the British were sacking the White House, his step-father sent him on a diplomatic mission to Europe in 1813. By all accounts, he embarrassed himself on the junket with his public drunkenness, and the nation remained at war for two more years.

In short, nothing at all like the current situation....

Headline of the Year.

Another newspaper dumps Ann Coulter, in light of her recent mocking of the brave firemen and police officers of New York City.

Matt Welch brings up an interesting point: that the people who enable this bigot always justify their tolerance by saying what a "funny" or "nice" person Ilsa is in real life. I think there ought to be a circle in hell reserved for people who are willing to excuse those who are hateful simply because they have a genial manner. C'mon, Josef Stalin had a very biting sense of humor; Hermann Goering also could be quite charming and witty, when the occasion demanded it. The fact that Ms. Coulter can be generous to her friends or occasionally crack a joke about herself is insignificant, when compared to the debasement she has brought to political rhetoric in this country.

I used to have a friend in law school who was a social acquiantance of Alexander Cockburn, the Stalinist apologist for The Nation. Supposedly, he was quite the raconteur, with a flirtatious charm and a passion for the vintage Ford Thunderbird. He sounded like a pretty interesting character, and I can appreciate the temptation to associate with such notoriety. But not everyone is entitled to my good will, and especially not those who gloss over Soviet genocide. With the Coulters and Cockburns of the world, it's important for the rest of us to set some standards, lest we succumb to the temptation of political relativism.

Free Judy Miller ?!? To even make that demand shows an enormous amount of entitlement and privilege. She's a percipient witness in an on-going criminal investigation, a court having determined that her testimony is critical, and her silence leads to the suspicion that she may have been a source for a criminal act. The most generous interpretation of her actions is that she's protecting an anonymous source who gave her disinformation in order to justify the outing of an undercover agent; the least generous is that she was, in fact, the disseminator.

Reporters have no more of a First Amendment right to be a part of a criminal conspiracy than any other citizen. Let her rot.