Funmurphys: the Blog

Flightplan

I saw Flightplan over the weekend and I can't figure out what all the fuss is about. Look, it's a convoluted psychological thriller (that's the polite way of saying a thriller without a lot of action) that is an entertaining way to spend a couple of hours. I thought Jodie Foster did a good job of playing a mother driven past the breaking point by the death of her husband and the kidnapping of her daughter, and Sean Bean did his usual good job playing the captain of the plane she was on. Given that the discussion will contain spoilers, I'm hiding it behind the extended entry feature, unless you come here via a link to the post itself, in which case if you don't want the thrill to be spoiled, read no further.

OK, now we can talk freely. First, Debbie Schlussel savaged the movie (in part) for having a red herring consisting of a group of Muslim men on board the flight who the movie hints are terrorists. The problem with this is as a red herring isn't Ms. Schlussel's complaint that it makes you question "your suspicions of Arab Muslims, to think you are unfair and prejudiced" but the impracticality of it -- Jodie Foster's character simply stops as she's running around the plane looking for her daugher and accuses them of taking her daughter without offering any possible motive. And it does make you think about the central puzzle of the movie - why kidnap someone on an airplane?

But her complaints about the depiction of an air marshal and a stewardess as the evil doers -- they aren't terrorists, they're old fashioned criminals of the murder, kidnap, and extortionist kind -- has stirred up stewardesses and their unions enough that flight attendents and their unions are calling for a boycot of the movie. On the one hand, I do sympathize with flight attendants and air marshals complaints, but it is a movie after all. And in one sense, the movie validates their trustworthyness since you aren't expected to expect their betrayel. Yes, during the 9-11 hijackings the flight crews were heroes, and I'd love to see more movies about that, but does that mean we can't ever have movie where any flight attendent is less than perfect? I think the real test is how a particular group is routinely portrayed by the media, not on a one time basis.

How thrilling would a movies be if the only bad people in them were clearly criminals at the beginning of the movie? Frankly, on a moral basis I think The Italian Job is worse because your sympathies are with a criminal gang as opposed to Flightplan where you are rooting for a widow over a seriously evil criminal -- you just don't know who the bad guy is until near the end of the movie. And while I agree with David Ross at Libertas that there are real world consequences to media stereotypes, I don't think a single film rises to the level of stereotype.

Take Me Out

If you watched the Cardinals lose to the Astros Tuesday night on TV, you saw my nephew Zach. He was about 4 rows behind home plate, and offset such that the he was smack dab in the middle of the centerfield shot of the batter. My sister-in-law let us know he was on, and after watching him munch on the "free" food that comes with those seats for a while, my son got the bright idea of calling him on his cell phone. So we waiting for the commercial break to end and then called him. There is something oddly exhilerating about watching somebody answer their cell phone on TV when you are on the other end. But we kicked the exhileration up a notch when my son told him to wave and he did. That my friends is the pinnacle of interactive TV, right there. Watching your nephew/cousin wave to you live on TV.

I haven't ever watched a spectator in a crowd before (on TV, that is), and there were some things I'd never noticed before. Like how Zach would look to his left after every pitch - I'm assuming to see the replay on the big screen. But it was downright spooky to watch the people in the stands on a pop up - all their heads snapping upward and then tracking the ball in unison. After that, I'm kind of glad I never did watch the crowd in the TV picture before, although the scientist in me will now be tempted to start comparing crowd action during different sporting events.

All's Well

I've been busy, and had a hiccup with the site, so I haven't posted in a week. And per usual, my hits have gone up when I don't post. But as I'm all about giving my readers what they don't want, here's a post. Although considering how misinformed you are if you read the first draft of history, perhaps I should simply post with a weeks delay. Not that there's anything wrong with Delay, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm covering anything up.

Few things get me steamed like other drivers, and today was worse than usual. I had to pick up my son from school so we could go see my daughter's water polo game, and meetup with my wife along the way. Normally not a problem, but it rained today, and rain seems to suck the ability out of drivers. When my son reported that I'd yelled at four other drivers on the way, my thought was "is that all?", but I said out loud "they all deserved it" -- which they did. The truck that decided that he was in the wrong lane and just moved over forcing me to change lanes; the pickup that made a right turn without slowing at a red light in front of me deserved both the yelling and the horn blowing; the people who stopped in a middle of a right turn because the cars going straight were splashing water on their cars (yes, I said people because about 3 people in front of me did that exact same thing and no, I didn't stop when I made my turn and my car got splashed with water because I actually know how to drive a car); the car with headlights off coming at me over the centerline and into my lane all deserved to be yelled at and worse, but all they got was the yelling. Needless to say, yet still spoken, I didn't get yelled at once all night. Not even by my teenage daughter.

Always Room For One More

Tom McMahon has a fun blog, but he has this bad habit of going to blogs and getting banned. First it was Electrolite. OK, he wasn't banned, he just had all the vowels removed from comments the Haydens didn't care for. Then it was Cynical-C blog where the proprietor banned him from commenting. But that was just the warm up, because when he was banned at NoodleFood, he wasn't just banned, he was condemned to hell along with it. I kid you not. The craziest thing about it is that Tom is such a mild commenter - calm, patient, insult free - which seems to drive wackos nuts. I mean, what set off Diana at NoodleFood off was that he, brace yourself, quoted a line from Amazing Grace which caused huge foaming at the mouth, and when she discovered that he had a link, a link mind you, to National Review, which periodically runs a negative review of Atlas Shrugged, that's when she fell over backwards, and not only banned Tom from her site, but in full atheist majesty flung him straight into the pit of hell with Whittaker Chambers. As Dave Berry would say, you can't make this stuff up.

It sounded like so much fun, I linked to my negative review of Atlas Shrugged (which the online version of National Review ran seven years ago - my how time flies) in his comments. So Tom graciously has reprinted my review of Atlas Shrugged so that I too can go straight to hell with him and Whittaker. Since I knew it was coming, I made pitcher of ice water to take with me for Tom and Whittaker. And if you want to join us there, you can let Tom know of your negative review of Atlas Shrugged.

Proper Villains

The funWife and I watched Sahara over the weekend. I enjoyed the breezy buddy action part, but it had a big problem. No, not the part where the helicopter had a limitless supply of ammo, but the the McGuffin in Hitchcockese. As Dirty Harry at the Liberty Film festival notes in a post about how Hollywood wouldn't be able to make Jaws again:

I don’t think so because the straight-forwardness of the script would be lost in today’s agenda-driven Hollywood.

I think a woman would be put on the boat. Probably in the Dreyfus role. Not because she would be better – who could possibly be better than Dreyfus? – but for politically correct reasons. And she’d of course be a liberal environmentalist feminist who would remind us ad nauseum sharks don’t normally do this. And finally we’d learn the shark attack is “our” fault. That man, specifically America - specifically corporate America - had committed some environmental crime that affected the shark’s natural habitat, and with no choice the shark came to Amity to feed. In other words, poetic justice liberal style.

So in Sahara we have Penelope Cruz as a WHO doctor who's character could have been male and it would have changed nothing. And the McGuffan is toxic waste that not only is poisoning the groundwater in the desert(!), but is about to reach the ocean, react with salt water, and destroy all marine life worldwide. The bad guy is a businessman who is incinerating hazardous waste but when there's a snag in the process carelessless stores the leaking drums in a cave. Miles and miles of concrete and steel, lavish spare no expense set up, high tech computer controled facility, but they store leaking toxic waste in a cave that apparently is just above an underground river. Why o why couldn't they have just had an evil African dictator who was trying to cover up an actual plague as the bad guy - or even a bunch of long lost Confederates (as in American Civil War) who were running the show in Mali and trying to cover up a plague so that nobody would investigate and discover their secret existance? Because then it wouldn't be about the evils of businessmen and pollution.

As Forrest Gump would say, stupid is as stupid does.

Burn Me Once

North Korea has agreed to give up its nukes,in exchange for aid. Again. Let's hope that this time, they mean it. And President Bush seems to have updated Ronald Reagans' slogan from the eighties: Trust, but verify. Now its just verify.

Talk Like A Pirate Day

I discovered it was Talk Like A Pirate Day when somebody managed to sneak a Talk Like A Pirate slide into the weekly staffmeeting slideshow this morning that would appear whenever a slide sat there long enough. Shiver me timbers, that was like finding buried treasure, mateys.

The Speech

Last night was a big TV night what with Survivor and the President. Maybe they should have had the president in a Mayan ruin too, talking about how civilizations could implode from poor land use. I did watch President Bush, but I didn't care much for the speech. I had several thoughts, like:

There goes the domestic agenda!

The Military as first responder? NO!

Let's reinforce success, not failure!

He's channeling FDR, not RWR!

OK, I it was the broad sweep of the speach I didn't care for, but I did like a lot of the details (we need lots of Inspectors General). Maybe I wasn't the target demographic.

In other news, now that the French Quarter is reopening, NBC news is opening a bureau in New Orleans and Brian Williams will be going there to party and work on his tan during the winter months on a regular basis.

The 800 Pound Gorilla

Watch out, Technorati, here comes Google Blog Search. I guess that means that blogs really have hit the big time. I'm just hoping it doesn't mean more spam.

Failure

There are a lot of people who distrust markets, and who are pretty quick to invoke the concept of market failure. While I typically trust markets more than politicians, there are times when I do think markets fail. I'm not thinking the energy business because the biggest market failures I see are in the press and movie business.

Newspapers and network newscasts are shedding customers at a rate that a straight line extrapolation will put them out of business sooner rather than later. Their main asset, credibility, is eroding just as quickly. Bernard Goldberg was only partly right with his book "Bias" -- as "Lousy" would have been a better description. The bias has become so bad mainly because the whole system is rotten. Rather than listen to the market, i.e their customers, the press is in full defense mode and consumers continue to leave. The message from the press has become the only thing wrong with the news media is that people are stupid, don't like being told the truth, and just don't appreciate the news. My local paper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, is somewhere between awful and terrible - with a few notable exceptions. They got rid of their ombudsman a few years ago, someone I came to respect, and now you have to contact people direct with any problems. And that's when you run into just how smug and arrogant journalists have become. We only get the paper for the coupons anymore - the overall news value is less than zero. But they were bought out by another chain and the look "updated" -- while my older eyes appreciate the increase in readability and whitespace (which I wonder is just a way to cut down on content), the rest of the changes are generally poor and seem to be driven not by usability but some designers color palate - where the colors used to provide information (like on the weather page or in the financial section) now they are just accents with no information content. Two aphorisms come to mind - they just put lipstick on a pig, and you can't polish a turd. But hey, why do the hard work of putting out a quality newspaper when you can do a redesign of the look instead. Fox News is killing the opposition because they put out a better (which doesn't necessarily mean good) product.

And the movie business seems to be run not based on making money but on making films some good leftists think you ought to see and making films that only teenagers would watch to pay the bills. I like movies. I like going to movie theaters, I like renting them, I like buying really good ones because just owning a great movie makes me feel all warm and tingly inside. I am denied these simple pleasures because Hollywood insists on making crap unfit for human consumption. The hottest properties in Hollywood are either extensions of old work like LOTR and Star Wars or comic books. Comic Books! I happen to enjoy comic books, and still own quite a few (make me an offer and they can be yours) but I don't want a steady diet of comic book based movies. I want epics, I want small movies, I want family movies, I want grown up movies, I want movies with intellegent dialogue, and I would really like to see comedies that don't insult you. Is that really too much to ask for? Why did a movie like My Big Fat Greek Wedding have such difficulty in being made? Why are there so few movies like Sideways -- aimed at the above 35 crowd? Why, after the huge success of The Passion of the Christ were there no copycats. C'mon, copycatting successful movies has been a staple of Hollywood since D.W Griffith. Here's a movie that made like $400 million dollars and brought people to the theater who hadn't been in years, and what's the followup? Kingdom of Heaven. That thud was the sound of a turd hitting the screen, and by a great director too. How could they have botched Troy and Alexander so badly when the source material was so good? If you can make Les Miserables into a musical, how can you fail at making the Illiad into an epic?

Heres a case where there is a market clamoring for one thing, but suppliers not providing it, and leaving money on the table doing so. That to me is one huge market failure.

Poverty

Katrina has put poverty on, well, the middle burner these days. An op-ed in the Post Dispatch by Francie Broderick linked Katrina with recent roll backs in Medicaid coverage in Missouri noted this exchange thoughts it inspired:

"Two years ago, I was in Jefferson City when legislators debated the question of saving health care and social services by raising some taxes and closing some corporate loopholes. A woman opposing this approach literally shouted in my ear: "People should take care of themselves." I made the mistake of responding. "Some people simply can't," I said, to which she again shouted "Well, they just have to do better."

...

Why have things changed so much? Why did we decide to let the most vulnerable fend for themselves? I think part of the answer is that we have been asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking "How do we make things better?" we have been asking what the individual has done or not done to get themselves in their situations. In other words: How is it their fault?

I think we also should be asking: What systems and policies have to change so that people can take better care of themselves and their families? What do we know that will work? How can we make it happen? "

Now, those are some excellent questions - I'm always a fan of "How do we make things better?" but I think it ignores the difference between people who can't take care of themselves (or adequately participate in a market economy) and those who won't. And for me that's a huge difference, and oddly enough one of my problems with doctrinaire libertarianism since they want to reduce the problem to one for which they already have a solution, so doctrinaire libertarians simply the problem to one in which we are all adults sound of mind and body. But we aren't and even my simple dichotomy of can't and won't isn't so simple in real life as there aren't simple binary functions of can/can't and will/won't, let alone can't/won't.

So if you look at the poor and see the problem of poverty as one of people who can't, one set of solutions becomes clear; if you look at the poor and see the problem of poverty as one of people how won't, a different set of solutions becomes clear. And since the tendency is that feedback from life only reinforces your previously held assumptions and beliefs, people of one camp find it hard to see the poor in any other way. I guess I look at it both ways, and that what's needed for one group won't do much for the other. For people who can't participate adequately, whether through physical or mental issues, money by itself is a significant part of the solution. For people who won't, money by itself only enables them in their won't-ness and is something that they will be able to earn once they are no longer won't-ers.

There is clearly a social/cultural aspect to poverty; I can remember watching an older writer being interviewed by Tim Russert and the writer related how he was talking to a friend of the same generation and they were talking about growing up poor during the great depression, which got them to talking about poverty today and the differences, and the writer said that the difference was that when he was growing up, the poor were middle class people without money but that being poor today is about far more than money.

Megan McArdle first looks at the poor and Katrina and has suggestions on why and how a "self-evacuation" in the face of a storm means the middle class and rich leave without difficulty and the poor stays behind. Then she effectively explores the difference between the poor and middle class, and hint, it isn't about money:

"So I think that conservatives are right that many of the poor dig themselves in deeper. But conservatives tend to take a moralistic stance towards poverty that radically underestimates how much cultural context determines our ability to make good decisions.

Sure, I go to work every day, pay my bills on time, don't run a credit card balance and don't have kids out of wedlock because I am planning for my future. But I also do these things because my parents spent twenty or so years drumming a fear of debt, unemployment, and illegitimacy into my head.

...

In other words, middle class culture is such that bad long-term decision making also has painful short-term consequences. This does not, obviously, stop many middle class people from becoming addicted to drugs, flagrantly screwing up at work, having children they can't take care of, and so forth. But on the margin, it prevents a lot of people from taking steps that might lead to bankruptcy and deprivation. We like to think that it's just us being the intrinsically worthy humans that we are, but honestly, how many of my nice middle class readers had the courage to drop out of high school and steal cars for a living?"

It is often said by advocates who only see those who can't that nobody chooses to be poor. Well, I don't choose to be fat, but I have looked in the mirror lately. So yes, some people choose to be poor, only the choice is never put in those terms. It's the sum of a whole bunch of decisions not all of which seem related. And the poor have a host of influences that lead to poor decisions; the middle class has has a host of influences that lead to better decisions. So what can we do to influence the influences? And how much can government do as part of that influence? I leave these as excercises for the reader.

And to round out the trifecta, I turn to Joe Carter to has reposted his thoughts on the relativeness of poverty:

"I’m always hesitant to share this story because we in America tend to have a knee-jerk sympathy for the “down and out.” There are, however, many times, like in my family’s case, when pity is completely unwarranted. A lifetime of foolish decisions by my parents, rather than a dismal economy or lack of opportunity, led to our being poor. We reaped what they had sowed.

But while being poor can be difficult, it isn’t the tragedy that many might be inclined to believe. From an early age I knew that while many people had more than I did, others had it much, much worse. That lesson was seared into my conscience while sitting in a pew watching Baptist missionaries present a slideshow detailing their latest mission trip. The images of true poverty gave our tiny congregation a glimpse into the everyday life in Ethiopia, a time of famine when a bucket of unshelled peanuts would be considered a feast. I was struck by the realization that as little as we had, these people had less. I was white-trash Texas poor; these people were Africa poor. "

My summation is that I know as a Christian I should help those in need; but I have to be careful not just because all needs aren't equal, but all needs aren't the same. A lack of money has many causes and the best help addresses the cause even as it addresses the lack. Even rich people have needs that money cannot solve.

Katrina Ramblings 4

The press is taking some heat over the Katrina body count numbers. I don't think it's particularly fair as I don't think the press was presenting numbers like 10,000 as anything close to accurate, but as a guess -- a guess by government officials, and something of an upper bound. And there is certainly nothing wrong with reporting the quantities of body bags being requested by local and state authorities. I suppose I'm a naturaly happy guy, so I'm happy that the body count is low so far. I have no idea what the final number will be, and I'm not sure that we'll ever have a count accurate to the last dead person.

But I also think it's a bit premature to use the number so far to predict the final count. The other day while watching cable news I saw a feature from a reporter who was riding along with one of the teams sent out by boat to search in New Orleans for the dead and the living. They pulled up to a flooded house, knocked out a window, yelled inside in case there were survivors, and then sniffed inside to try to see if there were any dead bodies inside. Simple but effective, I suppose. Then they spray painted the side of the house to annotate their findings. The team told the reporter that they would have to actually physically search the building later when flood waters receded to make sure there were no dead bodies in the building. There's something to look forward to.

The Greatest Moment in Sports

It's fall, when a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of . . . sports. Football is in season, as well as soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, and a bunch of other team sports. I started to think: What has been, for me, the all-time greatest moment in sports history?

#2 is "The Catch" during the 1982 NFC championship game, when Dwight Clark leaped 30 feet in the air to catch a pass in end zone from Joe Montana to beat the Dallas Cowboys. #3 is my older brother Paul winning the 1975 Fourth of July bicycle race in Chatham Township, New Jersey. But Number One? #1 happened during halftime at a Stanford University football game, sometime during 1978-1981.

Up until The Moment, this was a Stanford football game like any other. Stanford was playing some long-forgotten team, and I was sitting in the student section. When halftime began, we were doing what college students always do: getting a beer, checking out the chicks, shading ourselves from the hot sun, and wondering why I didn't scalp my ticket and spend 3 hours working on my Physics 61 problem set with Kevin instead?

The announcer came on: "Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a special treat for you today. The Palo Alto Pee-Wee Football League will put on an exhibition game for your enjoyment. These kids are from local football teams . . ." and two pee-wee football teams trotted out onto the field.

These little kids could not have been more than 5 years old! More like 3 and 4. They were tiny! In the vastness of Stanford Stadium all I could see were these miniscule figures balancing a large football helmet on top of their little bodies. It seemed incredible that they could even onto a football with their little arms.

The pee-wees lined up at scrimmage along the 50 yard line. There was no thought of a kickoff. The announcer proclaimed a count, a hike, and then all the little guys fell down. There were some scattered cheers. Where's that beer vendor dude when you need him?

Another count, another hike, and this time I perceived a bit of motion before the little guys all fell down. Oooh, check out that babe! Yeah, she's in my karate class. That's Tracy Kristofferson.

Okay, the little tykes all fell down a third time. And here comes the announcer again, which is good because I can't see what the heck is going on down there on the field. "Ladies and Gentlemen! The Palo Alto East team has gained 15 yards, which is a first down. But we want to let the other team show their offense, so the Palo Alto West team will take over on their own 35-yard line."

Okay, that's fair. This is just an exhibition game, anyway. One set of little toy football players ran off the field, and another set came on. They lined up. They counted. They hiked.

The play they ran was a sweep, a fairly simple play where the quarterback hands off to a halfback and he runs to his right (in this case). The trick to making a sweep work is that you have to turn the corner. It's not enough to dash toward the sidelines and run out of bounds; at some point you have to get to the side of the field ahead of the defending team, turn left, and run down the field. You hope to get to your turning point before the defenders through surprise or sheer speed.

Okay, Palo Alto West is running a sweep. It'll never work - they'll just chase him down. Thanks for the beer, dude. Keep the change. (Sip.) Ah, that tastes good!

Son-of-gun, they're still running their sweep. Holy Moses! I think that little guy is going to turn the corner! Yes, he's making it!! He's almost in the clear!!!

Little kids just can't run very fast, even the superbly trained athletes in the Palo Alto Pee-Wee Football League. The hilarious thing about The Moment was how incredibly slowly it developed! Yes! He's across the 50-yard line, and he's got a couple of defenders closing in on him in slow motion from the side! Go, little kid, go!!!

And now he's across the 40-yard line! Time seems to stand still, or at least move very slowly. By now the activity on the field has attracted the attention of the entire stadium, and the fans have dropped what they are doing and woken up to the fact that Something Exciting is happening on the field! The cheers are starting to build louder and louder!

He's across the 30-yard line! And . . . inch . . . by . . . painful . . . inch . . . he is pulling away from his pursuers! Oh my gosh, I think that little guy is going to make it all the way!!!

He crosses the 20! By now the entire stadium is on its feet and 70,000 people are screaming at the top of their lungs! "Go, Go, GO!!!" There's a tiny bit of daylight between Our Hero and the two remaining defensive backs who are still giving chase! I still can't believe how slowly this is happening.

The 10-yard line! The roar of the fans is deafening!!! The announcer must be hollering, too, but he's totally drowned out by the crowd! I am dimly aware of something cold and wet and carbonated running down my leg and into my shoe.

TOUCHDOWN ! ! ! Stanford Stadium absolutely explodes in a cataclysm of sound!!! The cheers, the laughter, the screams of pure joy are absolutely overwhelming!!! That was fantastic!

The exhibition game is over, and the poor little kid is obviously exhausted from running 70 yards at his top speed. He hands the football to the ref, and is swarmed by his happy teammates. Everybody in the stands gives the Palo Alto Pee-Wee Football League a huge standing ovation for their thrilling demonstration of the joy of sport!

Were you there at this game? Do you remember this moment? Can you recall any additional information that I have garbled in my account? If so, please add your perspective to the Comment section of this post.

Nap Time Is Over

For the first time in a long time, I had no children in sports, I had no duties in Scouting, I had loads of leisure time on my hands. No practices, no games, no event planning and preparation, just feet up. But then my daughter joined the Water Polo team at school. Now we're back to practices and games. At least I only have to pick her up every other night after practice. I'm forced to conclude all leisure is fleeting and advise you to gather your feet up time while ye may.

Katrina Ramblings 3

Barack Obama has made some fine speeches and is hailed by Democrats as a true national leader but I wonder if I'm the only one offended by has statement that the huge influx of volunteers and donations shows that Americans were ashamed by what happened. I can only speak for me and others of my acquaintance when I say that my donation was sparked not by shame but pity. I want to alleviate the sufferings of others, and I understand that government can only do so much -- and besides, all that government has it has because of us, the American people. We'll pay one way or another, and I'd just as soon have some of my money funneled through organizations I think will do a good job and spend wisely. If anything, I'm embarrassed by all the carping by people who aren't affected and especially the political partisan posturing of people who put party before basic human decency.

He also said Katrina revealed "huge systemic problems" in emergency response systems at all levels of government. I think the best reading of the evidence to date is that it isn't systemic at all, but confined to New Orleans by nature of its geography which provides for the twin whammies of hurricane followed by flooding and to New Orleans and Louisiana by nature of the gross incompetence of their current government officials who really ought to be horsewhipped. But since such pleasures are rightfully denied to us, does this mean that Senator Obama is calling for the recall of Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin for their manifest unfitness to hold office? I doubt it, after all, he's fine with his party in Congress being led by the unbearable duo of Pelosi and Reid. But honestly, there is a long road of recovery before us, and given the huge failures of Blanco and Nagin to date, is it likely that they will improve when it comes to spending the billions upon billions of dollars that will be thrown their way during the recovery and reconstruction?

I have a feeling that what the Senator has in mind, along with many others when they talk this way, is to completely federalize disaster planning and relief. But just because the local and state authorities failed in Louisiana doesn't mean we need to overhaul a system that has worked in other times and places. Instead of concentrating on state and local disaster planning and relief, which where the problem is, they want to concentrate on the feds, where the problem wasn't, and ignore the number one source of planning and relief, which is victims and bystanders. In other words, I don't think the best response is to overhaul one of the agencies that worked but ignore the agencies that didn't. Then you will have a huge, system problem, despite all the good intentions in the world.

Four Years Later

Today is the fourth anniversary of 9/11. I cannot think of anything witty, wise, touching, or insightful, in part because as I type one child is practicing the viola and the other is practicing the piano. But I suppose that is a good sign -- instead of apocalypse, there is normalcy at home. When the news came that New Orleans was flooded, I knew it was a natural, not al-Qaida disaster. I don't worry when I watch a ball game that the stadium will go up in a gout of fire; I don't worry during large, symbolic events that disaster lurks in the shadows. The fighting is distant, and the struggle now is chiefly fought by means other than death and destruction. Our hand is reaching out to help far more than it is clenched to strike. Yes, an enemy strikes at our allies, and our soldiers in far off lands, but at home there is a measure of safety for us but denied to our enemies. And we are winning the war by every measure - Islamic fascism is less strong, less popular, is losing ground world wide. The war is not over, and likely to be a generational struggle, but this war is the rarest of wars as it now looks to leave the world better off than when it started. The greatest danger to us is complacently, of stopping or turning our attention away too soon, because our enemy certainly hasn't given up, and could unleash far worse than 4 airplanes.

Katrina Ramblings 2

Complaints about FEMA are nothing new. I remember in the 1993 floods people were bitching about how slow, ackward, and bureaucratic the organization was. I don't recall anyone claiming that the percieved poor response showed that President Clinton didn't like poor white people, which was the group mostly affected by the flooding around here. There were complaints following every major disaster I can think of, and the larger the disaster, the more the complaints. And why not, FEMA the organization consists of bureaucrats at the top and then an ad hoc conglomeration of disparate parts put together for a particular mission. Of course it's going to take time to get it's act together, and the more resources it has to meld, the longer it takes. And we have come to believe that somehow because it ultimately has the full resources of the country at its disposal, it can do anything. Yes, but as Scotty would say if he were alive today, FEMA can't change the laws of physics.

And yes, they are a part of the government, which means that they have to do all the stupid things we, the people, make government do. Like make sure everybody's sexual harrassment training is up to date. Don't you have to have some sort of sexual harrassment training at your place of employment? Hey, if we can dispense with it in an emergency, why do we need it all? Are you saying sexual harrassment is OK?

Micky Kaus is going on about the problems of Federalism, and sums up with: "When things screw up, these days, we hold the president and the federal government responsible. It follows that the president and the federal government should have the power to stop things from screwing up. ... " Hey Mickey, maybe we shouldn't hold the president and federal government responsible (I know I don't - so there's one vote no). Should we forget about the separation of powers (which isn't just between executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government BTW) in extreme situations? Would it be better in an emergency if we just had one man on a white horse who could simply order whatever needed to be done? How many tyrants have seized power under just such a pretext? Who decides how when it is just such an emergency? Such a move ignores the centuries of hardwon experience on why such a separation is ultimately a better way. Nor is it clear that a single edict issuer is better. If it's better in an emergency, why isn't it better all the time? You have to understand there are tradeoffs, and one system may be better one thing than another, but you have to pick what's best overall. And that doesn't even address the fact that every management study shows you're better off pushing authority down, not concentrating it upward.

It reminds me of my aerodynamic days, and people would ask me to optimize the performance. I'd ask them back, "When you say performance, are you talking range or maneuverability?" Invariably I'd get the reply, "Both". Then I'd have to get midieval on their heinies, because at that point it was obvious they didn't have a clue about optimization.

I wonder if there would be so many complaints about FEMA if (1) Bush Derangement Syndrome didn't infect so many media types (CNN needs to find a cure stat) and (2) the dunderheads in Louisiana concentrated two enourmous crowds of helpless people - one at the Superdome and one at the convention center. And then they wouldn't let relief in, nor would they let the people out - and then they had to scrounge transportation since they let hurricane destroy all the local buses. How much more poignant could they have made the story?

Now is all this a defense of FEMA? No, not really. I suppose it's a defense of FEMA for what it is, not what it should be. First, because after the two big screwups at the local level - no evacuation except self evacuation, and turning away the Red Cross and the Salvation Army from entering New Orleans, all you're left with on FEMA is that it does what a Federal Agency does best - spend a hell of a lot of money to slowly do something while making damn sure it compleis with every law and every proceedure that has been set upon it in advance (otherwise known as "red tape"). And they aren't first responders, they were an organization that plugs in resources to local leadership. Since the local leadership doesn't have a clue as to what to do, FEMA couldn't provide adequate resources. And that's why you saw the announcement over the weekend that FEMA was now an equal partner, and the LANG would be closely coordinating with Gen Honore. So what happens when local leadership sucks (like this instance?) Well, the people who picked that leadership suffers. Isn't that part of the accountablity politicians have to voters, and ultimately voters have to each other?

Come What May

Just in case the Katrina coverage has you all flipped out, for a mere half a million dollars you can buy a place where you can be safe and secure come what may - even if that includes nuclear bombs and anthrax spores. Not recommended for people who like people.

California, Gays, Marriage

And in other news, the California legislature has redefined marriage to be between two persons. Governor Schwarzenegger has to sign the bill for it to take effect. I hope he doesn't. But at least the process is right - no judge's fiat, no official ignoring the law.

UPDATE: Governor Schwarzenegger has said he will veto the bill because it conflicts with an initiative passed in 2000 that prevents California from recognizing same sex marriages performed in other states. I suppose the Governor is sensitive to such initiatives since they have formed the backbone of his programs in California. It could also just be cover for a political decision that he would like to avoid.

Rocky Mountain High

We spent some time in Rocky Mountain National Park last summer. The second day we went for a hike up to cub lake. We parked the car at the trail head in valley and started walking. You could look up and see where we were going:

At first we were stayed on the valley floor. It really was beautiful, surrounded by the mountains, walking through a pleasant meadow. Then we came to more rocky terrain, and started to wind our way around some rock bluffs:

We started climbing more, the trees and brush thinned and the rocks thickened. We came across this huge split rock, an example that water always wins:

We went from a dirt path to a rock path; we went from gentle ups and the occasional down to a steady uphill climb; we went from joggers to no joggers (at least that we could see). We were in a lush forest and felt good to be alive. My wife gently urged me on when I would stop to take a picture:

Up and up we went. The fruit didn't like all the stops the fearless leaders were making and asked if they could go on ahead. Begone! Still the trail climbed up. "How much further?" we asked people coming the other way. "You're almost there!" they would reply. A young couple passes us as we slowly pick our way ever upward. The rocks give way to dirt again and another jogger comes down the mountain. At last the path flattens, but no lake. But with the flat comes a second wind, and off we go, until at last our destination, Cub Lake, is in sight:

The sheer joy of arriving mingles with the serene beauty of the lake as we simply sit and admire the view. And eat apples and granola bars. A, lunch al fresco!

When we leave Estes Park and RMNP, we leave going over the top of the world via Trail Ridge Road. This road spends an inordinate time at or above 12,000 feet, which aggravates my acrophobia to near fatal levels. I have to admit, when we'd crossed over and were descending on the other side of the continental divide my fear was much less, apparently by giving it to my wife. I'm glad we stopped along the way to breath the frigid air and take in the view, although at the time when my wife would pull off a perfectly good road and head towards the brink of the precipice I thought my heart would stop it was beating so hard. Fortunately it kept going so I was able to get this wonderful shot of the valley below:

We went on to Glenwood Springs that afternoon, but our next installment will be about Elk.

Katrina Ramblings

I still haven't seen an explanation as good as Carl's in his comment to an earlier post of mine (Dutch Uncle) as to why the levees failed where and when they did. Putting it into my own words, since a hurricane's winds blow counter-clockwise, they cause a counter-clockwise movement of water -- the storm surge. This surge moved from the Gulf of Mexico into Lake Pontchartrain (which is connected to the ocean both by open water and low lying marsh) as part of the counter clockwise movement - and was concentrated in Lake Pontchartrain (thus raising its level) because inlets concentrate storm surges. As Katrina passed, the winds shifted and blew out of the north, thus piling the water in the Lake up against the levees on the south side of the lake -- the north side of New Orleans, and ultimately overtopped some which led to their failure. I doubt any level can withstand being overtopped for very long becuase of the enourmous erosion power generated by the flowing water, and the higher the levee, the greater the erosion. Geography as destiny. Because hurricanes rotate counter-clockwise, and New Orleans is south of large "lake" (inlet really) that opens to the ocean to the east, was the site inherently prone to being swamped by a storm surge? What if the geography was mirror imaged east-west, with the ocean and the inlet to Lake Ponchartrain to the west, would that site see much lower storm surges?

I suppose the only solace to take in the vast destruction is that this represents a worst case combination of catastrophes - hurricane and flooding (which contra Chertoff in the case of New Orleans are not just linked but expected in a storm the magnitude of Katrina). Typically when you have flooding, that's the only damage, or if you have a hurricane, thats all the damage, and the same goes for earthquakes, tornados, mudslides, etc. But New Orleans put a gun to it's head and then let any hurricane of sufficient strength pull the trigger. Normally evacuations don't occur with the surrounding area out of commision. Still, I'm considering keeping a one week supply of necessities on hand in case of a local emergency.

There is no comparison between Hurricane Katrina (or more properly, the devastation caused by Katrina) and 9-11 (or more properly, the devastation caused by al-Qaide on 9-11). Well, you can compare the death tolls, and you can compare the response both here in America and around the world, but the devastation of Katrina far outstrips 9-11. Katrina devasted a large regions that covers multiple states and includes several medium sized cities; 9-11 devastated several square blocks in a giant city and damaged a huge office building. For Katrina lives hung in the balance for days, possibly even a couple of weeks; 9-11 was all over by nightfall of the first day. Katrina was a natural disaster or heroic proportions; 9-11 was a mass murder carried out on a scale rarely seen outside government. So trying to compare the governmental response to the two simply doesn't make sense because responding to 9-11 was piece of cake compared to Katrina.

My church will be helping out with some 300 families from New Orleans that will be housed in the old prison in Gumbo Flats (now known as Chesterfield Valley). Why yes, the prison was under water during the '93 flood. It's expected that most of the people will try to restart their lives here in St. Louis and so will move out when able. They should be arriving today.

I'm weary of all the people making claims about what should have been done, how much faster it could have been done, etc. Some claims are simply disgusting and absurd, like Bush wasn't interested in helping poor black people. Many claims are simply grasping at straws, and bear the earmarks of blind partisan carping. Frankly, what I've read so far makes the best case that the worst failures -- and of a very long standing nature -- were at the local level and the most dithering at the state level. But FEMA may have to be renamed Federal Emergency Mismanagement Agency after their performance, which has only been made worse by the poor TV performance of it's head, coupled with the poor TV performance of the head of Homeland Security, both of whom I wouldn't trust to get me out of a tree with a ladder in their hands after watching them. And quite frankly I'm a little tired of any organizaiton in New Orleans complaining about how outsiders are to blame for not rescuing them from there folly fast enough.

The New Orleans police department has taken a lot of heat over its performance in Katrina. I'd like to ask for a little understanding, since the only difference between the people who were sitting on their butts saying I need to be taken care of and the police on duty who were expected to take care of them is that the police were members of the police force. Other than that, they were the same. They'd been through the same devastation, lost everything, had access to the same information and supplies, yet they were expected to keep on going. Many did and deserve our praise. Many didn't, but I don't see that they deserve our scorn. Could they have performed better - absolutely, and if they had been better prepared (just like everybody else), they probably would have.

In summation, can we all work together on the task at hand, work on recovering from the damage, work on insuring every town and state is ready for the next natural or manmade disaster, and remove partisan politics from the inquiry into what went wrong and what went right. Because if all we want to do is blame particular individuals because of their political affiliation, we are not going to be ready for the next challange, and for all those who so want to fix the blame the blame on a polical basis, the blame will belong to you.

Don't Forget

I understand and whole heartedly agree that we need to give to relief agencies to help the victims of Katrina. But let me point out that you should continue to give to charities that you have supported in the past, whether local, national, and/or foriegn because those needs have not gone away just because there was a natural disaster on the gulf coast. The best giving plan is flexible to handle crises as they arise but not be driven by them.

Dutch Uncle

OK, I can't resist. I just want to settle one thing. New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. It was built to withstand a category 3 hurricane. It got hit by a category 4. It drowned. No matter who was President, no matter what treaties were signed, no matter what money was spent on the levee system, it was not designed to withstand a category 4 hurricane like Katrina. And before we start blaming the good people of New Orleans for living like that, I doubt there's a major city in the United States built to withstand a possible natural disaster, from earthquake to volcano to hurricane to tornado to forest fire to you get the idea.

Let me balance that with a couple of worthwhile Katrina posts:

It's a quagmire and Submarines.

The Long Shadow

Last night my wife asked me to change the channel on the Katrina coverage since it was too depressing. Death, destruction, the breakdown in order, all with little relief in sight. I suppose if I were a better writer, I could write something worth reading, but I'm not. So yes, by all means contribute to relief agencies like The Salvation Army which has done a great job at disaster relief for years.

Better that than bicker and backstab and rant and rave. There's a time and a place for all that, but not now. We need to work the priorities, and fault assessing doesn't rate highly at a time like this. I can respect the bitchiness of people actually trapped in the nightmare, not those on the outside who take any event as confirmation of their ongoing rightness.

Yes, it's frustrating to see how much bad it is, and wonder what's taking so long. But let's review. Something like million people have fled their homes. Something like 100,000 are left in New Orleans and need to get out. There's no power, areas are flooded, roads and bridges are out, and the people left have no transportation of their own. The states workers providing relief have suffered varying amounts of damage of their own. So what's the hold up? The latest holdup is the breackdown in order which has led to shots being fired at rescuers. I never thought it would come to his, but why not shoot looters, or at least people who shoot at law enforcement, refugee caravans, search and rescue operations, or menace hospitals.

Once we're past the crisis of saving people, we can recriminate to the cows come home, but we'll be faced with another issue - what are we going to do with 1 million refugees? What is going to happen to their lives? How many will return if it takes 4 months (or more) for the city to be drained, cleaned, and rebuilt? Who can sit out that long and not face financial ruin? And is that the best use of finite resources?