The View From The Ground

The Day After 10 Years

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 23:37:00 +0000

As I write this, I am sitting in my kitchen, listening to the usual sounds of a house full of children: a laugh here, a whine there, a grunt from the 13-soon-to-be-14 year old. It is the 12th of September, 2011. 10 years and one day after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After several days of watching nearly-nonstop coverage of the anniversary, it is becoming almost reflexive to change the channel when something comes on related to "the event". To be sure, the 10th Anniversary of anything is an important date. The 10th Anniversary of an attack that resulted in the deaths of nearly 3,000 fellow human beings in the span of a couple of hours, and dozens, perhaps hundreds, more (mostly firefighters and other emergency personnel) from exposure to the toxic stew that surrounded the site for months is something you just don't ignore.

Yet, I find myself wanting to.

Like hundreds of my colleagues in both of my chosen professions across many agencies, I responded to the World Trade Center as a member of University Hospital EMS (UH-EMS) that day, performing what individually would be an insignificant role in the management of the sick and injured, though surely was an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. My total time at the site, either at One Police Plaza (where I was working with my boss, whose job it was to help coordinate the New Jersey EMS response into the City) or at West and Chambers Streets, where the EMS command post combining the top managers for FDNY*EMS and UH-EMS was located, was something under 18 hours. I don't remember the exact times.

I do remember walking in the door to my apartment in Bayonne, NJ, on Wednesday morning, my trouser legs and boots covered in dust, and seeing the relief on my wife's face. I did speak with her sometime during the night (it was very difficult to get a cellular signal at all that day), and she did know that I was safe, but that's not the same thing as knowing I was okay. At least, not until she actually saw me.

Dave Lemagne

Thankfully, out of all the dead, I knew just one person directly, Port Authority Police Officer David P. Lemagne who, prior to reaching his goal of becoming an officer with the bi-state agency, was a Paramedic with UH-EMS and the Jersey City Medical Center EMS.

I was often the recipient of some of Dave's wisdom, some of it heart-felt, some of it wise cracking. One of his mantras was "fail to plan...plan to fail." Yes, it's almost cliche' but it worked for Dave.

So, now it's ten years later. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm finding it harder and harder to square what I saw and did that day and experienced in the weeks and months that followed with all the outpouring of anguish and gnashing of teeth I'm hearing now. (Although, though I can't stand the term "closure", I see less of this now that the mastermind behind the attacks, Osama Bin Laden, was afforded the opportunity to meet his Maker by US Navy SEALS). I realize that with so many people who died, nearly everyone in the area knew somebody who didn't come home that night. The trend I see on places like Facebook, however, leads me to believe that a far higher number of people feel the need to say something, anything, regardless of any lack of personal connection to the day.

As we get farther and farther from September 11th, 2001, there will be fewer folks who were directly or indirectly affected by the events, so that for most people their knowledge of the World Trade Center will be something like my knowledge of Pearl Harbor, which happened almost 30 years before I was born. This is fine. I've always been more of a person who believes that forgetting history condemns us to repeating it.

I just don't want to repeat it in twelve-hour blocks every year on every news and documentary channel on cable, except, maybe, The History Channel.

Mr. Crawford Goes to Washington

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:26:00 +0000

I made my first phone call to a federal political figure the other day.

No, it wasn't the President of the United States (can you actually call the President, like Annette Bening did in The American President?). It wasn't the Speaker of the House Boehner, Minority Leader Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid or Minority Leader McConnell. Wasn't either of my two senators, or even my Representative, Jon Runyan.

It was Representative Eric "Rick" Crawford, Republican of Arkansas.

US Rep. Eric "Rick"
Crawford (R-AR)

Ordinarily, I wouldn't really care what a Republican (or Democrat, for that matter) from another state, to say nothing of a state so vastly different than mine, does in the course of his service to his constituents and the nation, given that they are primarily serving the people who elected them. However, in this day and age of the 24-hour-news cycle, where the news outlets are only to happy to shove a microphone and camera in the face of any backbencher from either party that they happen to come across and ask them their opinion on the day's hot topics, what any of them say or do is likely to have an effect on how people think, completely out of proportion to their actual influence in Congress.

And so it is with the current debate on the debt ceiling, where the vast majority of the freshman members of the House of Representatives have taken to heart the tenets of the so-called Tea Party, and pledged to not raise the legal limit on the amount of money that can be borrowed by the federal government, without first extracting major concessions from the Obama Administration - these concessions being deep, deep cuts (so deep, I don't think most people realize how much they will affect the ordinary people of New Jersey, Arkansas or the other 48 states) in federal spending on the order of several trillion dollars over 10 years, and no tax increases. Lately, some of these proposals also include a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution, which stands no chance of being ratified by both houses and two thirds of State Legislatures. But like Don Quixote, some folks are content to tilt at windmills, regardless of potential consequences to the nation's economy and the health of the world economic system, of which we are an integral part.

Which brings me to Representative Crawford. The incident, if you will, that prompted me to contact Mr. Crawford (or more accurately, the pleasant young lady who answered the phone in his Washington office) was an article published in the July 14th edition of The Washington Post, entitled "GOP dissent complicates path to resolving debt-ceiling crisis".(Find the story at http://wapo.st/qftUcI) At the conclusion of the article, Mr. Crawford, after being asked if he explained, to constituents that contacted him, the predicted consequences of not raising the ceiling, said this:

“I think that’s probably an arrogant attitude to take, that I know more than they do,” Crawford said. “I’m trying to represent my district in Washington, and not Washington in my district.”

At first, this nearly caused me to fall out of my chair. Very quaint, this notion of Mister-Crawford-goes-to-Washington, but either incredibly naive or monumentally conceited. Or, quite possibly, both.

Now, I'm not taking issue with the statement that he is trying to represent his district in Washington, and not the other way around. That is, after all, the basic job description of a member of the House of Representatives. The strength of our Representative democracy lies in the diverse backgrounds of the folks that speak for the people in the houses of the national legislature. To think, however, that you should only consider the opinions of the people whom you represent on matters of national import, whether it be defense spending, the debt ceiling, or Medicare, the actions of a few can have damaging repercussions for the many. And the first part of that quote, that he believes it arrogant to think that he knows more than his constituents do, is the real problem.

Yes, Mr. Crawford, you do know more than they do. Or, at least you should, at $174,000 per year, not to mention all the perks that go with being a Member of Congress. Even if you are not a member of a committee that deals directly with financial affairs (and as a member of the Agriculture and Transportation & Infrastructure Committees, Mr. Crawford isn't), it is still incumbent upon members to know everything they can reasonably know about a subject that they might have to vote on. To do otherwise is a dereliction of duty.

The young lady who answered the phone in his Washington office, after politely listening to me tell her that he should know more than his constituents just as Mr. Runyan should know more than me, thanked me for my comments, and added that his quote was "taken out of context". That was as automatic an answer if I've ever heard one, but probably the easiest way to end what must be one of dozens of similar conversations.

I can't say that I envy Mr. Crawford, or the other 62 members of Congress that sent a letter to the President saying fugheddaboudit on raising the ceiling. For if they vote "no" and all manner of calamity come to pass (as the President, the entire leadership of the Congress, the Treasury Secretary, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and both Standard & Poor's and Moody's have indicated), they will be ensuring themselves an unwanted place in the history books, and will quite possibly find themselves out of office, since November 2012 is far enough away for the consequences to sink in, and allow their potential opponents to come up with the most imaginative attack ads possible. If they vote "yes" they will incur the wrath of a vocal segment of the folks back home who elected them to do something else, and will quite possibly find themselves out of office, since November 2012 is far enough away for their potential opponents to come up with the most imaginative attack ads possible.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Why John McCain Lost My Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:06:00 +0000

Back in 2000, when he was running for President the first time, I thought John McCain was a fine example of what a candidate should be. Spoke his mind, and told people things they didn't really want to hear. Strangely enough, people actually listened to him, and more than a few voted for him in the New Hampshire primaries. The "Straight Talk Express" was never more so. Some of my more progressive friends weren't all that happy to hear that I would have voted for McCain over Gore. Or maybe they thought I was out of my mind.

But then came South Carolina, and through typical Republican internecine warfare, an opportunity lost.

Fast forward to 2008. Even after playing the good soldier over the past eight years, there always seemed to be that quality in him that he would rather be right than President. New Hampshire, again, helped resurrect his campaign against a somewhat anemic Republican field. At the time, everyone, including me, thought that Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee, and that this would be an election campaign between two worthy opponents.

Well, it still was between two deserving opponents, only Barack Obama was the Democratic standard-bearer. For some reason, the wheels came off in the weeks afterward.

It has been no secret amongst those who know me that I think that as one of the most important choices a candidate can make during a campaign for President of the United States, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska was woefully inadequate, picked, it seemed, to shore up the all-important "base" of the Republican Party, who viewed McCain with a considerable amount of suspicion. I can go into greater detail in future posts, but from the perspectives of national security, governmental expertise, education, and political views, it is clear that she is not the choice of most Americans, no matter how much they may agree with her positions on "values" issues.

On September 24th, McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign to hurry back to Washington to help with the $700B so-called Wall Street Bailout plan, and initially would not consider debating Obama unless and until the bailout plan was approved. As more than one person noted, a President is expected to be able to focus on more than one crisis at a time. Suspending the campaign to sell yourself to the voters as an executive to work on an essentially legislative issue was the wrong move, and did nothing to but reinforce the notion that perhaps he is more comfortable with the job that he has, rather than the job that he wanted. And then, when he got to the negotiations, several "anonymous" (probably Democratic) sources protrayed him as the least productive member of the group.

I could see if McCain were Chairman, the ranking member, or even an ordinary member of the Banking Committee. He had no real experience in that sector, and was even reported to be admitting (earlier in the campaign, to be sure) that domestic finances were not something he was comfortable with.

Finally, aside from the ambiguous theme of "Country First", the McCain Campaign could not seem to settle on one specific message, or even how he would differ from Barack Obama in his proposals. On several important issues, there wasn't a whole lot of daylight between the two men. On those in which they did differ, Obama offered a different way than the current administration (and by extension, McCain) already proposed. Changing the method of attack on Obama - calling him a different name or casting him in a different light, it seemed, every three days or so - gave the voters nothing to latch on to. Charles Krauthammer has a particularly insightful take on what went wrong.

Obama, by contrast, consistently protrayed McCain as another four years of the Bush Administration. A not-altogether accurate charge, since McCain's legislative history is pretty much everything that Bush Administration is against, but enough that Obama was able to make that connection take root and grow.

I think that McCain would indeed make a good president, if circumstances were a little different. I also think Obama will make a good, perhaps very good, president. Yes he could be a in over his head, as Maureen Dowd pointed out in Wednesday's edition, or he could be headed for greatness.

I think for most people this would have been a bad year to vote for Republicans in general. The fact that McCain was able to keep it within 10 points on Election Day speaks both to how voters look at him and the inexperience of Barack Obama. It wasn't enough, however, to close the deal.

Still Here, again.

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 02:03:00 +0000

I am not sure if anyone still checks this blog, since I haven't posted in quite some time. There are a couple of posts that have been sitting in the draft pile that I have been meaning to finish, but when you work 90-hour weeks, there isn't much time to do that, is there?

In the interim, please check out my cousin Dan's blog. He used to run the political insomniac blog here on blogger, but circumstances have changed. I can't say I agree with much of what he says, but it makes for some fascinating reading.

Anyway, keep checking out this space, and hopefully I'll have something soon.

The 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates - First Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:37:00 +0000

By now, I am sure that everyone has an opinion on the announced candidates for the Democratic nomination for President. Even though it is still ridiculously early to anoint one candidate as the presumptive nominee, certain trends are taking shape. Hillary Clinton is building a commanding lead, while Barack Obama and John Edwards are fighting to keep themselves within shouting distance. These three make up the top tier of the current candidates.

Until any of the other five announced candidates - only those who have filed with the Federal Election Commission are considered for this post - withdraws from the race, I'll include them here.

In alphabetical order:

Joseph Biden, Senior Senator from Delaware. Of the current candidates, Biden as well as Christopher Dodd, has the most foreign policy experience. Leans left of center on most issues, those is something of a social conservative, voting for the Defense of Marriage Act and against public funding of abortion. Is in line with liberal/progressive positions on the environment, taxes, gun control, education and several other topics. On Iraq, realizes that the United States cannot just pull out, and supports a gradual withdrawal accompanied by a concrete plan to address the political shortcomings there. Based on length of service and public positions, could be considered one of the candidates with the most "gravitas".
Hillary Clinton, Junior Senator from New York. There isn't much that can be added about Clinton that hasn't been said in the past 15 years encompassing her life as wife of a Presidential Candidate, to First Lady, to US Senator, to Presidential Candidate. Currently this space's pick for the Presidential nomination.
Christopher Dodd, Senior Senator from Connecticut. One of the more liberal Democratic candidates, has taken centrist-to-conservative positions on the issues of gay marriage and free trade. Virtually no chance at the nomination or even as Vice-President, especially if Clinton becomes the nominee.
John Edwards, former Senator from North Carolina. Previously a two-time candidate, he was the nominee for Vice President in 2004. Perhaps the activist with the best shot at capturing the nomination, he is known for mostly liberal positions that seek to increase the station of the poor in life. Made a fortune as a trial lawyer in the 90s.
Mike Gravel, former Senator from Alaska. Aside from supplying some (perhaps) unintended comic relief, the crusty former two-term Senator and 1972 Vice Presidential nomination-seeker has no chance at the nomination.
Dennis Kucinich, Representative from Ohio. Probably the most liberal Democratic candidate, he is also the one of the most outspoken and unwavering in his consistency. The only Democratic candidate to vote against the resolution authorizing force against Iraq in 2003. His only chance at a significant amount of votes in either the primaries or the general election would come from the far-left segments of the party.
Barack Obama, Junior Senator from Illinois. Charismatic first-term Senator who previously served in the Illinois legislature, he is fond of saying that he opposed the Iraq war from the start. Is fairly liberal, but is showing his political inexperience by "restating" - not exactly flip-flopping - his positions and statements. Would be a good candidate in the future, with some seasoning.
Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico. Known more for his lengthy political resume - he has been a Cabinet Officer, Ambassador to the UN, and US Representative in addition to Governor - than for his actual positions, he is a fairly centrist candidate, with liberal and conservative stances on various issues. As a special envoy to Iraq and North Korea for President Clinton, he was able to secure the release of American citizens being held by those governments. Extensive experience in foreign policy. While he shouldn't be thought of as a top-tier candidate, he is the Democrats' dark-horse candidate.

It is tough to handicap how any of the candidates would do in the primaries, since the schedule is like the weather in Florida - wait five minutes, it'll change. That is if Florida's primary actually counts.

Still here.

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Thu, 17 May 2007 00:18:00 +0000

For those who have been wondering, I am still here. Those that know me will realize how hectic life has been, so I apologize for any lack of posts in the recent past.

More is coming.

The 2008 GOP Sweepstakes - Early '07 Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:16:00 +0000

Given the fact that 2008 will be the first Presidential election since 1928 that does not involve a sitting president or vice-president, speculation has started amongst the chattering classes even earlier than usual. In a series of occasional posts, this space will attempt to handicap the coming '08 general election. First up will be the GOP.

In my cousin Dan's blog, he gives his take on the GOP side. His preferences are former NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Arizona Senator John McCain, though he admits a certain fondness for Newt Gingrich.

As anyone who reads the papers today knows, all except Gingrich are acknowledged leaders for the Republican nomination. McCain has been running for the last seven years, Giuliani practically the last three, since the Republican nominating convention in New York City in 2004. Romney is a fairly new addition.

Wikipedia lists the announced and potential candidates for 2008, as well as a number of those who were thought to be considering campaigns in the last year or so but have for various reasons decided not to. At the moment, the site lists thirteen men who are official or presumed candidates. In order:

Sam Brownback, Senior Senator from Kansas. He is a social conservative who has been raising his profile a bit by publicly opposing the "surge" in troops in Iraq ordered by the President. Most of his support will come from the conservative base of the Republican Party. He was raised a Methodist before becoming an evangelical Christian who then converted to Catholicism several years ago. Not very well-known nationally. A long-shot in the general election, he could do some damage in the primaries.
Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. Another social conservative, he is more of a moderate when it comes to business and has shown flashes of liberalism in issues such as healthcare. Better known than Brownback, he too faces an uphill battle in the general election.
Duncan Hunter, Representative from California. Very conservative, member and former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee who also strongly opposes illegal immigration and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Won't get far in the primaries and has no shot in November '08.
Jim Gilmore, former Governor of Virginia. Who's he?
Rudolph Giuliani, former Mayor of New York City. One of the best known Republicans nationally, he is noted for leadership of the Big Apple during which crime decreased to near-historic lows, as well as his performance during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001. Social liberal, he has been married three times - once to his second cousin - and divorced twice, and supports gun control and gay rights. Though he would be a strong candidate in November, he won't get more than a cup of coffee during the primaries, where the base rules. They'll listen to him politely, then vote for somebody more like them.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. The "other man from Hope" after Bill Clinton. Well spoken, polite, a social conservative who could be expected to work well with the loyal opposition. Not well known, but is a potential dark horse in 2008.
John McCain, Senior Senator from Arizona. Probably the best known Republican, is a social moderate-conservative who is known for taking some unpopular positions with the base and refusing to back down on such issues as campaign finance reform and judicial nominations. Vietnam Veteran who spent five and one-half years as a Prisoner of War in North Vietnam. Potentially the candidate who would draw the most independent and even some conservative Democratic votes, he may be hurt by two issues, one new and one old: his support for the President's troop surge, and his involvement with the Keating Five. Currently this space's pick to win the nomination.
Ron Paul, Representative from Texas. See Jim Gilmore.
Tom Tancredo, Representative from Colorado. See Jim Gilmore.
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin, and former Secretary of Health and Human Services. Social moderate with no shot at the primaries or the nomination.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Reprentatives from Georgia. Architect of the GOP's 1994 Congressional majority, he has become something of a moderating voice in the Republican Party, pointing out things that the White House would rather not hear. Because of his role in the Contract With America, has probably more credibility than most of the current candidates save McCain and Giuliani, though he still may have problems in the general election due to the public's disgust of late for anybody called "Congressman".
Chuck Hagel, Senior Senator from Nebraska. Another decorated Vietnam Veteran, he has become a favorite of some liberal groups for his open hostility to the President's conduct of the war in Iraq, and has been so since the start. Even though he is more of a traditional conservative than McCain, his opposition to the Iraq War should be enough to derail him with the base, though might do fairly well in the general election, should he get that far. Fairly blunt when he talks.
George Pataki, former Governor of New York. Not very well known nationally, a fiscal and social moderate, which alone would give him no shot in the primaries past the week before Iowa. Wasn't very popular when he decided not to run for a fourth term as governor.

No one has a crystal ball, of course. As Anna Quindlen pointed out in Newsweek's February 5th issue, Bill Clinton was an unknown around this point in the 1992 election season, and George H. W. Bush was considered unbeatable. Does anybody remember Paul Tsongas?

Coming soon, the Democratic predictions.

Abolish the Death Penalty

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:35:00 +0000

Last week, a cretin by the name of Ronell Wilson was sentenced to die for the 2003 execution-style slaying of two New York City Police officers, one of whom begged for his life upon seeing the other one shot in the back of the head without warning.

If any case deserved the application of the penalty of death, it was this one. The rub, however, is that this poor excuse for a human being was sentenced to die not by a jury empaneled by the State of New York, but a federal one instead. The feds took over the case because, at this writing, the State of New York does not currently permit capital punishment.

This raises a number of important points, not the least of which is states' rights. But the central question - for me, anyway - is "Why do we continue to have a death penalty?"

Just because there is no doubt as to the guilt of a person accused in a specific case - and there seems to be none in the case of Mr. Wilson - does not change the overarching issue: the morality of the death penalty itself. There are a number of reasons why I believe the death penalty should be abolished:

Civilized nations do not execute their own citizens. Of the so-called "first world" countries, those with the most advanced societies and economies, only two, the United States and Japan, permit executions and continue to carry them out. This puts the United States in such illustrious company as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Cuba, and the two remaining members of the "Axis of Evil", Iran and North Korea, as well as sixty-five other countries. According to Amnesty International, Russia, of all places, has not executed a prisoner since 1999.
There are no absolute guarantees in the guilt of the accused. Sure there are some cases in which there is no doubt as to who is responsible for a murder. There are, however, some cases, more than you might realize, which have been overturned because of DNA evidence. According to the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org) 188 persons have had convictions overturned on DNA evidence since 1989, including 51 murder convictions. In 2000, then-Governor George Ryan of Illinois instituted a moratorium on the death penalty after thirteen people on death row were exonerated on new evidence.
The Death Penalty is applied unevenly. By some accounts, minority defendants are two-to-five times more likely to be sentenced to death than non-minority defendants in similar circumstances, with the likelihood increasing in cases where the defendant is a minority and the victim is white. Economics is also a factor: persons with public defenders for their attorney are much more much more subject to conviction than those who can afford their own lawyer. The better the lawyer, the lower the chance of a sentence of capital punishment.
Capital Punishment does not act as a deterrent. If that were the case, you would expect murders, especially the most heinous, would drop off dramatically. Statistically, in states that employ the death penalty with vigor, such as Texas and Florida, the murder rates are often no different, or in some cases higher, than those without capital punishment. Additionally, it can be argued that those who commit murder, either out of revenge or for other cold, calculating reasons - a category in which Mr. Wilson belongs - are not exactly tethered to reality to begin with. So how can you expect such individuals to stop short of killing someone because they thought, "I could die for this"?
Cost. Because of the expenses associated with Death Penalty cases, including the numerous lawyers involved, lengthy searches for "impartial" (yeah, right) jurors, the length of the trials themselves, the mandatory post-trial reviews and automatic appeals on behalf of the convicted, to say nothing of the long pre-trial and pre-execution incarceration as well as the execution itself, the total cost of the death penalty can run into the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. An eight-by-eight cell and three squares a day for the rest of the convicted's life looks pretty economical by comparison.
Being "Pro-life" and "Pro-Death Penalty" at the same time. All I will say about this is the obvious conflicts of those who will rail against the murder of the unborn, and say that all life is sacred, while at the same time citing Biblical passages in justification of capital punishment. Can you really be "Pro-life" and "Pro-death" at the same time?

This is not often a stance that is politically very popular, but the death penalty raises more problems than it solves. Does anyone really think that executing someone years after the original crime brings "closure" - to employ a very popular and very overused term - to the aggrieved parties?

And what do you say to the family of someone who was put to death, only to later be found innocent of the crime?

Wing Nuts and Alleged Media Bias

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:24:00 +0000

In an article for publication in tomorrow's Washington Post, the ombudsman of that newspaper, Deborah Howell, tries to explain the difference between the perception of the so-called liberalism of the media and the actual practice. You can read the whole thing here. There is one point, however, that I would like to bring up.

In the article, Ms. Howell mentions the persistent conservative claim that the media has a liberal bias. On certain issues, that may very well be the case, especially social issues. Journalism tends to attract those who are idealistic and want to change the world, for lack of a better description. This idealism does not necessarily mean that the average reporter will be willing to overlook transgressions by similar idealistic people. Corruption is corruption wherever you go, and the best reporters are the ones that follow the story, even if it means that the target of the story is another would-be world changer.

A couple of weeks ago, on my way home from work, I found myself stuck in traffic on the Garden State Parkway. Having nothing better to do at the moment and not being particularly enamored of the music then playing on any of the stations preset in my radio, I tuned into WABC-AM, the talk-radio station in New York. At that time, the Mark Levin show was on, and in the first fifteen or twenty seconds, the word "liberal" was mentioned in such a way that Mr. Levin practically sounded like it was a piece of bad food he had eaten and was in an awful hurry to spit it out.

My point is that those who often do the complaining about the media's alleged "liberal" bias are those who are quite biased themselves (and the same could be said for those on the far left of the media spectrum who think the media is too conservative), and unlike the print, television, and sometimes radio media they are in such a hurry to vilify, they have no obligation to present an opposing point of view. They are merely interested in preaching to the choir. Peering through such a narrow lens blinds them to their own narrow-minded point of view.

Thank A Vet

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:16:00 +0000

Today is Veteran's Day. No matter what you believe about our country's conduct in wars past and present, thank those who have given of themselves - some with their lives - in the service of our country.

All gave some. Some gave all.

With All the Power, etc., etc.

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:57:00 +0000

Now that the Democrats have achieved, at this writing, 33-seat and two-seat majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively, it is time to put up or shut up.

It is well-documented - ad nauseum by the more conservative elements of the Republican Party - that Nancy Pelosi, potentially the first female Speaker of the House, is a liberal from the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco. A prominent tactic of those in power in the Republican Party - read: Karl Rove or Dick Cheney - was to use the specter of the Lady from San Francisco as Speaker to scare conservatives into ignoring the more glaring faults of the GOP and vote the base. (One such target was Heath Shuler, the former NFL quarterback, who ran for and won a seat in North Carolina as a Democrat. Mr. Shuler is anything but liberal.) It clearly did not work.

In order for the Democrats to govern effectively - and preserve their majority in 2008 as well as attempt to have a Democrat elected to the Oval Office - they are going to have to do it from the middle. And that will require the Madame Speaker to rein in her more liberal philosophy.

Madame Speaker, however, is not stupid, nor will her newly elected caucus, which is made up of its share of conservatives and moderates, allow her to lead from the left. She isn't about to do anything to jeopardize the majority.

Still, it remains that now that the Democrats have attained the majority, they will have to govern and show the American people why they deserved to be elected.

The GOP's Tuesday Night Massacre

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 13:59:00 +0000

It took the Republicans almost six years to learn what should have been obvious: you can't govern from one extreme or the other.

Twelve years after assuming control of both houses of Congress, and five years and nearly 10 months after the inauguration of George W. Bush as President, the GOP decisively lost control of the House and the Senate. As of this writing, the Democrats have a 33-seat majority in the House of Representatives, and a two-seat majority in the Senate, pending official confirmation of James Webb's victory over George Allen in Virginia.

Although for 40-something years to 1994 the Democrats held both houses, there were relatively few times when they also controlled the Presidency. And even in those times when they did, they tended to govern from the center. Even after the "Reagan Revolution," the Dems still had the congress, and the country didn't seem to be all that bad for it. Americans, it seems, like their government to be split among the parties.

Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" started a change, taking both houses in a historic election in 1994. But something happened on the way to conservatism. In 2000, with the election of Bush the Younger, Republicans suddenly controlled both the legislative and executive branches and had a shot at completely remaking the judicial. As we have seen in these last few years, the GOP is the governing equivalent of the Not Ready For Prime Time Players.

When a conscious effort is made to shut out the other party in legislation, as soon-t0-be ex-Speaker Hastert has done with his insistence on only allowing bills with the backing of the full Republican Caucus to make it to the floor, and blatantly accuse the minority party of near-treason and questioning their patriotism (Max Cleland 2002, John Kerry 2004, every Democrat in 2006), eventually people will be mad as hell and they aren't going to take it anymore. Democrats found this out to their peril in 1994 over issues of corruption.

Alas, some of the more erudite conservative pundits saw this coming, and it would do the GOP well to find out what they did wrong, should they ever have hope of controlling the legislature again.

With Friends Like These, Can Dubya Afford Enemies?

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:40:00 +0000

The coming election season has often been made out to be liberal versus conservative, Republican against Democrat. But what happens when conservatives start revolting against the President, such as Pat Buchanan calling for the impeachment of the President for his inaction over illegal immigration? That isn't something I would think would be an impeachable offense, but Mr. Buchanan marches to a different drummer.

Long time readers of his columns would know the conservative viewpoints of Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger. Thursday's column returns to one of his favorite topics:

What happened to the George W. we first elected?
Thursday, September 28, 2006

A wise man once said that whenever America goes to war, "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined." What happened to that guy? He got elected president, that's what. And all that power seems to have gone to George W. Bush's head, crowding out any wisdom rattling around in there.

The release the other day of the National Intelligence Estimate provides further proof of how far Bush has strayed from the principles of small-government conservatism he espoused when he
first ran for president back in 2000. At that time, he also observed, "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." Once in office, however, Bush decided to start building nations almost halfway around the globe.

The result, says the NIE, is that the failed nation-building experiment in Iraq has become a cause celebre" for Islamic terrorists all over the world. Coincidentally enough, the release of the report, which represents the consensus of the nation's intelligence agencies, came right after another significant milestone in the so-called "War on Terror." Last week, the American death toll from the nation-building exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq invasion grew to exceed the death toll of 2,973 resulting from the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Almost all of those deaths are the result of Bush's abandonment of the two principles he embraced as a candidate: the need for overwhelming force and for an exit strategy. Those were excellent principles, but he seemed to have forgotten them in the heady days after the Iraq invasion.

"There are some who feel like conditions are such that they can attack us there," said Bush on July 1, 2003. "My answer is bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."

Oops. It turns out that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had neglected to come up with a plan for the security situation. And that in turn permitted Iraq, which was almost entirely devoid of terrorists under Saddam Hussein, to become a hotbed of terrorism. Here's what the NIE says about that:
"We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere."
Bush reacted to the report by stating of the terrorists, "My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions."

But if we weren't in Iraq, the terrorists couldn't attack us at will with primitive weapons.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA operative, has compiled on his Web site (http://noquarter.typepad.com) a bar graph of terror attacks on Americans as reported by the State Department in its publication "Patterns of Global Terrorism." The graph shows worldwide terror incidents running at less than 500 annually from 1992 to 2003. Then suddenly in 2004 the attacks skyrocketed to more than 2,500 a year as the Iraqi insurgency picked up steam.

"The Bush administration has played politics with the numbers," Johnson told me. "They initially were not going to publish the report because the number of terrorist incidents had surged so dramatically. It would be difficult to explain how they were winning the war on terror when the number of incidents was rising."

The ostensible reason for the invasion of Iraq was the threat that Saddam supposedly posed to the United States. But even before the invasion, the CIA had been telling Bush that Iraq's efforts at terrorism were directed toward Israel and Iran, not the U.S., Johnson said.

"Once you decide the CIA is the enemy, you ignore what they tell you," said Johnson.
Instead of listening to the intelligence experts, Bush paid attention to the various neoconservative think-tank types, the "true believers," in the words of Bob Baer, another former CIA agent who worked in the Mideast. The neocons' poor planning got thousands of Americans killed while stoking the terrorist movement, he said.

"It's as if al Qaeda were running the White House," said Baer. "I don't see how they could do it any better. Everything we do is as if we were fueling a jihad."

In 1995, Baer was involved in fomenting a coup inside Iraq that involved five Iraqi generals who would have deposed Saddam and replaced him with what Baer calls "a Saddam light."

"A light police state is what we wanted," he said. "The only people who are going to police the Iraqis are Iraqis."

Instead, we got Bush's grandiose scheme to create a democracy. That sounds good in theory, but in practice it meant handing Iraq over to the Shi'a majority, thus creating a new ally for Iran and its anti-American leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Ahmadinejad probably gets up each morning and looks in the mirror and pinches himself and
says, 'I can't believe it.'"
I can't believe it, either. This sure wasn't what candidate Bush promised us back in 2000. Here's another quote from that campaign: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road."
Well, at least he got that right.

Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist. He may be reached at pmulshine@starledger.com.

Fix the UN

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 22:59:00 +0000

Last week saw the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly at its headquarters in New York City. As is customary of late, it has featured speeches by such notable orators as President Bush, and the usual psuedo-statesmen like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. The former offered nothing new beyond variations of his stock "we are spreading freedom and democracy to those who desperately need it" pitch, and the other two used the captive audience - at least for Chavez, as the hall during Ahmadinejad's speech was about a third full - to criticize and condemn the United States. Chavez actually made personal attacks against the President, calling him "the devil" no less than eight times. Stuff like this is supposed to be impolite in the august body that is the United Nations, but as they say, this isn't your father's United Nations.

Say what you will about the President of the United States - and there is a lot to say, indeed - but he does have a point about the UN being out of control. In the last forty or so years, since most of the traditional colonial powers have beat feet out of Africa and Asia, there has been a dramatic increase in the membership of the UN, most of it being countries led by people with less than a firm grip on reality. (John Farmer has an excellent column on the current state of the UN in Friday's Newark Star-Ledger.)

Since we are one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, we contribute something like 25% of the UN's annual budget, and the UN is actually headquartered in New York, it would be bad form to boycott the annual fest bashing us. And since we are supposed to be above that sort of thing, that's why we sit there and listen. As many a politician had proudly noted afterward, people like Chavez can come to the United States and say things that he himself would never allow any of his countrymen to say.

That hasn't stopped the usual calls for radical change at the United Nations, "radical" meaning "get lost." Why should we allow such antics to go on here in our own country, when the vast majority of the people who make up the UN hate our guts, or so they refrain goes. And I would have to admit, there is some validity in that point of view. And to effect such "change" would be a bad thing.

Winston Churchill's famous quote about democracy, that it is horrible except for just about every other form of government, can be applied to the UN, as well. No, the place doesn't do our bidding, nor is it supposed to. We sometimes forget that although we consume a quarter of the world's oil production, have perhaps the world's strongest economy, and certainly the strongest military (notice I didn't say "largest"), we are, population-wise, a mere fraction of the world, less than 5%. This may come as a shock to some people out there, but there are other people on this planet as well. Even though more wars have been fought in the last 50 years than in all the previous years combined, most of those have been the piddling regional kind, the type that has popped up because nobody really cared what went on there, anyway. Suddenly giving people there own governments in those Third World countries that never had one without any instructions on how to run it will tend to do that.

But there is a forum for the world to work out its problems, and imperfect that it might be, the UN is the best that we've got. Lately, we have turned to NATO to put muscle behind our intentions, and perhaps that is the way it should be. Maybe the UN really shouldn't have its own armed force, since you aren't going to get 190-plus member states to agree on anything, beyond how many scoops to put in the coffee urn at one of those fancy-pants gatherings.

Going back to that whole 5% of the world thing, we have to try. Having a permanent seat on the Security Council should count for something. To start with, find somebody else than John Bolton, who has all the smoothness of 40-grit sandpaper, to be the United States' UN Representative. He may be somebody who gets things done in Washington, but stuff like that doesn't fly with the champaign and caviar set.

Really making an effort to include everybody else on the really important issues, especially the Chinese and the Russians, since they have lots of people and lots of weapons, and the French, since they hold one of the vetoes, is also a good idea. The British are already on board, and everybody else is just gravy. It's fine to eventually just give up if you aren't going to get what you're looking for, but not after doing it for show. Everybody else knows that, and that isn't something out of "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

And for cryin' out loud, stop talking about how we should get rid of the United Nations, and send them to some place that might appreciate it more. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York said the other day on WABC-AM that the UN contributes $2.5 Billion dollars to the city economy yearly. Do you really think that the Germans should get that?

Five Years Later

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:43:00 +0000

Today has been a little difficult. I must confess that I only directly knew one person who died at the World Trade Center, one of the Port Authority Police Officers who I had worked with at another job. Today has been much harder for his family, his girlfriend and his closest friends.

Nonetheless, I am scrupulously avoiding most coverage of the day because I cannot bear to listen to the politicians drone on and on about how we must be vigilant in the so-called "War on Terror", and hear how the President wants this tool or that power in this conflict. As far as I am concerned, he has squandered pretty much all the opportunities given to him in the last five years, and especially those right after that September day, a day which caused even the leftist French daily LeMonde to proclaim "We are all Americans."

Meanwhile, we must listen to Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney go on separate Sunday morning talk shows and read from the same script. George Tenet probably wants to hang himself right about now. But then again, this Administration has a history of hanging people out to dry, friend and foe alike. (Tenet, Michael Brown, Valerie Plame, Katherine "No more recounts for my friend George" Harris...). Particularly galling is Rice's continued insistence that "clearly, we are safer, but not yet safe." What has she been smoking?

So, what has and what has not changed in the last five years?

Osama bin Laden is still out there.

American forces are in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight to either conflict, and no apparent idea of what that end would actually look like. Thousands have been killed and tens of thousands more wounded, and that's just for the Americans. In an odd twist, Iraq has become the Central Front in the War On Terror, as every jihadist with a dream of blowing himself and everybody nearby to bits streams in from far and wide to learn just how to do that.

There is still a hole in Lower Manhattan. Only now are the architects coming together to produce something in the way of a memorial and replace what was lost.

A huge bureacracy has been created in Washington, called the Department of Homeland Security. Given what we know about its response to Hurricane Katrina, its lack of effective security at various airports, and the ongoing fiasco with the FBI computer system, maybe we should call it something else.

A surplus of some 160 billion dollars in the Federal Budget has morphed into a yearly deficit of $400 billion or more. Something like 80 spending bills have crossed the President's desk. Guess how many he has vetoed? Better yet, guess how many total bills he has vetoed?

8,000 illegals cross the border with Mexico daily. What is the government waiting for?

Notice any more security around your local power plant, chemical factory, rail yard, reservoir? Me neither.

So, what has changed in the last five years?

Not much, apparently.

Fiddling While Rome Burns

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:39:00 +0000

It is a depressing list of foreign policy mistakes, disasters, and otherwise general bad news: Iraq is at best treading water, and at worst spiraling into civil war; Iran is blatantly moving ahead with plans for nuclear weapons; The Taliban are slowly creeping back into power in Afghanistan; The North Koreans test-fired a long range missile capable of reaching the West Coast of the United States; and the Israelis are fighting a war with Hezbollah on the frontier with Lebanon, eerily reminiscent of the 1978 invasion that led Hezbollah's creation.

And what is the most significant action taken by the Bush Administration in the past week? The first-ever veto by this Administration, five-plus years into power, of a bill. About stem-cells. A morally powerful but generally insignificant piece of legislation.

Last week the President, renowned as NOT one of the United Nation's biggest fans, was musing aloud to British PM Tony Blair about the current crisis in Lebanon and the UN's activities there, in front of an open microphone at the G8 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this (expletive) and it's over." He then went on to express to Mr. Blair that he feels "like telling Kofi to get on the phone with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and make something happen."

Does anyone else see the irony in this? (There certainly is a lot of it, here. I am just not sure that the President understands exactly what is ironic about this whole affair.)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, gas prices are spiraling out of control, the economy is coming to a rip-roaring halt, Congress is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave, the Department of Homeland Security has done absolutely nothing to improve Homeland Security in the almost five years since September 11, 2001, and we are in the early stages of a hurricane season which promises to resemble the Monday-morning rush at the Lincoln Tunnel.

And the President finally remembers that he can veto legislation by the Congress.

The second Tuesday of November 2008 can't come here fast enough.

President to America: Oil is getting more expensive. Too bad.

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Mon, 01 May 2006 03:59:00 +0000

Wednesday's NY Daily News had a column by Michael Goodwin that is sure to not bring a comforting thought to any Republican contemplating a run for re-election this fall. Goodwin - whose two favorite targets are Hillary and Dubya - compared the President's most recent "I feel your pain" speech on rising oil prices to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech in the seventies.

While it is true that reality is that the President can't really do much to affect oil prices (See Dan Cleary's blog on this subject), the perception is much more important. While the average American doesn't seem to know that the price of gas is affected by a number of factors - OPEC pricing, refining capacity, political stability in regions with large reserves, problems with delivery - they understand one thing: they are paying a whole lot more than they used to. They don't want to hear a president tell them there's nothing he can do about it. They think, "He's the most powerful man on the planet for cryin' out loud."

If I were a Republican candidate for dog-catcher, I'd be trying to put as much daylight between me and the President right about now.

FEMA Update

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:58:00 +0000

President Bush nominated the acting Director of FEMA, R. David Paulison, to take over the position permanently. A good move.

The Border

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:35:00 +0000

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column in today's Washington Post on what to do with the border and dealing with the estimated 11 million illegals already here.

They Can't Handle the Truth

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:51:00 +0000

So much for the public wanting honesty from their elected officials.

In a new Fairleigh Dickinson University poll, respondents expressed their disapproval of Governor Corzine's new budget, in which the administration raises the sales tax by a penny and cuts various state services, and of the job the Governor himself is doing. Among other things, Corzine's disapproval rating increased from 16% to 36%, and those who had "very unfavorable" or "poor" ratings of the Governor increased as well.

A closer reading of the poll, however, reveals a very NIMBY-ish attitude amongst the 685 registered voters sampled. While decrying the increase in the sales tax, a majority say it's a bad idea to not restore the property tax rebates, and that it is fine with them if taxes are raised on things they might not use, or use infrequently, such as cigarettes and alcohol.

Selling a property worth over a million dollars? Buying a luxury car worth more than $45,000? Me neither. Most of the people who are in the same boat think that taxes on those items should go up.

Since those employed by state government are likely to be average working stiffs, and therefore Democrats, Republicans think cutting state jobs is a fine way to cut spending. Democrats, not surprisingly, think it a lousy one. The list goes on.

A previous discussion alluded to the belief that the public was "misled" by both Corzine and his opponent, Doug Forrester, since both candidates promised to cut taxes and/or increase rebates. Corzine, of course, is taking the heat, since he won the election. But I'll bet the Forrester would be wondering, too, why he wanted this job if he had won instead of Corzine.

Somebody once told me not to complain about something if you couldn't offer a solution to the problem, or at least a better one than what was on the table. I hear a whole lot of complaining, but haven't found anybody who says they have a better way to fix the state budget mess.

Well, He Is a Banker

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:20:00 +0000

Last month, New Jersey Governor Jon S. Corzine acted like the banker he is, proposing a $30 billion state budget to close a $6 billion budget gap. That's 20% of the budget. The plan calls for a one-penny increase in the sales tax, and extends it to services that hadn't been taxed before. There is also a host of cuts, including aid to universities both public and private. Immediately, the hand-wringing and the naysaying have begun, even in the Governor's own party.

Get over it.

Unlike the federal government, which may annually run budget deficits, New Jersey, like most states, is required by the state constitution to have a balanced budget in place at the start of the fiscal year. Failure to do so, or balancing the budget using extensive borrowing (which was outlawed by the New Jersey Supreme Court beginning this fiscal year) or "one-shot" revenue gimmicks causes the state's bond rating to drop, which makes it more expensive for the state to borrow money. I am not a banker, but that doesn't sound very good.

During the recent gubernatorial campaign, both Corzine and his opponent, Douglas Forrester, made many promises in the area of the state's finances, including various forms of reducing the average homeowner's property tax burden. The public found Corzine's plans for the state to be more credible (or at least palatable) than those of Forrester. The end result is that Corzine is elected, by something like an 11-point margin.

Then, reality set in. Raise your hands if you actually expected either candidate to follow through on his promises, at least in the first year of office. Now put them down. You are excused from this conversation.

In the last couple of weeks, much hay has been made about the Governor reneging on his campaign promises in which he allegedly said he wouldn't raise taxes. Yes, he did make several statements to the effect that he didn't want to raise taxes, that they weren't on his agenda. That is not the same as saying that he wouldn't raise them. Unlike his opponent, who (foolishly) took a no-tax pledge, Corzine never explicitly ruled them out.

But even if he did, so what? Campaign promises are not legally binding contracts. It is up to the individual voter to decide whether or not he or she believes what the candidate says at the time, and perhaps more importantly, whether he/she believes that that particular candidate will do a better job relative to the other guy.

In this most recent race for governor, both Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester made promises that even then seemed rather far-fetched. Corzine vowed to increase property tax rebates. Forrester promised to cut property taxes 30% in three years. Corzine promised greater levels of funding for just about everything. Forrester said he would cut taxes and maintain services. All this after the state supreme court outlawed borrowing as a means to balance the budget (as the result of a lawsuit brought by Republicans). The list goes on and on.

Politicians make promises all the time. The public knows this. Elections are for separating the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, elections between two non-incumbents turn into whether or not you believe each candidate's chicken-in-every-pot promise. This election, the people knew (at least those who pay attention to what goes on on a daily basis) what problems were facing New Jersey, and decided that Corzine was more credible.

Tempest in a Seaport, Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 14:14:00 +0000

After years of beating Democrats over the head on issues of Security, the Republicans are getting a taste of their own bludgeoning. As of this writing, the purchase of operations at six major US ports has been officially killed. The government of Dubai has said that they will turn over all US Port operations included in the purchase of P&O Ports to a "United States entity." Ironically, I don't necessarily agree with it.

As I said before, I think the sinking of this deal is not a good idea. It doesn't make sense economically, and security really isn't the issue. But, as we all know, perception doesn't often equate with reality. Democrats have found an issue they can hammer the Republicans on. Sure, getting the measure killed in committee by an overwhelming margin blunts the impact a bit, but the baseline sentiment, that the current Administration has gone off the reservation on their core issue, remains. The Republicans should brace themselves. I don't blame the Democrats and Republicans should have seen this coming.

Before anyone accuses the Democrats, however, of getting a bit whacky, as the New York Times and Boston Globe the other day apparently did, the junior senators from New York and New Jersey introduced a bill - S.2334 - to ban all companies owned by foreign governments from controlling port operations in the United States. This is a sensible measure, and would not affect operations at most ports in the country, some 80% of which are controlled by foreign entities.

As mentioned in a previous post, however, whoever controls the ports does not control security at said ports. This still rests with the Department of Homeland Security, which currently is able to inspect only one in every twenty shipping containers, and which often relies on the inspection at the other end to ferret out suspicious cargo. For the obvious reasons of manpower and budget, priority is given to those that originate in suspect locales, as well as any that raise a red flag for one reason or another. Your average container originating in, say, London or Tokyo, is not going to be inspected. So to say that ownership of terminal operations by Dubai Ports World would undercut security is not terribly accurate. If the bad guys wanted smuggle something in, they could easily do so in any number of overseas ports, using any number of shipping companies.

No, perception doesn't often equate with reality.

Tempest in a Seaport

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 02:12:00 +0000

This may come as a shock to you, but politicians are opportunists. I'll give you a moment to pick yourself up off the floor.

This revelation has been demonstrated with amazing clarity by members of both political parties in the matter of DPW, as in Dubai Ports World (not the Department of Public Works), the firm that purchased P&O, the British company that currently operates terminals at six major ports, including Newark, New York, and Miami. Lawmakers of both stripes were getting run over in the rush to the microphone to decry this deal.

Of course, that's an easy thing to do if you are a Democrat. It takes no imagination to see that this would be an issue you could grab and run with all the way to November's mid-term elections, using it as political cover in debates on national security.

Republicans, however, seem bent on using this as a different kind of cover, mostly to shield themselves from the political vegetables being hurled by a disaffected electorate at them while on the stage. Even House speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist came out and said, "hold on there a moment, George." Who would have thought that Frist, Hastert, and Hillary Clinton would be on the same side in an issue?

Well, Hastert and Clinton, anyway. Less than a week after he got up there and expressed righteous indignation that the Bush administration was turning over control of these ports (and lesser operations at sixteen other facilities) to a foreign company - who did he think the owners of P&O were before, I'd like to know - Frist said he felt "more comfortable with the deal" after the Administration agreed to a 45-day review. This guy makes better waffles than John Kerry.

But now for the other shoe: opposing this deal may actually be a bad thing. I'll wait another moment while you recover from that revelation.

Don't get me wrong. I think that this whole fiasco is littered with wrong turns and faux pas. On the face of it, it's a horrible public relations nightmare: operations at major ports will be in the hands of a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, where two of the 19 attackers on September 11th were from, and where money connected to the 9/11 attacks was laundered through. At the very least someone in the current Administration should have had the brains to recognize that this required a public relations campaign well in advance of any sale.

But wait, it gets better. Instead of the standard 45-day review of sales of this nature by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is required when any of the 12 members express national security concerns - in this case, raised at least by the US Coast Guard, part of the Department of Homeland Security - it only gets a 30-day look-see.

Finally, Scott McClellan admits that the President was not aware of the transaction until after the brouhaha hit the papers. This is an Administration that is becoming increasingly tone-deaf politically.

This does not obscure the fact that sinking this deal would pose a bigger problem than allowing it to proceed. For one thing, it sends the absolutely wrong message to the moderates of the Arab world that we will cave to political pressure (but the French already knew that). If there is ever a section of the world we need friends, its the Middle East.

It would also discourage other nations from investing in the United States if such investment were to meet with a xenophobic attitude. What most people fail to realize is that some 90 ports nationwide are run in whole or in part by foreign companies. That is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when you consider other foreign investment in the United States.

Finally, people are apparently misled into believing that this sale would immediately undercut national security by allowing DPW to control what is brought into the United States. This is patently ludicrous. In essence this deal would put DPW into the role of logistics management - in other words, responsible for efficiently moving the goods and products into and out of the ports - and not arbiter of what comes in and what doesn't. Security is still the purview of Homeland Security, and the real scandal is how poorly it is doing that job. If the terrorists wanted to move a dirty bomb or some other horrific weapon into the United States, they would have done it by now. DPW in charge doesn't give them an in, just a smoother ride around where it goes.

No. If the terrorists are coming they are already here. Inspection of only one in twenty containers by the Department of Homeland Security is seeing to that.

FEMA

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Mon, 06 Mar 2006 23:48:00 +0000

FEMA. A four-letter acronym, not a four letter word, at least not to me.

Recently there have been numerous calls for some sort of change at the Federal Emergency Management Agency, ranging from moving it around within the Department of Homeland Security, taking it out of Homeland Security, or disbanding it entirely then rebuilding it, as Senator Lieberman of Connecticut has proposed. It is obvious that a change is necessary, but disbanding it would be a mistake, and thinking that one could rebuild it before the upcoming hurricane season a bigger one. Rebuild it, restructure it, rework it, yes. Disband, then do those things? Stupid.

FEMA must deal with more than just hurricanes (the key letters here being "E" and "M"), and rushing the job in order to meet some semi-arbitrary calendar date is an invitation for further disaster. The government is incapable of breaking anything down and reconstructing it without the requisite commissions, panels and blue-ribbon task forces, not to mention the fact that the Democrats would be in no mood to accomodate anything that this President would want, no matter how worthy.

What are the possible solutions? Here are a couple:

-- Move FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security: DHS is a majority law-enforcement bureacracy. FEMA responds to disasters and tries to preserve life. Not diametric opposites, but not complimentary, either.
-- Remove all political appointees without Emergency Management experience: FEMA, under the Bush administration, has become a dumping ground for people who deserve a reward for something they did for the President. Every president does the same thing, but FEMA is not the place to do it. They don't stand for such things at the Pentagon, and FEMA shouldn't either.The appointment of R. David Paulison is a good start.

On September 11th, the City of New York did a fantastic job, better than anything FEMA could have done, and that was a disaster nobody saw coming (well...no that's a topic for another post). FEMA's role should be to manage, not participate.

Congress' role should be to get out of the way.

Welcome.

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Fitzpatrick) — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 23:34:00 +0000

Welcome to The View From The Ground, a new blog that (I hope) will be a repository of semi-regular postings from the view of those of us who have the "boots on the ground." Since my background is in Emergency Services, it may take on something of a slant in that direction, but I hope to get views from people outside the industry, as well.

This will be open to thoughts on the world at large. As the guy who runs this blog, and is ultimately responsible for its content, I reserve the right to edit comments containing inflammatory language and senseless "flaming" of other posters. I am not necessarily going to edit out all the four-letter words. But a post that contains mostly four-letter words and not much else will probably get axed.

'Nuff said from me.