IS LOUISIANA GOVERNOR KATHLEENBLANCO THE REAL RASCIST HERE ?
greek...@webtv.net
" don't give them food or water or "these people" will never leave" it
would interfere with her evacuation plans. "these peopl", these people"?
"THESE PEOPLE"??? she is the one who kept the red cross,salvation
army,and FEMA out of the picture. THE MAYOR OF NEW ORLEANS CONFIRMED
THIS. when bush found out food and water were STILL cut off, he took
over command, forcing governor blanco to do so sunday,6 days after the
hurricane hit. governor blanco needs to be impeached.
" Syria is the center of all Terrorism. they must be our next target in
the WAR ON TERROR "
GWhyte
The Pitfalls of Katrina Yammering
September 8, 2005
by Bruce Walker
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/walker/2005/walker090805.htm
Soon, very soon, some critical political events will resolve themselves.
Leftists, basking in the warm afterglow of human misery (how else to
describe an ideology whose mantra is "The worse, the better"?), will
probably lose most of these battles and scamper back into the fortress
castles of Hollywood and Manhattan, waiting for a restoration of the Ancien
Regime, when the producers and defenders of society knew their place in the
caste system which is Leftism and when the monstrosity of Leftism was the
only game in town.
President Bush has obviously resolved to push for confirmation of John
Roberts as Chief Justice and then another nominee - also likeable,
conservative, and impeccable - as Associate Justice. This might be the
perfect time to select Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, either of
which might actually be endorsed by Sandra Day O'Connor (and how, exactly,
would the Left respond to that?) The reservation Justice O'Connor expressed
about Roberts was that she wished he had been a woman. The President can
happily oblige her. Two young, conservative justices will transform the
Supreme Court, and President Bush can - and will - do this before
endangering confirmation by the loss of any Senate seats in 2006.
Republicans will almost certainly make net gains in the state government
elections in Virginia and New Jersey, and while the scope of this pending
November 2005 victory is not clear now, the fact of victory (i.e. gains in
state houses and state legislative seats) is nearly a sure thing. It is not
unthinkable that Republicans could gain two governorships and a legislative
chamber or two in the November 2005 election, and the fallout could
jeopardize a Democrat Senate seat in November 2006 (Corzine, if he loses the
gubernatorial race.)
Two months later, the Left will have more bad news. Arnold may lose all his
initiatives, but the proposal to limit political spending of union dues
without the consent of union members, which he has not formally endorsed, is
leading by a huge margin in the polls. When a similar measure was on the
ballot in 1998, it lost badly, but this time it looks certain to win easily.
Ironically, this is the one initiative which will be an unqualified
catastrophe for the Left in future elections. The other initiatives largely
deal with particular policies, while Proposition 75 deals with raw political
power. Union dues are used primarily to win elections and overwhelmingly for
Leftist candidates. If Proposition 75 wins, overnight the Left will lose as
much as $100 million in each California election cycle, which would do much
more to re-elect Schwarzenegger and other California Republicans than any of
the other initiatives on the ballot. The Left is quietly desperate about
Proposition 75 because it also will come so soon after the beginning of the
disintegration of the AFL-CIO (and the loss of huge coffers of money and
legions of soldiers.)
The panting exhilaration that the Left feels today about the calamity of
Katrina and the effort to make a natural disaster into a political disasters
for conservatives will fail for the same reason that Leftism fails so often
and so consistently now: those who hate the President blindly will blame him
for what nature has done, normal people will not. The President does not
need personal victories, but rather political muscle.
The more the Left screeches about Katrina, the less people will care about
other things political. Katrina yammering drops the battle for the Supreme
Court confirmation below the radar screen just when Republicans are
perfectly positioned to win both confirmation battles based on numbers;
Katrina yammering freezes the November state elections into modest to
significant Republican gains. Katrina yammering keeps the Left from rallying
troops to defeat the popular Proposition 75 in California.
Wisdom would have dictated that the Left quickly rally behind the
Administration after Katrina, and that place Katrina in the political past,
so that it could focus on the potentially winnable statehouse in Virginia,
obstruct Supreme Court nominees, and fight hard to stop Proposition 75 in
California. But the Left is not wise, smart, thoughtful or clever. The Left
is simply a spoiled brat who screams for desert before dinner. In a few
short months, the consequences of this compulsive demand for instant
gratification will be felt. Katrina should never have been a political
weapon; trying to make it so will turn a natural disaster into a political
disaster, but not at all as the Left had planned. Shhhh! The good guys are
winning.
Bruce Walker
Bruce Walker writes regular, orginal, weekly columns for Enter Stage Right
and Conservative Truth. His articles have also appeared in a variety of
print and electronic periodicals, including Christian Science Monitor,
Oklahoma Bar Journal, Law and Order, Legal Secretary Today, and The Docket.
Bruce also wrote a regular column for several years entitled "Law and You"
for The Single Parent, the national journal of Parents Without Partners. His
professional career includes five years as Executive Director of the
Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, three years as Administrator of the
Oklahoma Child Support Enforcement Program, and six years as Managing
Attorney of the Tulsa Child Support Office.
GWhyte
September 8, 2005
by Joe Mariani
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2005/mariani090805.htm
Probably the most astonishing result of Hurricane Katrina so far has been
the overall reaction of the Left. I don't mean the whining criticisms or the
politicising of tragedy for political purposes, however -- those Liberal
reactions are par for the course in any situation. Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch
was at his most honest when he said that "it's fair game for the Democrats
to attack the president at this time. They want to win the House next year."
What amazes me is that the same people who have spent four years accusing
President Bush of shredding the Constitution and mounting a military coup in
America seem to be angry with him... because he didn't shred the
Constitution and mount a military coup.
The most persistent Liberal and Democrat attacks concerning the aftermath of
Katrina have been that "the government" (by which they mean the federal
government) was too slow to take charge of the situation. According to the
critics, Bush should have immediately sent the US military into New Orleans
to keep order, taken personal command of the National Guard and directed
relief efforts on the scene from the moment the levee gave way. FEMA should
have assumed direct control over all police, fire crews, EMTs and other
first responders.
In other words, Liberals seem to feel that the rights and responsibilities
of state and local governments can and should be taken away by the federal
government in emergency situations. But that's exactly what the Constitution
was designed to prevent.
More than anything else, the Founders feared an all-powerful central
government dictating to the states and citizens. The United States is
supposed to be a federal republic, not a centralised totalitarian
government. The President has no authority to command state militia (or the
modern substitute, National Guard units) without permission of the state
governor to whom they report. He cannot order the evacuation of a city. He
cannot simply assume command over the local and state governments. He
certainly cannot send the US military to take control of a city or state
except in case of insurrection. And the last thing the looters in New
Orleans were doing was setting up their own secessionist government.
"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by
the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or
Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
- US Code, Title 18, Section 1385
The Posse Comitatas Act of 1878 forbids the President from using the US
military to enforce the law without an Act of Congress. Posse comitatus, or
"all possible force," refers to the power of a sheriff to call upon every
able-bodied man in his county to help apprehend a criminal. (The things you
learn from watching old Westerns...) The President can not similarly use
"all possible force" to enforce the law, because doing so would be
equivalent to declaring martial law in the United States.
Exceptions to the law, aside from suppressing insurrections, include
assisting drug enforcement agencies or during emergencies involving nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on
your point of view), there is no exception for a local or state government
failing to respond properly to a crisis. State and local officials failed to
evacuate the citizens, declined to quell the looting and other crimes being
committed, and even refused permission for the Red Cross to bring food and
water to the people packed into the Superdome and Convention Center. The Red
Cross explains on their web site that "The state Homeland Security
Department had requested... that the American Red Cross not come back into
New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from
evacuating and encourage others to come into the city." Without the
governor's permission to act, the federal government was effectively
hamstrung.
Louisiana Governor Kathy Blanco could have requested federal help, but would
not sign the authorisation to allow it, even after the situation had
descended into total chaos. "Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush
administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a
federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans," the Washington Post
reported. "The administration sought unified control over all local police
and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana
officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned
that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial
law." Governor Blanco decided to maintain final authority over the situation
in New Orleans. With that authority comes responsibility for the results --
good or bad.
Every person who complains because the federal government did not take
control of the New Orleans situation -- despite the governor's refusal to
give permission -- is advocating a far more powerful federal government than
we should ever want. The burden of response to local disasters rests on
local elected officials while they choose to retain their authority. The
federal government cannot intervene unless specifically requested to do so.
To suggest otherwise is to invite a military dictatorship.
Joe Mariani
Joe Mariani is a computer consultant born and raised in New Jersey. He lives
in Pennsylvania, where the gun laws are less restrictive and taxes are
lower. Joe always thought of himself as politically neutral until he saw how
far left the left had really gone after 9/11. His essays and links to
articles are available at http://guardian.blogdrive.com/.
GWhyte
Thursday, September 08, 2005
Katrina, Oil, and Muslim Caliphate
Editor's note: MND will occassionally publish opinion pieces written by
Islamic Supremicists... we do not in any way condone these opinions, but we
will publish them them for their educational value.
By Abid Mustafa
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/2005/09/katrina-oil-and-muslim-caliphate.htm
In the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and Bush's inept
response to the unfolding humanitarian crisis in New Orleans, the myth of
America's super power status has been shattered.
A country that prides itself on its achievements in space, its high-tech
weaponry and its ability to pulverise nations has by all accounts delivered
a third world response to alleviate the painful suffering of its own people.
So much so that America has finally swallowed her pride and asked the EU and
NATO for emergency assistance, requesting blankets, first aid kits, water
trucks and food for the victims of the hurricane.
This is the same America that claims the higher moral ground over other
nations because America believes she is the harbinger of human rights and
equality. But beneath her underbelly lurks wanton racism that the world
witnessed through the awful treatment of poor, black Americans who
constituted the vast majority of the victims of the hurricane.
Forget about America fighting two simultaneous wars in the global arena or
her grandiose desire to reshape the Middle East. America's inability to cope
with a man-made disaster at home and her commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan
has laid bare American exceptionalism and has exposed her strategic
vulnerability before the whole world.
The crisis has thrown the Bush administration into a quandary over how best
to maintain enough troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to oversee the political
process in each country against the much needed redeployment of US troops
and military assets to aid the relief efforts in Louisiana, Mississippi and
other neighbouring states.
This has become America's tipping point and how President Bush deals with
the effects of Katrina at home balanced against American obligations
overseas, especially in the Muslim world. This may very well undermine his
presidency and America's position in the world.
It is difficult to see how President Bush can ignore Katrina's destruction
at home. Initial estimates suggest that some 10,000 people have lost their
lives and more than 500,000 people have been displaced. America will have to
spend billions of dollars to bring some degree of normalcy to the lives of
the survivors. The paltry sum of $10.5 billion offered so far will have to
rise significantly if Bush is serious about accomplishing this task.
The effect on the American economy has been equally disastrous. Standard and
Poor's estimated that damage from Hurricane Katrina could climb to as much
as $50 billion, once damage to infrastructure such as roads and bridges is
taken into account. The Port of New Orleans is one of the Southern US's
busiest ports and a major oil distribution gateway. The port handles 20% of
US exports and will be out of action for several weeks. Katrina has also
shut down 92 percent of Gulf oil production and 83 percent of Gulf natural
gas production, according to U.S. government data. The Gulf region accounts
for about 25 percent of total U.S. oil production.
The decision by Bush to release 30 million barrels of crude oil from America
's Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the pledge of 60 million barrels of
petroleum supplies from the International Energy Agency has done little to
dampen the price of crude oil in the international market. Furthermore, it
has had a negligible effect on the price of gasoline at US pumps which has
jumped over $3 a gallon.
To finance the recovery effort the US government will have to borrow more
money from international creditors. This will not only add to the burgeoning
US trade deficit which stood at $US650 billion in 2004, but also renders the
US dollar more vulnerable to a huge sell off. The implications could be more
catastrophic than the depression of the 1930's. Notwithstanding these
difficulties, Bush has to contend with mounting criticism at home. Questions
around the slow response of the federal government, the unpreparedness of
FEMA, the neglect of the Afro-Americans, the insufficient funds to
strengthen the levees, the absentee of the US National Guard and the
deployment of military personnel and assets in Iraq threaten to become the
bane of his presidency.
The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan looks no better for President Bush and
his corporate supporters. After having spent $500 billion dollars, America
is nowhere near to controlling the oil wells of Iraq or the Caspian region.
Nor has America made any substantial headway in crafting stable political
solutions for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ferocity of the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only out of
control but threatens to derail the upcoming elections in both countries.
Initially, America was hoping to boost its presence in Iraq with the
deployment of an extra 20,000 troops. But because of Katrina the Pentagon
has revised the figure to 2000 troops for Iraq's October referendum.
At this juncture, it would be extremely dangerous for America to redeploy
her troops and military assets to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina. This will have profound implications on US standing in the region
and beyond. A substantial withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan will
encourage other centres of power to fill the void left behind.
A retreat from Afghanistan will spur Russia and China to assert themselves
in Central Asia. Securing the energy reserves of the Caspian Sea and
removing American influence from Central Asia, Caucasus and Baltics will
seem more plausible to Russian and Chinese policy makers. China may even
become emboldened to take back Taiwan.
A withdrawal from Iraq may well encourage the EU and Russia to finish
America's project of reshaping the Middle East and controlling the region's
vast oil and gas supplies. But perhaps the biggest danger to US hegemony
comes from the emergence of the Caliphate which would spell the end to
Western or Eastern domination of Muslim lands.
In the coming days, America's friends and foes will be watching this tipping
point. The outcome is no longer in Bush's hands. The American public and the
Muslim ummah are the stake holders now. They will decide America's fate on
the world stage.
Abid Mustafa
Abid Mustafa is a political analyst who specialises in Muslim affairs
GWhyte
coverage]
The dark side of black people
http://www.jamaica-star.com/thestar/20050902/cleisure/cleisure1.html
LET ME START by saying that if I had my life to live over a thousand times,
the one thing I would not change would be my race. I am proud to be a black
man. There are times however, when I wish that certain people and I did not
share that trait.
For the past few days, the whole world ... well, at least those who have
access to satellite and cable television, have been seeing pictures of the
virtually total devastation of the cities of the U.S. Gulf Coast by
Hurricane Katrina. An estimated 90 per cent of homes in New Orleans have
been destroyed by flood waters and more than 100 people have been confirmed
dead.
We see people standing on the roofs of their submerged homes desperate to be
rescued, others being airlifted to safety, and we have heard tear-jerking
stories of families losing their loved ones. But in all of this, we have
also seen the really dark side of black people.
The day after the hurricane passed, there were reports of looting but
network reporters had been saying that people were looting out of
desperation, in search of food and water. A lot they knew.
The pictures I have been seeing are of people - black people - stealing
shoes, diapers, and television sets. Not food and definitely not water. Not
unless the armfuls of clothing, shoes, and appliances I see people wading
through the streets with count as food and water.
Now, if all the looters were looting out of desperation, how desperate were
the guy and girls I saw toting several boxes of size 13 Nikes? How desperate
was the fellow with the stack of diapers? What, is it that he has several
babies at home suffering from loose bowels? What am I talking about, what
home? Everything is under water and what isn't, has been totally destroyed.
Plasma TV?
And just what are those guys stealing the plasma television sets going to be
watching when there is no power in the entire city?
Desperation? Yeah, right. I am beginning to believe that black people, no
matter where in the world they are, are cursed with a genetic predisposition
to steal, murder, and create mayhem.
The entire firearm department at a Wal-Mart department store, for example,
was cleaned out and the looters used the stolen weapons to rob people. How
low is that? Everybody is suffering and the black people would seek to rob
people who are suffering just like themselves.
No white looters?
And it has nothing to do with poverty. Where are the white people in all
this? I am sure there are poor white people living in New Orleans, Biloxi
and the other towns affected by what has been going on. Is it that the media
are not showing pictures of them looting and robbing? Or is it that they are
too busy trying to stay alive, waiting to be rescued, and hiding from the
blacks.
And you know what? Even if the poor whites were looting and robbing,
wouldn't it be nice if the blacks could have made them the only ones doing
it
Just once, I would like for us blacks to take the high road in situations
like this, where instead of showing our darkest side, we put our best foot
forward. But I guess that would be too much to ask, too much of a case of
wishful thinking.
GWhyte
Published on Thursday, September 8, 2005 by Reuters
Canadians Beat U.S. Army to New Orleans Suburb
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0908-02.htm
A Canadian search-and-rescue team reached a flooded New Orleans suburb to
help save trapped residents five days before the U.S. military, a Louisiana
state senator said on Wednesday.
The Canadians beat both the Army and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the U.S. disaster response department, to St. Bernard Parish east of
New Orleans, where flood waters are still 8 feet deep in places, Sen. Walter
Boasso said.
"Fabulous, fabulous guys," Boasso said. "They started rolling with us and
got in boats to save people."
"We've got Canadian flags flying everywhere."
The stricken parish of 68,000 people was largely ignored by U.S. authorities
who scrambled to get aid to New Orleans, a few miles (km) away. Boasso said
residents of the outlying parishes had to mount their own rescue and relief
efforts when Hurricane Katrina roared ashore on August 29.
The U.S. government response to the disaster has been widely criticized.
Politicians and editorial writers have called for the resignation of top
Bush administration officials.
Boasso said U.S. authorities began airdropping relief supplies to St.
Bernard last Wednesday, the same day the Canadian rescue team of about 50
members arrived from Vancouver, nearly 2,200 miles away.
"They chartered a plane and flew down," he said.
Two FEMA officials reached the parish on Sunday and the U.S. Army arrived on
Monday, he said.
"Why does it take them seven days to get the Army in?" Boasso asked.
He speculated that the smaller parishes suffered because the focus was on
New Orleans, the famous home of jazz and Mardi Gras.
As for the Canadians, Boasso gave thanks for their quick work.
"They were so glad to be here," he said. "They're still here. They are
actually going door-to-door looking in the attics" for people to rescue, he
said.
© Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited
GWhyte
Katrina Underscores Bush's Isolated Style
by Steven Thomma
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0909-03.htm
WASHINGTON - As President Bush flew this week to the Gulf Coast for his
second post-Katrina visit, an aide said the trip reflected Bush's usual
routine of "seeing as much as possible and getting information from
different places."
Not quite.
Bush did not visit with any angry evacuees in New Orleans. As Katrina
approached, Bush and his top aides spent days apparently unaware that New
Orleans might be flooded - despite many warnings, some from inside his own
administration. Afterwards, he heaped praise on officials responsible for
the slow and initially disorganized disaster-relief efforts. His aides
dismiss demands that Bush hold someone accountable for failure, saying
that's merely a distracting "blame game."
None of this should be a surprise. Bush has a long record of avoiding
critics, rewarding loyalty even in the face of failure and shunning - even
punishing - those who disagree with him. It's a management style that shapes
how he governs - disdaining compromise with Democrats in Congress, for
example - and one that brushes off whole sectors of the American electorate.
That could come back to haunt him, as is now evident in the two problems -
Iraq and Katrina - that together have sent his approval ratings to the
lowest levels of his presidency and threaten his second-term agenda.
His style of isolating himself from unwelcome voices pleases his core
supporters, who don't want him to compromise, but it sacrifices the broader
public appeal that helped Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton weather second-term
setbacks. One new poll, from the independent Pew Research Center, suggests
he is losing support even from Republicans and conservatives.
To Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., the Bush administration's response to
Katrina suggested "a real sense of arrogance. Loyalty and never admitting a
mistake matters more than the truth. It has a Nixon feel to me."
Bush allies insist he is engaged and pressing the government to fix all
hurricane-related problems. But the public isn't much impressed, judging by
his plummeting polls. One new survey by independent pollster John Zogby
shows Bush would lose a hypothetical election to every modern president,
including the much-maligned Jimmy Carter.
Bush's isolated management style is one factor hurting him. While his
decision-making is usually cloaked in secrecy, the hurricane crisis showed
some characteristic traits.
Denial of unpleasant realities, for example. On Sept. 1 Bush contended that
no one could have foreseen that New Orleans might be flooded: "I don't think
anyone anticipated the breach of the levees."
Actually, a lot of people saw it coming. Three years ago, The New Orleans
Times-Picayune published a lengthy examination of how likely that scenario
was, and it got wide attention. In fact, Bush's own administration
participated in a disaster drill for almost exactly this kind of
catastrophe.
Bush himself has admitted in the past that he does not reach far for
information.
"I glance at the headlines," Bush told Fox News in September 2003, but "I
rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who ... probably read the
news themselves ... And the most objective sources I have are people on my
staff who tell me what's happening in the world."
Inside his administration, dissenting views are often stifled, and
dissidents punished.
In 2002, the administration fired the head of the Army Corps Engineers after
he continued to advocate spending increases for flood control after he'd
been overruled. Michael Parker, a former Republican congressman from
Mississippi, wanted a 40 percent spending increase, while Bush wanted a 10
percent cut.
When Bush convened an economic summit in 2002, then-Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill later told writer Ron Suskind, the White House wanted to hear only
from people who already supported Bush policies.
"A carefully vetted group of more than 240 executives, economists, and even
a few labor leaders was being assembled," Suskind wrote. "They'd seem
diverse and independent to the untrained eye. In fact, nearly every one
would be a Bush supporter and many were major fundraisers. Attendance was,
in a way, a reward for support."
While Bush likes to be surrounded by friendly faces, he avoids frowning
ones. Since Katrina hit, Bush visited the Gulf Coast twice, but both times
avoided angry evacuees - ostensibly so he wouldn't interfere with relief
operations.
Some veteran Bush-watchers are skeptical of that White House explanation.
"They didn't want anything to be on TV showing a bunch of angry people
hollering at the president," said George Edwards, a presidential scholar at
Texas A&M University. "It would not have been a favorable scene unless he
could handle it well, which he can't. Clinton could. He would be down there
feeling their pain. But Bush can't."
The president also has refused to speak to two major groups that represent
millions of Americans, but have criticized him.
After one brief phone conversation in 2001, Bush has never met with the
president of the AFL-CIO. He is the only president in the last half century
who has not.
And Bush has never addressed the NAACP as president. "You've heard the
rhetoric and the names they've called me," he once explained.
For more on the polls, www.people-press.org and www.zogby.com
© Copyright 2005 Knight Ridder
GWhyte
Katrina Fuels Global Warming Storm
by Alister Doyle
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0909-05.htm
OSLO - Hurricane Katrina has spurred debate about global warming worldwide
with some environmentalists sniping at President George W. Bush for pulling
out of the main U.N. plan for braking climate change.
Experts agree it is impossible to say any one storm is caused by rising
temperatures. Numbers of tropical cyclones like hurricanes worldwide are
stable at about 90 a year although recent U.S. research shows they may be
becoming more intense.
Still, the European Commission, the World Bank, some environmentalists,
Australia's Greens and even Sweden's king said the disaster, feared to have
killed thousands of people in the United States, could be a portent of worse
to come.
"As climate change is happening, we know that the frequency of these
disasters will increase as well as the scope," European Commission
spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich said.
"If we let climate change continue like it is continuing, we will have to
deal with disasters like that," she said. She said it was wrong to say
Katrina was caused by global warming widely blamed on emissions from cars,
power plants and factories.
Sweden's King Carl XVI Gustaf told reporters he was deeply shaken by the
damage and suffering of millions of people.
"It is quite clear that the world's climate is changing and we should take
note," he said. "The hurricane catastrophe in the United States should be a
wake-up call for all of us."
Climate change policies sharply divide Bush from most of his allies which
have signed up for caps on emissions of greenhouse gases under the U.N.'s
Kyoto protocol. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it was too
expensive and wrongly excluded developing nations from a first round of caps
to 2012.
In July this year, Bush launched a six-nation plan to combat climate change
with Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea focused on a shift to
cleaner energy technology. Unlike Kyoto, it stops short of setting caps on
emissions.
SEA LEVEL RISE
U.N. studies say a build-up of greenhouse gases is likely to cause more
storms, floods and desertification and could raise sea levels by up to a
meter by 2100.
Sea level rise could expose coasts vulnerable to storms because levees would
be swamped more easily. Some scientists dispute the forecasts and the United
States is investing more heavily than any other nation on climate research.
In Australia, the opposition Greens party said Katrina was aggravated by
global warming and criticized Bush for pulling out of Kyoto. The United
States, the world's biggest polluter, and Australia are the only rich
nations outside Kyoto.
"It demonstrates the massive economic, as well as environmental and social
penalties, of George Bush's policies," Greens leader Bob Brown told Reuters.
He did not believe Bush would shift to embrace Kyoto-style caps on
emissions.
Concerns were also voiced in Germany.
"The U.S. must be more involved," Gerda Hasselfeldt, a leading German
candidate to become environment minister if the conservative opposition wins
the September 18 election, told n-tv television.
In the United States, the focus has been far more on tackling the human
disaster than on links to climate change.
"People are still reeling from the tragedy," said Katie Mandes, a director
at the Washington-based Pew Center, a climate change think-tank.
"Politically it's too early to tell what it will mean for Americans' views."
Ian Johnson, the World Bank's top environmental official, said Katrina could
also be a wake-up call for developing nations, many of which are vulnerable.
An opinion survey published this week showed that 79 percent of Americans
feel global warming poses an "important" or "very important" threat to their
country in the next 10 years. Worries among Europeans were even higher.
Taken before Katrina in June, the Transatlantic Trends survey showed that
Americans felt more threatened than Europeans by terrorism, Islamic
extremism, weapons of mass destruction and economic downturn.
Some individual climatic disasters in the past have changed perceptions
about climate change. Steve Sawyer, climate change director at Greenpeace,
said that ice storms in Canada in the late 1990s had dramatically raised
public concerns.
Greenpeace called Katrina a "wake-up call about the dangers of continued
global fossil fuel dependency."
Recent research by Kerry Emanuel, a leading U.S. hurricane researcher, shows
the intensity of hurricanes -- the wind speeds and the duration -- seems to
have risen by about 70 percent in the past 30 years.
"Globally a new signal may be emerging in rising intensity," said Tom
Knutson, a research meteorologist at the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Higher water temperatures in future may lead to
more storms. Hurricanes need temperatures of about 26.5 C (80F) to form.
Additional reporting by Michael Perry in Sydney, Elaine Lies in Tokyo, Jeff
Mason and Paul Taylor in Brussels, Iain Rogers in Berlin, Timothy Gardner in
New York
© 2005 Reuters
GWhyte
How Reliable Is Brown's Resume?
A TIME investigation reveals discrepancies in the FEMA chief's official
biographies
by Daren Fonda and Rita Healy
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0909-07.htm
When President Bush nominated Michael Brown to head the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in 2003, Brown's boss at the time, Joe Allbaugh,
declared, "the President couldn't have chosen a better man to help...prepare
and protect the nation." But how well was he prepared for the job? Since
Hurricane Katrina, the FEMA director has come under heavy criticism for his
performance and scrutiny of his background. Now, an investigation by TIME
has found discrepancies in his online legal profile and official bio,
including a description of Brown released by the White House at the time of
his nomination in 2001 to the job as deputy chief of FEMA. (Brown became
Director of FEMA, succeeding Allbaugh, in 2003.)
Before joining FEMA, his only previous stint in emergency management,
according to his bio posted on FEMA's website, was "serving as an assistant
city manager with emergency services oversight." The White House press
release from 2001 stated that Brown worked for the city of Edmond, Okla.,
from 1975 to 1978 "overseeing the emergency services division." In fact,
according to Claudia Deakins, head of public relations for the city of
Edmond, Brown was an "assistant to the city manager" from 1977 to 1980, not
a manager himself, and had no authority over other employees. "The assistant
is more like an intern," she told TIME. "Department heads did not report to
him." Brown did do a good job at his humble position, however, according to
his boss. "Yes. Mike Brown worked for me. He was my administrative
assistant. He was a student at Central State University," recalls former
city manager Bill Dashner. "Mike used to handle a lot of details. Every now
and again I'd ask him to write me a speech. He was very loyal. He was always
on time. He always had on a suit and a starched white shirt."
In response, Nicol Andrews, deputy strategic director in FEMA's office of
public affairs, insists that while Brown began as an intern, he became an
"assistant city manager" with a distinguished record of service. "According
to Mike Brown," she says, "a large portion [of the points raised by TIME] is
very inaccurate."
Brown's lack of experience in emergency management isn't the only apparent
bit of padding on his resume, which raises questions about how rigorously
the White House vetted him before putting him in charge of FEMA. Under the
"honors and awards" section of his profile at FindLaw.com - which is
information on the legal website provided by lawyers or their offices-he
lists "Outstanding Political Science Professor, Central State University".
However, Brown "wasn't a professor here, he was only a student here," says
Charles Johnson, News Bureau Director in the University Relations office at
the University of Central Oklahoma (formerly named Central State
University). "He may have been an adjunct instructor," says Johnson, but
that title is very different from that of "professor." Carl Reherman, a
former political science professor at the University through the '70s and
'80s, says that Brown "was not on the faculty." As for the honor of
"Outstanding Political Science Professor," Johnson says, "I spoke with the
department chair yesterday and he's not aware of it." Johnson could not
confirm that Brown made the Dean's list or was an "Outstanding Political
Science Senior," as is stated on his online profile.
Speaking for Brown, Andrews says that Brown has never claimed to be a
political science professor, in spite of what his profile in FindLaw
indicates. "He was named the outstanding political science senior at Central
State, and was an adjunct professor at Oklahoma City School of Law."
Under the heading of "Professional Associations and Memberships" on FindLaw,
Brown states that from 1983 to the present he has been director of the
Oklahoma Christian Home, a nursing home in Edmond. But an administrator with
the Home told TIME that Brown is "not a person that anyone here is familiar
with." She says there was a board of directors until a couple of years ago,
but she couldn't find anyone who recalled him being on it. According to
FEMA's Andrews, Brown said "he's never claimed to be the director of the
home. He was on the board of directors, or governors of the nursing home."
However, a veteran employee at the center since 1981 says Brown "was never
director here, was never on the board of directors, was never executive
director. He was never here in any capacity. I never heard his name
mentioned here."
The FindLaw profile for Brown was amended on Thursday to remove a reference
to his tenure at the International Arabian Horse Association, which has
become a contested point.
Brown's FindLaw profile lists a wide range of areas of legal practice, from
estate planning to family law to sports. However, one former colleague does
not remember Brown's work as sterling. Stephen Jones, a prominent Oklahoma
lawyer who was lead defense attorney on the Timothy McVeigh case, was
Brown's boss for two-and-a-half years in the early '80s. "He did mainly
transactional work, not litigation," says Jones. "There was a feeling that
he was not serious and somewhat shallow." Jones says when his law firm
split, Brown was one of two staffers who was let go.
With reporting by Jeremy Caplan and Carolina A. Miranda/New York; Nathan
Thornburgh/Baton Rouge; Levi Clark/Edmond; Massimo Calabresi and Mark
Thompson/Washington
Copyright © 2005 Time Inc.