Tom Watson

The Motley Woman

"Mrs. Motley's style could be deceptive, often challenging a witness to get away with one lie after another without challenging them. It was as if she would lull them into an affirmation of their own arrogance, causing them to relax as she appeared to wander aimlessly off into and around left field, until she suddenly threw a curveball with so much skill and power it would knock them off their chair."

Reading Doug Martin's obituary of Judge Constance Baker Motley in today's Times, I came across this quote from Charlayne Hunter-Gault and suddenly I was back in her Federal courtoom in Foley Square in the late 80s, a young, muckraking reporter again. Once again, I sat in the row behind the defendants, close by the courtoom artists, and listened as Judge Motley lay in wait for the attorneys - particularly those at the long defense tables.

Her particular antagonist during the lengthy Wedtech corruption trial was Maurice Nessen, the dapper defense attorney for former Bronx Borough President Stanely Simon, one of a list of seven co-defendants that included the powerful Congressman Mario Biaggi and his son. Judge Motley could not abide Nessen, who consistently tried to seperate his client from the rest of the Wedtech indictees, extending discovery in the case endlessly (in her view) and challenging evidence every step of the way.

This infuriated Judge Motley. You could feel her ire rising from the black robes as everyone in the courtroom - perhaps exclusing Mr. Nessen - realized that the curt "my chambers, counsel" command was imminent. The great Daily News courtroom artist Joe Papin portrayed the Judge as a massive, imposing presence who scared the bejeezuz out of the defense table. And it was true: Judge Motley was a real presence, both because of her actions and because of her personal history as one of the leading figures of the civil rights movement, a lawyer who went fearlessly into some of the south's most prejudiced jurisdictions and came away with victory after victory.

But she could not abide Nessen for some reason, and had very little patience for the defense attorneys in general. She gave wide latitude to the prosecution, which was a combined effort of the Bronx District Attorney and the U.S. Attorney's Office (ruled then by giants named Merola and Giuliani).

I was thinking of her particularly difficult relationship  -- highly entertaining to the young political reporter for The Riverdale Press -- with Nessen this morning as I read the accounts of the indictment of Republican House leader Tom DeLay by a Texas grand jury. The prosecutor, charged DeLay and his supporters, was acting from pure political malice; some went so far as to say he was indicted merely because of his Republican position. Checking the record, it seems that Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle has a long record of prosecuting political corruption; although a Democrat himself, he has indicted 12 Democrats and only three Republicans during his 30 years in office. Judge Motley was a liberal, a leading pioneer in civil rights, and a Democrat who was selected to serve as Borough President of Manhattan. Maurice Nessen was a liberal as well, and all the officials on trial were Democrats. Yet Judge Motley bore in hard; I think it's fair to suggest she believed in the evidence.

Then again, did Democrat Mario Merola hesitate to the indict the leadership of the party that elected him District Attorney? Did Republican Rudy Giuliani hesitate to prosecute a case that led directly into the office of the Attorney General and the Reagan White House? They did not.

It seems silly, to me, to suggest that our judges and prosecutors are "political." To do so is akin to stating the sky is blue; it betrays a blindness born of purely partisan fighting, a sense that the accuser has been on the field of battle just a bit too long and needs some time in the rear echelons. Indeed, the charges against Tom DeLay seem very familiar to me, baptized into politics as I was by the Bronx Democratic Party in the 1980s. He is accused of violating a Texas law that makes illegal his funneling thousands of dollars in corporate contributions from the state through the Republican National Committee. I've seen this before: shakedowns in school board elections, brown bag political contributions from felons to political campaigns, bribes in the form of contributions to political clubs in exchange for public contracts.

On the other hand, critics who suggest that the growing corruption scandals gradually sucking the wind out of the White House and the Congress are somehow the product of Republican political doctrine are smoking some strong stuff indeed. What's bringing down the Republicans is too much time in power; they have no check and the temptation is too strong. It's not a Republican phenomenon, though it may benefit the Democratic Party in the short term.

As the Times noted, Constance Baker Motley "won cases that ended segregation in Memphis restaurants and at whites-only lunch counters in Birmingham, Ala. She fought for Dr. King's right to march in Albany, Ga. She played an important role in representing blacks seeking admission to the Universities of Florida, Georgia Alabama and Mississippi and Clemson College in South Carolina. She helped write briefs in the landmark school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and in later elementary-school integration cases."

As a black woman practicing law in the South, she endured gawking and more than a few physical threats. A local paper in Jackson, Miss., derided her as "the Motley woman."

But I believe that having seen the abuse of political power close-up in the South, and fighting successfully against that entrenched system of injustice, the Constance Baker Motley of the Federal bench had neither time nor patience for bid-rigging and bribery by the likes of Bronx elected officials. She knew instinctively that political corruption knows no party lines. I can still see her scowl.

Road to Nowhere

We’re on a road to nowhere
Come on inside
Takin’ that ride to nowhere
We’ll take that ride

Nothing so completely sums up the Bush years in this country as the images of cars streaming slowly away from our southern coast, heading north to escape the wind, the water, and the destruction. Endless lights, endless bumpers, endless radios locked into all-news weather stations that tell the time but don't tell which way the wind blows. Sure, it blows from the south; sure, it brings death. But the winds of the nation? The evolution (or intelligent design) of our national soul? You tell me. There is no direction; it swirls and skitters, not enough of a steady wind to hold even a child's kite aloft, much less the collective dream of what was America.

Just head north, if you can find the gas.

When the religious terrorists killed 3,000 Americans four years ago, they never dreamed of such a success. An America on its heels, rudderless, led by a failure overseeing an administration of disgrace; that trumps the virgings of paradise for those who kill for a hateful God. For we are a "nation at war" but we have never been to war; we have a "wartime President" who can't take the time. We spend billions on Iraq and on homeland security, but neither lifts us up. And no one demands sacrifice, except from the few and the proud (and the generally lower middle class) men and women of our armed forces.

Oh, President Bush asked for his first sacrifice from fellow Americans yesterday.

"If it makes sense for the citizen out there to curtail nonessential travel, it darn sure makes sense for federal employees. We can encourage employees to car-pool or use mass transit, and we can shift peak electricity use to off-peak hours. There's ways for the federal government to lead when it comes to conservation."

Then he boarded his 747 jumbo jet and flew to Louisiana again, still looking for images to reverse his public slide, and he was met by a fleet of government SUVs and whisked on a tour of the wreckage - his seventh such tour. Darn sure makes sense, Mr. President.

Four years after September 11th, and almost a month after the horror of Katrina fell upon an uprepared country, George Bush made his very first call for public sacrifice - conserve energy, the fated cry of Jimmy Carter a full generation ago, half-hearted perhaps, but from an oilman, that's a rave. In reality of course, the conservative movement in these United States has called on millions of Americans to sacrifice.

They are the poor, the working poor, the immigrant, the downtrodden - always with us.

These are the Americans that have been asked to sacrifice in the quarter century since Ronald Reagan was elected. Tax breaks for the rich, elimination of the estate tax, killing bankruptcy protection, funding pork while cutting major entitlement programs - spending more while giving less. That's the Republican way in this country, sadly and to their current shame. Chervokas posts on this today:

As ever the GOP expects all the sacrifices to be made by the working and middle classes, or by future generations who will inherit the enormous debts that fuel GOP policy. So the GOP will push ahead with its plans to make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, and to eliminate the estate tax, in turn proposing cuts in programs that benefit the middle and working classes--like Medicare, Medicaid, and others.

We are on the road to nowhere. What is the national vision in this early second term of George Bush's term, tell me, will you? Find it in the long line of cars, the headlights running north in an endless line of failure.

Republicans love to quote Churchill, believing him a fellow travel in conservatism and, indeed, noblesse oblige. But while Churchill was a man of empire and of hierarcy, he was deeply radical at his core; not an anti-government radical either, but a man who believed in the eminent power of government as the will of the people. He doubted, he drank, he slept, and he fought depression. But he did lead. And darn it, these words sure did make sense for the government of his time and for the dark challenge of his age:

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, "come then, let us go forward together with our united strength."

The Competence Man

In the last month, there has been only one face of competence peeking from out of the mountain of failure that is the Bush Administration: a single man whose public mien, seriousness of purpose, easy manner, strongly-held values, experience and engagement with the people of United States are obvious.

That man is John Roberts.

Judge Roberts is a conservative Republican, a product of the Reagan years, a middle-aged white man in a blue suit who seemed at first glance to be a walking mannequin in the shop window of the tax-cutting, wealth-rewarding upper middle-class GOP. He is not a jurist that a Democratic president would send to the Senate for Chief Justice. Given his service and his own published views (thin as they are, scarcely increased under questioning by the Senate) he seems not to be a man after my own political heart.

And yet, I think he should be confirmed - and I would urge my own Senators Schumer and Clinton to pull the "aye" lever under their desks, mid-term politics be damned.

I give only three reasons (and quite sensibly, they're aimed at my fellow Democrats; I know you Repubs agree):

1. He will be confirmed. We lost the Presidential election. Public sentiment favors his confirmation. It is a useless battle in a time of national peril, in my view. Is this a feckless, cowardly argument? Perhaps. But sometimes expediency and practicality trump doctrine.

2. I do not believe he is an extremist, even given the scant knowledge we have. I think he is a mainstream conservative, similar in stripe to the mainstream liberalism of Ginsburg. I think he's a big government man at heart if not in rhetoric (like Reagan and Forty-One). The Bull Moose captures my sentiments:

John Roberts is no Bork, Thomas or Scalia. Roberts has shown that he is no originalist extremist. He is apparently respectful of precedent. He has a modestly expansionist view of the commerce clause - he does not view the welfare state as unconstitutional. And he acknowledges a right to privacy. In sum, Roberts is a conventional conservative not a right wing revolutionary jurist.

3. He is very obviously competent. This matters - a lot. At a time when the Federal government under this President has been shown as a sham, an endless morass of incompetence, political hackery, and downright corruption, the earnest, competent presentation by Judge Roberts under the Senate's gaze actually lifted this liberal Democrat's spirits - just a hair, perhaps; the thinnest light in the gathering gloom of national failure and disgrace. But a light nonetheless.

We are simply not going to get a better appointment from this President Bush (we may indeed get a far worse appointment shortly and if so, Democrats should oppose it vigorously). At worst, at rock bottom, in the slime of modern Court annals, he's Rehnquist. At his ambitious, progressive height (and I think there's hope), he's probably Warren.

Given the actuarial tables, we're likely to have the Roberts Court for several decades. That would not be my first choice, or even my second. Although his hearing didn't reveal much of his philosophic mind, it did reveal much about the man: he is competent. On this basis, he should be confirmed.

UPDATE: The Moderate Voice, hard-core critic of this administration, agrees, noting that Roberts "truly seems to be a conservative who thinks through issues rather than adheres to and follows a strict ideological line."

Mourning the MVP

Few events in my life outside of family life and friendships and personal successes and faillures have created an imprint as great as the sweet stretch of fall in 1969. Those New York Mets, managed by the mensch Gil Hodges and powered by the arms of Seaver and Koosman, stamped baseball on my wordly existence forever. The team was special; it had to be, for outside of world-class starting pitching and decent defense, it was an underpowered squad, even in a pitching-dominated era. A few years ago, we lost one of the key members of that team when Tommie Agee collapsed outside his office near Grand Central Terminal and died of a heart attack. Today, we mourn quite possibly the greatest mid-season acquisition in Mets history - the big first-baseman Donn Clendenon, the most valuable player of that '69 World Series against Frank Robinson's Orioles. Clendenon came over from the Pirates, a veteran player with power, a strong right-handed bat, and he hammered 12 homers in half a season with the Mets, key blows during their big, surprising run. Often, he hit clean-up, right behind Cleon Jones. In the series, had had 5 hits in 14 at-bats for a .357 batting average, 4 runs batted in and 4 runs scored. His three home runs and 15 total bases set records for a five-game World Series. Life after baseball was up and down: he became a lawyer and worked for several firms, but became addicted to cocaine at age 50. He beat the addiction, moved to South Dakota, and practiced law quietly. He battled leukemia for the last decade. (Mike Lupica's column in today's News is worth reading). After winning the Series MVP, Clendenon's quote was telling: "there is no most valuable player on this team - we've got lots of them."

Misogynist Allies

The Bush Administration has very few strong allies in the greater world, but one of the tightest is the strongman of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf. According to the calculations of our government, Musharraf - who seized power in a coup - is a necessary ally in the realm of realpolitick, a despot perhaps, President of the nation that is the seat of ease for Osama bin Laden perhaps, but a key counterbalance to radical Islam in the region (and the rising power of India, but that's another story).

And it's in keeping with the Bush Administration's blatant disregard for women's rights in the process that will yield a conservative religious constitution in Iraq, that President Bush continues to keep our nation close to regime of the man who uttered this statement to the Washington Post:

"You must understand the environment in Pakistan ... this has become a money-making concern. A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped."

He was, of course, referring obliquely to the international heroine Mukhtaran Bibi, a worldwide symbol of strength and generosity - and a frequent subject for this blog. You may recall that earlier this year, the Pakistani government essentially kidnapped Mukhtar Mai, held her under house arrest, and kept her passport to keep her from a speaking tour of the U.S. and Canada in support of women's rights; and you will remember that Mukhtaran Bibi was gang-raped in an act of punishment sanctioned by her village elders. Expected to commit suicide in shame, she pursued a criminal and civil case, won a judgement, and used the money to open schools to educate the poor children of her region. Illiterate herself, Mukhtar Mai is a student in her own school - as are the children of those acused of raping her. He was also referring (possibly with more directness) to the lesser-known case of Dr. Shazia Khalid, who was raped and then chased from her country by the Pakistani government.

Of course, now he is saying in the eastern press that he was misquoted. Uh-huh, yeah. Post staff writers Glenn Kessler and Dafna Linzer got it wrong. Right. The tape malfunctioned.

Musharraf has been rightly pilloried by the international press - led by New York Times columnist Nick Kristof and many members of the British media - and he has felt the heat on occasion. But it has clearly not changed his mindset: he is a rabid anti-feminist, a medieval man of small tolerance. He resents Mukhtar Mai as a symbol, and as a woman.

Here in the U.S., it might be tempting to say: well, that is exotic Pakistan; we in the west cannot understand their ancient ways, and it may be arrogant to suggest a change in their long-held tribal customs.

Bullshit.

Pakistan is a rising power in the world, with a near-first class military and the clear, eminent desire to grow its technology and outsourcing sectors to take advantage of the global economy, and sit astride the far east and the far west in a position of power and profit. Musharraf himself is given to rhetoric about modernity and liberalism, and postures his regime as a bridge for his country to a more open future. Further, he is a beneficiary of American technology and military aid, despite the presence of the killer bin Laden in his provinces.

Every few months, when concern mounts for the future of women in the former Iraq - women who held more rights under the oppressive Saddam than they do now under the priests and acolytes - we trot out Laura Bush or some other functionary to say we care. Well, now is the time for the Administration to show action: it must condemn Musharraf, demand freedom and justice for women in Pakistan - and withhold all American aid until the strongman relents.

UPDATE: From tomorrow's Post - in an article quoting Musharraf as claiming the paper misquoted him - comes a round-up of the blow-back, including a formal protest from Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (nothing from the U.S. yet). The article includes this paragraph:

The interview was conducted by three Washington Post reporters and was tape-recorded. A review of the recording yesterday confirmed that Musharraf -- who was surrounded by aides who took notes and also recorded the interview -- was accurately quoted.

Just One Photograph

There have been many brilliant, shocking images coming out of the Katrina disaster and its aftermath, and there can be no doubt that the photographers who documented the struggle in New Orleans will see their work praised and rewarded for years to come. But it's more than two weeks since the storm; I didn't expect to be shocked, moved, saddened, angered, and touched deeply by a new photograph. Yet there it was, and even in a middle seat on the shuttle down to DC on business today, pressed in by work and competing elbows, it took my breath away.

I won't show it here, but would like to describe it; then you can click on the link. [The photo was taken by Bruce Chambers of the Orange County Register and distributed the the AP].

The picture shows a rescue team emerging from a white, two-family house in New Orleans. A big husky guy in U.S. Army atigues with the name Ramos on his chest holds the truly emaciated body of a naked, elderly black man. The victim's head lolls back at a strange angle; consciousness does not dwell there. His ribs and breastbone are prominent, and his body is smooth; age appears only in the well-worn hands and the ancient feet. He wears an oxygen mask and is hooked up to an IV drip. The team has taken the time to drape a towel across his genitals.  Clearly, the man's life hangs in the balance, but this group of rescuers saw the need for some slight dignity.

Then there is the face of Ramos. It is a powerful face, late 30s I'd guess, going to jowels. A man who likes his cold ones and his football (pure conjecture, but it's my blog). Ramos is hell-bent to save the dying man, that much is clear. All camo fatigues and determination, he is the face of a real Federal response to disaster. His energy is the abundant source of movement in the photo, the complete contrast to the limp, thin victim.

There are others: A woman with a navy shirt that apparently reads New Orleans Medic holds the patient's legs as the group descends some concrete steps. She wears a blue handkerchief on her head, and her brown braids are the only sign of youth and beauty in the picture. Her colleague, a man in dark shades, holds the victim's shoulders aloft. They are local EMTs, supporting the shoulders and the legs of a man being rescued by the Federal response team. A hand with a camouflage cuff, the rest unseen, holds the IV bag.

This is New Orleans two weeks after the flood. Two weeks.

To see the photo, please click here.

The story of the rescue, including the backgrounds of those involved, is here.

Take a look please; I'd love to know if your reaction to this picture is a strong as mine was.

Four Long Years, Mr. Bush

Say what you will about the sad, conservative, privatized, small government, small morals response of this Bush Administration to the catastrophic human disaster that is Hurricane Katrina and its long, terrible aftermath. It is very bad.

But it is not the greatest failing of the Bush presidency.

The greatest failing of the Bush presidency is the timid Federal response to the events of September 11, 2001 in New York, and Washington, and Pennsylvania.

Yes, timid.

For all the rhetoric, for all the political hay made with the phrase "9/11" - although I suspect Katrina has ended its evident effectiveness forever - for all the manly posturing, the bullhorns, the stately music and the photo opps, we have failed. And by we, I mean the national government we placed in power and indeed, reelected on the promise of security.

Because Osama bin Laden is at liberty. And he has been for four long years: a span of time longer than that between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the surrender of Imperial Japan on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Harbor. The political and moral will to kill or capture (and then kill, frankly) the 9/11 mastermind has dried up along with the crocodile tears shed by politicians who see those terrible attacks as mere political opportunity.

As the commander of chief of the United States military, the most powerful instrument of statecraft in the world, George W. Bush has failed in the central mission of a nation attacked.

Failed miserably, with oak leaf clusters for incompetence and timidity. The CEO President outsourced the killing of bin Laden to feuding tribes in medieval Afghanistan. According to the stunning account in today's New York Times Magazine by Mary Ann Weaver, the Administration allowed just 36 Special Forces troops anywhere near the caves of Tora Bora where they knew - they knew! - Osama bin Laden and his closest aides were holed up in the early winter of 2001.

You want to weep on this clear blue September Sunday, four years later, as the names of the dead are once again read on every channel in New York City, read this:

The view prevailing among senior American military leaders was that overwhelming air power, suitcases full of cash and surrogate militias could win the war. The intricacies of Afghan tribal life appeared to elude everyone.

George Bush had the opportunity to lead his army against Osama bin Laden, and kill him. He did not choose to do so. Instead he used 9/11 as a poor excuse to attack Iraq, to our national detriment.

In short, the President shied at the fence, shirked his duty, displaying a brand of Neo-Conservative perfidy to be witnessed by the world.

Only Rock and Roll

"England's Newest Hitmakers!" cries the cover of Rolling Stone over a picture of the craggy old Rolling Stones, but hilarious as that is, it's strangely true. The Stones have defied age, disease, convention, and a 20-year slump to produce a strong, relatively spare, spunky little record album (if such things can be said to exist anymore) in their terrific Bigger Bang disk. It's no classic: their last truly great recording being Some Girls in 1978. But it is every bit as good as, say, Tattoo You - and everything they've recorded in between put together. And frankly, that's saying something.

Because it's a wonderful thing in the late summer of 2005 to have the Rolling Stones catch you on the downside, smack your old ass, and get you moving.

What's amazing about Bigger Bang is the whirling, spitting, sheer centrifugal force that is Mick Jagger. Like the boyish Jagger at the knee of Howlin' Wolf on Top of the Pops circa '63, today's would-be stars can learn a bunch from this 62-year-old frontman. Jagger turns in some of his best vocal performances ever; he sells the material for the first time, really, since the Carter Administration. And the material itself is a big step up: with Charlie Watts battling throat cancer last year, Jagger and Keith Richards holed up in France and laid down the basic tracks. It's their strongest writing in many, many years: particularly in the self-examinations of Jagger's manifold persona (you sort of take solid, near-brilliant Richards riffs and chord progressions for granted at this point; no one has ever coaxed more magic from five strings tuned to G).

If you just wanna go iTunes on it, here are the ones I'm putting in heavy rotation (and really, in an old LP-style release nine or 10 songs would have made this a better record that its full 16 tracks):

• Laugh, I Nearly Died
• Streets of Love (these two are slow, bluesy, Angie-like affairs)
• Sweet NeoCon (yeah the politics, but the reggae groove is irresistable)
• Rough Justice
• Oh No, Not You Again (on these two quick ones, typical Stones layered guitars of the Richards-Ron Wood era, with rolling Watts beat, but man, Jagger sells 'em both)
• It Won't Take Long (mid-tempo number with Gimme Shelter riffs)
• Look What the Cat Dragged In (typical late-Stones dance-beat music, beats Aerosmith at its own game - fun throwaway)
• Dangerous Beauty (another chunky B-side, but with insane lead vocal)
• Back of My Hand (hard-core blues number, old-style, with intense delivery - among the best performances on any Stones record - an instant classic)

This is the record of a mature bluesman, in control, well-worn of life, snide, sniping, sharp, knowing and leering with full intensity: using all his knowledge and musical experience. (He plays a vicious harp on many tracks). Awhile back, I argued that old is the new young. So very true. Late-career greatness from Mick Jagger. And man, that's a pleasant surprise.

UPDATE: Saw the Stones at MSG last night and I must say, it was a terrific show. Although the layered guitars of Richards and Wood create the signature Stones sound from the mid-70s on, the live act I saw was a testimony to the energy of two men: Jagger and the incredible Charlie Watts. It's Watts - age 65, recovering from cancer - who drives the band live these days, connecting both Jagger and Richard to their own songs; both men move ritualistically from the bass drum to the broad expanse of the stage, and back again - over and over - as if sipping from some mythical fountain of rhythm. There was nothing particularly "historic" about the show except for its price (do not ask) but you had to admire the sheer professionalism of the four Stones and their now-veteran ensemble of players and singers, including Chuck Leavell (the fifth Stone, really), Darryl Jones, sax master Bobby Keys, and David Johansen's old sideman, Blondie Chaplin. To me, in fact, the highlight wasn't the new stuff - which Chervokas also praises in a thougthful review - but their terrific cover of Get Up, Stand Up.

Conservatism Fails II

That wild, left-wing, radical paper of the progressives, The Wall Street Journal, unleashed a cutting and timely expose on state of Federal homeland security and disaster preparedness under the band of conservatives running our nation. Read the whole piece; this was the kicker:

In June 2004, FEMA spent more than half a million dollars to commission a "catastrophic hurricane disaster plan" from IEM Inc., a Baton Rouge-based emergency-management and homeland-security consulting firm. A report analyzing results of a mock hurricane hitting New Orleans, dubbed "Hurricane Pam," was envisioned and a response and recovery plan was to be drawn up.

During a five-day mock exercise in July 2004, emergency-management responders huddled in Baton Rouge to plan a response to "Hurricane Pam," a Category 3 storm which featured 120 miles per hour winds and a storm surge that topped New Orleans's levees. For reasons that aren't clear, the mock exercise never anticipated the levees giving way, despite such warnings. Even so, the mock hurricane destroyed 500,000 buildings in New Orleans and displaced one million residents.

The group developed a plan to get stranded residents out of the way and construction of a "command structure" with enough space for upwards of 800 rescue workers. A report, dated Jan. 5 of this year, detailed recommendations from the exercise and was provided to FEMA, an IEM spokeswoman said. FEMA has not released the report.

An unwillingness to lead at the head of government: that is the hallmark of the modern American conservative movement, one that is firmly established (for now) in power over the dwindling Federal might of our country. This administration is unwilling to lead (outside of war and related saber-ratling) - it does not believe strongly in the mission of goverment, in government that can do good, in government that can lead people and improve society. It believes only in the marketplace and in thin, sloganish vitriol.

When trouble hits the homeland, these conservative colors run.

The inherent distrust of government as a vital instrument of hte people undergirds the Bush Administration's dismantling of FEMA, its appointment of bobble-headed political hacks to positions charged with saving lives and property, and quite frankly, its very style: the joking about frat-boy days in New Orleans, Trent Lott's manse, "Brownie."

And this: the craven, despicable use of brave, volunteer firefighters are public relations tools for a failed, disgraced Federal agency. (Oh, I do not exagerrate even slightly, alas). According to a report from the Salt Lake City Tribune (another leftist rag) more than a thousand firefighters from around the U.S. gathered in Atlanta, prepared to rush to the ravaged areas on missions of mercy and hope. Many came with full gear, on their own dime, using vacation and personal time: an army of well-trained, committed Americans.

Instead, they have learned they are going to be community-relations officers for FEMA, shuffled throughout the Gulf Coast region to disseminate fliers and a phone number: 1-800-621-FEMA.

On Monday, some firefighters stuck in the staging area at the Sheraton peeled off their FEMA-issued shirts and stuffed them in backpacks, saying they refuse to represent the federal agency.

Now that is bad enough: a clear waste of resources, another black eye for an agency that has been gutted by Bush's budget cuts. But then it gets much, much worse - and yes, this is not a report from The Onion, mis amigos:

Firefighters say they want to brave the heat, the debris-littered roads, the poisonous cottonmouth snakes and fire ants and travel into pockets of Louisiana where many people have yet to receive emergency aid.

But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.

A photo opp. While people died, alone, uncared for by their government.

To be sure, there are a lot of failing grades on the Katrina report card. As despicable as Karl Rove's Fox-backed campaign to "blame the local officials" is there is some hard truth in the charges. Clearly, New Orleans was not a well-run city; its corruption and planning problems are well-known. Governors in both Mississippi and Louisiana will, I think, be found lacking in the long run. Many people failed.

But in a multi-state attack by nature upon our homeland by the force of nature - unprecedented in modern times - the buck stops at the Federal government's doorstep, a Federal government manned by appointees who are loyalists to the new conservative-religious coalition that governs our country.

A group that does not believe in government (again, except in military matters).

The Journal report - among others - bears this out: massive budget shifts in FEMA to anti-terrorism programs, a departure of top executives, a dwindling of the robust Clintonian agency built by James Lee Witt, and major shift away from disaster preparedness. Michael Chertoff told Congress his plan was "to take out of FEMA a couple of elements that were really not related to its core missions, that were generally focused on the issue of preparedness in a way that I think was frankly more of a distraction to FEMA than an enhancement to FEMA."

Now, President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress have each announced probes into what went wrong. But can we trust the investigators? Because they don't believe in government.

Conservatism Fails

Does the Bush ranch in Crawford have a situation room, or any type of military communications whatsoever? Does Cheney's Wyoming spread? Does Air Force One? Did Rumsfeld know how to use a telephone? Can anyone explain why a well-equipped United States Navy ship with six operating rooms, 600 hospital beds, and a desalinization unit capable of making 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day bobbed empty off Louisiana but for its crew from the start of Hurricane Katrina's descent on the gulf coast, through the long hellish killing week, and still lays empty today?

This from the Chicago Tribune's stunning report:

Now the [USS] Bataan's hospital facilities, including six operating rooms and beds for 600 patients, are empty. A good share of its 1,200 sailors could also go ashore to help with the relief effort, but they haven't been asked. The Bataan has been in the stricken region the longest of any military unit, but federal authorities have yet to fully utilize the ship.

How could a President of the United States not have a competent grasp of the disposition of major military assets in a time of crisis? Is this even possible? [Even a cursory glance at a Tom Clancy book suggests not]. Or is this President, this administration, this group of bumblers so blind and deaf and unbriefed and out of touch that it doesn't bother with information of this kind; the nitty-gritty of running a massive Federal government of the world's superpower just isn't all that engrossing. I think Chervokas nails it in this post:

In times of crises one never gets a sense that George Bush is in a situation war room, fully abreast of every fact, riding herd over departmental underlings to make sure resources are rushed into service. In fact, the picture that emerged from Katrina is one of a lazy, hands-off president--briefly flying over the disaster scene on his way back from a month-long vacation while people drowned below him, taking charge of the situation only five days later after being shamed into action by TV news reporters.

But it's not just laziness and incompetence and lack of interest. I'll tell you what it is: philosophical doctrine.

Conservative doctrine.

Failed, discredited, immoral, racist, un-Godly conservative doctrine.

For this crew, government is bad in its essence, whilst power remains good; that's a strange, warped view to govern under, but it's what we now have at the helm of the United States. This government did not act because under its philosophy government should not act. Government does best when it stays out of the way, and lets folks just be folks. Caveat: except in oil-rich foreign lands. Then, government action is an investment in resource exploitation, er, democracy and freedom.

No, this government sat back on its heels, was horribly incapable of acting, because action was anathema to its soul. Heck, better to roll back the estate tax - or do away with bankruptcy protection for the middle class and working poor. Poverty has risen for five consecutive years for the first time in U.S. history: that's a good thing, the markets are at work, things will even out. The business of America is business, said another failed Republican, in pre-Depression mode. Nice little saying.

No, true hard-core conservatives do not believe in a social compact, a common effort, knitting all classes together. They believe in winner take all, nobly expressed post-Katrina by Alexander Cockburn at CounterPunch (thankee, James):

Once you stop believing in universal betterment, you stop investing in social defenses, like health care, or flood control. You build your shining condo on the hill, put a fence round it, and cancel the local bus service so the poor can't get at you...

"So collective effort goes out the window, and soon the society forgets how collective effort works. Tens of thousands of poor people standing on roofs in the Delta and they haven't the slightest idea how to get them off. The ones they have brought to dry land they dump on the highway, where they stand as the Army trucks roll by.

Don't talk about race or the growing, aching divide between the landed, invested, trust fund Americans and the rest of the debt-addled, wage-leaking, health care-lacking slobs. That's class warfare, son! That's dividin'. That's hatred right there.

So now Karl Rove runs out his own hurricano - the big spinning machine, churning sewege and destruction - to blame local authorities, local mayors, local councilmembers. To blame the poor. To blame the blacks. Make the President look better, now. If a man scruples to unmask an undercover CIA agent, thinks the cynic, he won't trifle with a few poor black folks.

Keep the agenda alive, the conservative agenda. Get government off our backs. No handouts. Land of opportunity. Spreading freedom throughout the world. Keep the South solid red state territory; preserve the divisions regardless to preserve the vote. This is Rove's mandate now.

Need help in a crisis?

Don't ask the conservatives.