Ian Fishback

Heraldblog writes of Captain Ian Fishback

That doesn't mean he won't be slimed. He's already faced detention and heavy handed questioning by Rumsfeld's goons, presumably without need for naked pyramids. Soon Rove will be leaking defamatory stories to Fox News, and Rush will give Fishback an insulting nickname.

So it's up to all men and women of good conscience, both those who support the war and those who think it's a misbegotten adventure that America will regret for generations, to come to Fishback's defense. So far, Andrew Sullivan has taken the lead in bringing the lieutenant's story to the blogosphere. Don't let it end there.

I wholeheartedly agree.

If you are not familiar with the name, Capt. Fishback is in the 82nd Airborne division of the US Army who raised questions about the military's conduct on abusing prisoners in Abu Ghraib, and made his objections public. As Heraldblog says, Sullivan has been following the situation closely. The government's response to having these questions raised? Sullivan writes

The torture end-game is approaching - and Rumsfeld and Cheney know it. What is now being done to the hero, Captain Ian Fishback, who braved 17 months of obstruction, threats and intimidation by military brass to keep quiet, is a national disgrace. Fishback has now been sequestered at Fort Bragg under orders restricting his contacts (the pretext is that he is a key witness in a criminal investigation and that he should not be in contact with outsiders while it continues). My sources tell me that he has been subjected to a series of long, arduous interrogations by CID investigators. Predictably, the CID guys are out to find just one thing: they want to know the identities of his two or three NCO corroborators. The CID folks are apparently indifferent to the accounts of wrongdoing - telling him repeatedly not to waste their time with his stories. Fishback knows if he gives their identities up, these folks will also be destroyed - so he's keeping his silence, so far. The investigators imply that he failed to report abuses, so he may be charged, or that he is peddling falsehoods and will be charged for that. They tell him his career in the Army is over. Meanwhile the peer pressure on him is enormous. I'm reliably told that he has been subjected to an unending stream of threats and acts of intimidation from fellow officers. He is accused of betraying the Army, and betraying his unit by bringing it into disrepute. His motives are challenged. He is accused of siding with the enemy and working for their cause. And it goes on and on. This is not surprising. My email in-tray tells me each day that I am a supporter of Islamo-fascism, a traitor, someone who should be deported and so on, for insisting that legalized torture in the U.S. is one of the most important issues we now face. But I'm a free man and they cannot silence this blog. Fishback, whose courage deserves a medal, is not. They are slowly smearing and breaking him. But I have a feeling we have finally found a man with the integrity, faith and patriotism to stand up to the culture of fear and brutality he is now enduring.

And again,

Another source informs that the word is around that Rumsfeld has taken a strong interest in this. He is quoted as saying "Either break him or destroy him, and do it quickly." And no doubt about it, that is just what they are doing. Expect some trumped up charges against Fishback soon, similar to what they did to Muslim Chaplain Captain James Yee, whom they accused of treason with no solid evidence and then, when those charges evaporated, went on to accuse him of adultery. The bottom line, as the NYT reports today, is that the military and the Bush administration are determined to stop any real investigation about how torture and abuse came to be so widespread in the U.S. military. The scapegoating of retarded underlings like Lynndie England is an attempt to deflect real responsibility for the new pro-torture policies that go all the way to the White House. It's a disgusting cover-up and it rests on breaking the will and resolve of decent servicemen and women brave enough to expose wrong-doing.

(emphasis mine) Break him or destroy him. These are the kinds of people we have leading the country, folks. Just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, doesn't it?

NFL 2005 Week 4 Predictions

OK, I finally got in the black last week, with an 8-6 week. Still some surprises. Figures the Vikings would get their act together the one week I pick against them. See, they can’t do anything right.

At this point, let me officially jump off the Cardinal bandwagon. In my preseason predictions, I said you could “either laugh at my stupidity or marvel at my sagacity.” Let the laughter begin. Without a running game, the Cardinals are going nowhere. With Josh McCown starting at QB while Warner’s on the mend, the passing game will be as bad as the running game. Ugh.

Onto this week.

Bills “@” Saints
Ah, the Saints finally get a home game, or at least as much “home” as can be expected. The Saints have disappointed the last two weeks, after a gutsy win over the Panthers. The Bills have disappointed all season. They have a good defense, but they have lost their leader Takeo Spikes. The Saints don’t have much of a defense, so Willis McGahee should put up some good numbers. But against a weakened Bill defense, the more diverse Saint offense should as well. Until Losman matures, the Bills just aren’t going to get it done. Having a good running game is great, but you still have to be able to throw it, and Buffalo cannot. Prediction: Saints.

Lions @ Bucs
Tampa is one of the great surprises of the season. The defense is playing a bit like the glory days defense, the running game is kicking butt, and Griese is having a career renaissance. I don’t think they can ride this wave all the way. They are pushing their young Cadillac too hard; he can’t keep up this pace for 16 games. But right now they are a pretty good team. The Lions, well, what can one say. They stay with Harrington at QB, so what do you expect? Prediction: Bucs.

Colts @ Titans
Another great surprise this season has been the Colts. Make that two surprises. First, the defense is playing well. Second, the passing game is pretty tame. A Colt offense ranked 21st in the league? Unbelievable! Manning has a grand total of 2 TD passes in three games (and both came in the opening weekend), coming off a season in which he averaged 3 TDs per game. Completion percentage is down, rating is down, yards per game is down. As Daunte Culpepper showed last week, a disappointing season can turn around very quickly. But the Colts won’t need an MVP performance from Manning to beat the rebuilding Titans. Prediction: Colts.

Chargers @ Patriots
New England got hit with a double whammy last week, losing both Harrison and Matt Light. Both are serious losses. Everyone focuses on Harrison, of course, since he is the lone star in the secondary. But Light’s loss is just as important because it leaves the left side of the offensive line, Brady’s blind side, in inexperienced hands which then presents problems for both the passing and running games. The Patriots have evolved over the years into very much an offense-oriented team, and with a struggling running game, the offensive line even more needs to keep Brady on his feet. At least Light will come back this season. And if those losses aren’t enough, backup running back Kevin Faulk is also out this week. The Patriots have played sloppy football this year, with far too many penalties and turnovers. The Chargers are off to a 1-2 start, but both losses were eminently winnable. Like New England, they could easily be 3-0. Drew Brees, coming off a career-saving season last year, is again off to a tough start, averaging less than 200 yards passing per game. But they got off slowly last year too, and are only a game out of first place in the division. In the end, New England is familiar with injuries and the Charger secondary is not up to the challenge of stopping Brady. Prediction: Patriots.

Broncos @ Jaguars
I must say how impressed I am with the Jaguar offense, particularly passing the ball. Having some decent targets has really improved Leftwich’s standing. Denver had a good game Monday night, but they are inconsistent and will follow up the big game with a flop, especially against a very good and balanced Jaguar team. Prediction: Jaguars.

Texans @ Bengals
The Bengals find themselves in the unfamiliar position of being one of the top teams in the AFC, undefeated with one of the best offenses around and a respectable defense to go with it. The Texans are in the familiar position of losing and seeing their QB sacked on a regular basis. The tigers will roar again. Prediction: Bengals.

Seahawks @ Redskins
Now that I’ve jumped off the Cardinal bandwagon, the NFC West must fall to Seattle. I jumped off the Redskin bandwagon last week, and will stay off as long as Brunell is the QB. The ‘Skins have a fantastic defense, but nothing on offense. Take away the last few minutes of the Cowboy game and all they’ve scored are field goals. Seattle looks pretty good right now, particularly on offense. My long standing theory is that when a good offense goes up against a good defense, look at the opposite matchup, which in this case is the Washington offense against the Seahawk defense. Whoever wins that battle wins the game, and Seahawks take it easily. Prediction: Seahawks.

Rams @ Giants
The explosive Giant offense will go up against the dismal Ram defense. Oh my. Eli Manning will defend the honor of the Manning family name by putting up big numbers worthy of his brother. Prediction: Giants.

Jets @ Ravens
What a devastating week the Jets have had. They lose both their starting and backup quarterbacks for the season and are forced to go with young Brooks Bollinger while geezer Testaverde gets back into football shape. The Raven offense just looks like they lost their top two quarterbacks. This will be a very boring, low scoring affair. Will there even be a touchdown? Baltimore has the better defense, so go with them. Prediction: Ravens.

Eagles @ Chiefs
This should be quite a game. Chief’s coach Vermeil took the Eagles to their first Super Bowl way back when, and current coach Reid took them to their second just last year. Both teams field very good offenses. The still-forming reputation of the Chief defense took a nose dive last week in getting blown out by the Broncos. The Eagles will be shorthanded with place kicker Akers out with a leg injury. That will give the edge to the Chiefs, who will be able to count on some field goals to go with their touchdowns, while the Eagles will not. Prediction: Chiefs.

Cowboys @ Raiders
The Raiders sit at 0-3, but are much better than that would indicate. They have played tough in all three games, two of which were against the two defending conference winners. The lone non-Super Bowl team they played was Kansas City, a Super Bowl contender this year. They took the Eagles to the wire. The defense still isn’t very good, but the offense certainly is. The Cowboys sit at 2-1, having squeaked out wins against the Chargers and lowly 49ers and barely losing to the Redskins. This should be a good offensive game since both teams are good. But the Raiders are better. Prediction: Raiders.

Vikings @ Falcons
Minnesota remembered that they are allowed to run the ball too, last week. A productive running game opened up the passing game, and Culpepper had a field day. Unfortunately, the Vikings still have one of the worst run defenses around (not that their pass defense is much better, but passing isn’t something the Falcons do too much), and the Falcons will ram the ball down their throats, keeping the Viking offense on the sidelines and therefore off the scoreboard. When Culpepper and company are on the field, their questionable line will have to face down a strong pass rush from the Falcon defensive ends. Prediction: Falcons.

49ers “@” Cardinals
I guess someone forgot to tell the 49ers just how bad they are. They don’t have a great record but they have played every game tough. Last year, San Fran was able to only defeat one team in the league—the Cardinals—and they did it twice to account for their two wins. The Cardinal fan base is so bad that this home game, played in a foreign country, will probably find them more support than a true home game. With a non-existent running game and a passing game without Warner, the Cardinals will struggle just to make first downs. Prediction: 49ers.

Packers @ Panthers
I don’t get the Panthers. They play tough against the Patriots and come away with the win, but then drop games to the Saints and the Dolphins. Granted, Miami is better than expected, and could actually be the second best team in the AFC East, but the Panthers are supposed to be Super Bowl contenders. I’m not ready to drop them, but they have to step up their game a bit. Luckily, the hapless Packers are coming to town. Their saving grace the last few years has been a good offense, which is going nowhere this year. Prediction: Panthers.

Last Week: 8-6
Season: 21-25

Coalition for Darfur: Anarchy and the UN

This week's Coalition for Darfur post discusses the impotence of the UN and the world in responding to the slaughter of Darfur.

As Darfur descends into anarchy, the United Nations appears unable to do any more than express concerns and continue to ask the parties involved to cease their violent attacks.

...

After two years, 400,000 deaths, and an estimated 3.5 million now entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, it must be stated that the UN and every one of its member nations have failed the people of Darfur and, in all likelihood, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

OkCupid Politics Test

Another politics test.

You are a Social Conservative (38% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (35% permissive) You are best described as a: Totalitarian Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

I love it, a centrist totalitarian! Social conservative and economic liberal? I would have had it the other way around, more liberal socially and conservative economically. Another test I took had this right.

The "Intelligent Design" Trial

The Dover, PA school district is being sued by parents over its controversial accomodation of intelligent design in biology class. I have been critical of the creationist side of the ID discussion numerous times. But the scientific side needs to be taken to task as well. Their strategy in the case appears to be to prove evolution in court.

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers suing the Dover Area School District for exposing its students to the controversial theory, sprinkled his testimony with references to DNA, red blood cells and viruses, and he occasionally referred to complex charts on a projection screen.

Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed.

"I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones mused before recessing for lunch.

This is the wrong approach.

From what I have read, the school district does not teach ID. The teacher is required to simply issue a disclaimer before each class session. The text of this disclaimer is available online. I have said it before and I'll say it again. There is nothing objectionable in this disclaimer. It begins by stating evolution is a theory. What scientist can object to that assertion? It goes on to say there are gaps. I'm a physicist, not a biologist, so I cannot speak authoritatively, but I would be totally shocked if this were not true. I have never seen a theory in science in which there were no holes. The disclaimer continues by giving a perfectly reasonable definition of what the word "theory" means. The creationists try to whip up doubt by confusing the scientific meaning of the word with the more colloquial. The disclaimer in question asserts the scientific version.

Intelligent design is then described as an "explanation", not a theory so as to not be confused with science, that is different from evolution. Well, yes. It is an explanation and is not evolution, so this is an accurate statement. A reference text on ID is then mentioned for any student interested in learning about it. Unless the scientists want to argue that this book is, in fact, not a reference for ID, I cannot see anything wrong.

In the final paragraph of the disclaimer, students are encouraged to keep an open mind with respect to any scientific theory. Is this a problem for scientists? Surely they are not trying to argue we should never question our theories. Where would science be if scientists never questioned the prevailing theories of the day? We would still be stuck in flat Earth, geocentric conception of the universe.

The scientists trying to fight against this disclaimer do their own cause a tremendous disservice. Apart from the fact that there's nothing they should find objectionable, fighting it reinforces the creationist notion that the scientists are simply trying to push their theory as unquestioned fact. Which is more damaging to the cause of science: passing religion off as science, or demanding unquestioned acceptance to whatever science theorizes at the moment? Both will crush the advancement of science.

NFL 2005 Week 3 Predictions

Oh man am I off to a bad start. Just 6 wins last week. Obviously a lot of teams are just not reading my script and playing like they are supposed to. I am comforted by the fact that nearly every commentator I read who also does picks is doing just as poorly. Peter King only had 4 right last week. Just keep plugging away.

Onto this week.

Falcons @ Bills
A key unknown in this game is Michael Vick. He is listed as questionable for the game. Neither team is exactly a downfield passing threat. For both teams it will be about running the ball on offense and smashing mouths on defense. The Bills have the better running back, but if Vick can play, he can make up for it. The Bills also have the better defense and will cause fumbles, especially from fumble-prone Vick if he plays. Prediction: Bills.

Bengals @ Bears
Who would have thunk it? This is a matchup of undefeated teams, and between two of the highest scoring teams in the league. The Bears field, I can't believe it, the most prolific offense in the NFC North division. The Bengals are bringing it with both barrels. They lead the league in total yards, are third in passing yards, and second in points scored. Neither team has given up many points on defense. (Somewhat misleading stat since the Bears have played the Redskins and the Bengals have played the Vikings, neither exactly a productive offense.) In the end, the Bengals go 3-0 because their defense will be able to hold down the Bear offense, which, while perhaps the best in the division, isn't all that good. Prediction: Bengals.

Jaguars @ Jets
The Marshall bowl. I imagine it's happened before, but an interesting side shows of this game is that both starting QBs are from the same college: Marshall. This one is tough to pick because it seems like such an even matchup. Both teams can run, throw, and defend. I guess I'll go with the home team. Prediction: Jets.

Raiders @ Eagles
Hmm. Randy Moss, he of faux moon fame. Terrell Owens, he of sharpie fame. Think there might be some competition as to who has the more audacious touchdown celebration? The Eagles are better on both sides of the ball. Raider QB Kerry Collins is good, but inconsistent. The Raider defense is good up front, but not in the secondary. McNabb will feast on them. Prediction: Eagles.

Titans @ Rams
Both teams can move the ball and score, but the Rams just have more to work with. Prediction: Rams.

Panthers @ Dolphins
The Panthers got back on track last week by dominating the Patriots. Fears about their defensive line's ability with Kris Jenkins out were eased by a strong showing last week. The Dolphins are the Dolphins again, after one week pretending they were someone else. Prediction: Panthers.

Browns @ Colts
Browns' coach Romeo Crennel has Peyton Manning's number. The one defense Manning has never had his way with are those in New England coached by Crennel. That was then, this is now. The Browns are a better offensive team than many thought. But the defense stinks. Like the Chiefs, the Colts have learned the beauty of playing defense, which is a good thing given the struggles the offense has had. Unbelievably, the Colt offense is ranked 20th in the league, while the Browns are an astonishing 4th, with the highest ranked passing game in the AFC. So far Dilfer is actually the better QB. Incredible. I hope Dilfer has enjoyed his run, because the Colts will destroy what defense the Browns can put up. Prediction: Colts.

Saints @ Vikings
This is a tough pick. I really want to go with the Vikings. On paper, they should be a much better team. But they are dismal so far this year, despite the talent. They actually have one of the worst offenses in the league. Only the Ravens and Texans have scored fewer points. The Vikings are near the bottom of the league in just about every offensive stat (30th in time of possession, 30th in points, 24th in total yards 30th in rushing yards). Culpepper leads the league in interceptions. All that can change in a heartbeat, of course, but so far they have shown nothing. The rebuilt defense is ranked 30th in the league, dead last against the run. More than that, as I wrote last year, the Vikings' biggest problem for the last couple of years has been that when the losing starts, the team can never right the ship and get it going again. Hence the back to back 3-7 finishes after promising starts. The Saints, despite all the problems because of Katrina, have played reasonably well this year. They feature a very good passing game and can pound away with the run, which they should against such a poor run defense. They play well on the road, a good thing for a team that will play all 16 on the road. They have a bit of a chip on their shoulders because of the travel, which will give them even more of an edge over a tentative Viking team trying to find its way. Prediction: Saints.

Bucs @ Packers
The Bucs are looking like a team that won a Super Bowl in the not too distant past. Strong defense, power running, good passing. So far, they are good all around. The Packers are terrible. They have scored more points than the division rival Vikings, but then who hasn't. Atrocious defense, lousy running, and injuries. Favre isn't playing that badly. He is certainly better than the other QBs in the division, but again, who isn't. But he can't do it all, and with Walker out for the season and Franks questionable for the game, he won't even get close. Prediction: Bucs.

Cowboys @ 49ers
This used to be the premier matchup in the NFL. That was 12 or so years ago. Nowadays, the 49ers are pushovers and the Cowboys are pretty good and should be 2-0. Well, they will be 2-1 after this week. Prediction: Cowboys.

Cardinals @ Seahawks
I predicted the Cards to win the division, and they are 0-2. Warner is doing his part (the Card passing game is ranked higher than New England's), but without a running game, the passing yardage isn't going to translate to the touchdowns hoped for. The Card running game is virtually non-existent, barely better than the Vikings'. The Seahawks can pound away at Arizona's 20th ranked run defense. The only question is, can they do it for 4 quarters, or will they quit at three? Prediction: Seahawks.

Patriots @ Steelers
The premier matchup of this week. The two teams met twice last season. In the regular season, the Steelers ended the Patriots' record setting winning streak. In the AFC title game, the Patriots reminded everyone who was boss in the AFC. The Steelers are hitting on all cylinders this year. They feature one of the top offenses in the game, rivaling the Bengals in potency. Willie Parker is a rising star, enough to keep Bettis and Staley on the bench even if they were healthy. The defense has destroyed the opposition. Granted they haven't face great opposition. On the other hand, the Patriots have question marks around their running game and their offensive line. Last week, they committed numerous penalties. While Brady's passing is as effective as ever, he got harassed a lot by the Panthers and you can expect the Steelers to do more of the same. They need an effective running game to keep the pressure off Brady and allow him to make more completions. The Pats haven't lost back to back games since 2002 (easy to do when you go 14-2 all the time) and are always dangerous. But until the Patriots get the kinks worked out, Pittsburgh just brings too much to the table in its balanced offense and intimidating defense. Prediction: Steelers.

Giants @ Chargers
This is a surprise matchup. Many would have expected one would be undefeated and the other winless, but few would have thought it would the Giants who were undefeated. The Chargers have lost two close games, both in the closing minutes. The Giants have feasted on weaker opposition. I'm still not impressed with them. San Diego is much better than their 0-2 record would indicate, so I'll pick them. Prediction: Chargers.

Chiefs @ Broncos
The Chiefs are one of the big surprises in the young season. While everyone knew they could put up points with the best of them, what's surprising is that they have developed the ability to stop their opponents by playing defense. The Broncos will need a consistent A-game from the whole team, which is something Shanahan rarely gets nowadays. Plummer will make his usual share of impressive passes, and his usual share of mistakes. The Chief defense will cope with the former and make Denver pay dearly for the latter. Prediction: Chiefs.

Last week: 6-10
Season: 13-19

Coalition for Darfur: The Descent into Anarchy

This week's Coalition for Darfur post describes the growing chaos in Darfur.

One week ago, experts and observers warned that Darfur risked "sliding into a perpetual state of lawlessness." At a time when Khartoum and the Darfur rebels were preparing to meet in an attempt to move the essentially non-existent peace process forward, IRIN was reporting

Banditry and continuous attacks by armed groups on humanitarian workers, Arab nomads and villages in Darfur have increased significantly over the past weeks and threaten to destabilise the fragile ceasefire in the volatile western Sudanese region.

The "fragile ceasefire" has never really existed and fears of "perpetual" lawlessness are misplaced considering that Darfur has been essentially lawless for more than two years.

FEMA Response

In the aftermath of Katrina, much has been made of the federal, state, and local governments' response to the disaster. Much of the federal criticism has focused on the timeliness of the response, and defenders argue that FEMA's response time to earlier disasters is comparable. At least for me, the problem isn't so much that it took an extra day or two. It's what they did when they got there, and continue to do. Blogs are full of accounts of head-scratchers from FEMA. Sending volunteer firefighters to Atlanta for cross cultural sensitivity training while those on the frontlines were collapsing from exhaustion. Turning away trucks carrying relief supplies and fuel. Cutting off communication lines. Transporting trucks of ice, to Maine. The list is endless. With this type of response, does it really matter if it took an extra day or two to get started?

I look back to 9/11 and see a remarkably efficient response to that disaster. In a very short period of time, an effective evacuation of the towers was started which dramatically reduced the death toll. I remember reading a detailed account of the FAA's immediate response to the attacks. Knowing that airlines were being hijacked and turned into missiles, the FAA had to clear the skies over the US. This was done very efficiently. Why? Because it was done by the grunts who do the real work while the bureaucrats wisely stayed out of the way, only intervening to add any necessary authority to their subordinates orders. Because there was no preparation or warning, the day to day operations people just took over on instinct and did what was necessary.

How would it have been different if management people had taken charge? There would have been an hour-long meeting of managers to come up with a crisis statement, basically an assessment of what the problem is, which would then be properly documented in a memo. Then there would have been a series of brainstorming sessions to come up with options. Eventually, one option would have been adopted, with the criteria by which the decision was made fully documented in additional memos. This recommendation would have been passed up the chain of command for their approval, neccessiating further meetings to elucidate the problem statement and options analysis for their superiors. Eventually the superiors would give their approval, worded in a couched way to provide protection should anything go wrong of course, at which point the lower level managers would then form a team to develop an action plan that the grunts would carry out, with proper assignment of responsibilities and reporting chain. So, after perhaps days of meetings and memo writings, management would conclude that the skies had to be cleared and would have developed a plan by which it could be done, something the grunts did instinctively in minutes.

The model of management we have in business and government has at least one basic flaw: the focus is on management skills, not on the skills being managed. Mike Brown had little or no background in emergency management, but he did have background managing organizations. So he was deemed qualified. In my workplace, they just named a new vice-president in charge of information systems. I read through his history. No background or experience in anything related to IS. His background was overseeing other departments in the company. Now, he will run IS with no practical knowledge or experience in IS. Rather than picking an IS person to run IS, they picked someone who could manage something. Do you think he will be effective in making technical decisions, having no background in them?

Is it Bush or a Joke? Is There a Difference?

Great line from Andrew Sullivan after describing another head-scratcher from FEMA: "No, this isn't the Onion. It's the Bush administration."

Planetary Warming

Alert the global warming crowd!

The climate on Mars is showing a warming trend and recent images have shown the first evidence of seismic activity on Earth's neighbor planet, scientists said on Tuesday.

Mars is in trouble too! Our greenhouse gases must be getting up there.

NFL 2005 Week 2 Predictions

Oh well. I got off to another bad start last week with a miserable 7-9 performance (thanks a lot Philly). Last year started slow too. All I can do is keep plugging away. There were a lot of upsets, with supposedly lousy teams winning against supposedly superior opposition, and supposedly good teams laying eggs. One week should not redefine season expectations. As last year, I remind readers of New England's opening to the 2003 season when they got their butts kicked by the Bills. Since then, the Pats have gone 35-3 with two Super Bowl wins. So, don't get too discouraged if your Super Bowl favorite got whupped.

Onto this week...

Ravens @ Titans
As bad as the Raven offense is, the Titan defense is worse. They got destroyed by Pittsburgh, and the Ravens can run pretty well, too. Prediction: Ravens.

Lions @ Bears
The Bear offense is truly offensive. The Lions can at least move the ball. Prediction: Lions.

Vikings @ Bengals
The Viking Purple Pride showed its true colors last week with the Viking-sized egg laid at home against Tampa. Geesh. I thought they were supposed to be an offensive team. (As in having a good offense, not giving good offense.) Running the ball? A whopping 33 yards last week, next to last in the league. Total offense? 248 yards, 28th in the league. Everyone wants to rave that at least the defense played. They made some big plays, yes. But overall, they gave up 345 yards, 21st in the league. OK, better than the 28th place they had last year, but still not impressive. And this week, they face a much more potent offense in the Bengals. Now, who reading this really believes those offensive numbers are truly indicative of the Viking offense? Not I. The Vikings will step it up this week, in a shootout. This will be a week where having an improved defense, assuming it really is improved, will pay off for Minnesota. If the Bengals could play something of a semblance of defense, I would go with them. But the Viking D will be better than the Bengal D, so I have to go with them. Prediction: Vikings.

49ers @ Eagles
The Eagles were in disarray last week, but a visit from the first place 49ers is just what the doctor (Doc) ordered. Prediction: Eagles.

Bills @ Bucs
Both teams are coming off surprising victories. Both teams feature strong defenses, Buffalo's being the stronger. But the Bucs have the better offense. Their defense will frustrate the daylights out of Losman. Prediction: Bucs.

Jaguars @ Colts
The Jags last year pulled off quite the upset in beating the Colts in Indy, and they are a better team this year. The offense looked much more effective than they were last year. People are already hailing the new and improved Colt defense that nearly shut out the Ravens last week. If it had been just about any other team in the NFL, I might be impressed, but shutting out Baltimore is kind of like celebrating a routine play. For this game, the Colt offense is just too potent. Prediction: Colts.

Patriots @ Panthers
This is the first rematch of a recent Super Bowl between two good teams. (Patriots-Rams last year? Nah. Bucs-Raiders two years ago? Nah, both losing teams.) These teams played a great Super Bowl and I expect another great game this week. Once again the Panthers start the season losing a key player for the season. I can just imagine the groans in Charlotte. One of the prime selling points for Carolina as a Super Bowl favorite is their defensive line, one of the best in the league. Losing Jenkins is obviously a serious hit, as it was last year. But they fought through much worse last year. If any team other than New England can overcome a big injury hit, it's Carolina. For the Patriots, the move last week to a predominately 4-3 front was hailed by commentators as a sign of their flexibility. To me, it's the exact opposite. Last year, they could morph between a 3-4 and 4-3 at will, confusing the opposition and keeping them on their toes. With the loss of Bruschi and Johnson in the linebacker corps, the 3-4 is ineffective so a switch to it in a game is not a necessarily a good idea. Hence, their success last week in the 4-3 is a sign of less flexibility, not more. The Pats need to improve their running game. Last week, they were all about the pass. The Panthers need to eliminate the turnovers that killed them against the Saints. It's a tough game to pick. I think it will be one of the best early season games this year. When in doubt, go with the champs. Prediction: Patriots.

Steelers @ Texans
The last time these two teams met, Pittsburgh moved the ball up and down the field and the Texans could do next to nothing. I don't think they managed to muster 100 yards of offense, which I believe is a record for fewest yards in a win. Oh yeah, the Texans won. That shouldn't happen again. It was a fluke the first time. The Steeler offense looks great after some pre-season worries. The Texan defense will struggle to slow them down, and the offense will struggle against the always tough Steeler defense. Prediction: Steelers.

Rams @ Cardinals
Week 2 in the Warner nostalgia tour. The Cards did a lot of things well against the Giants, but they blew a lot of things too. Kick coverage, uh, the less said the better. (They played it like the less covered, the better.) The running game got nowhere. Warner did well, especially considering that without a running game, the Giant defense could play pass every down. The Ram defense will not cause so many problems for the Cards. The Rams, of course, are capable of putting up quite a bit of offense in any given week. But the Cardinal defense is better than commonly acknowledged. They played better last week than some will admit. Prediction: Cardinals.

Falcons @ Seahawks
Everyone is raving about the Falcons again. What I saw Monday is what I saw last year. They have a good defense and a good running game, but Vick is not much of a passer. He was throwing the ball all over the place, even when receivers were open, which they weren't often last year. But the defense was impressive, both up front with constant pressure on McNabb, and in the secondary. (Ed Donatell was the coordinator who took the blame for the Packer's infamous 4th and 26 play against the Eagles in the 2003 playoffs. Amazing what he do when he has a good roster of players to work with.) Seahawk QB Hasslebeck's big problem last week was interceptions, so facing a strong secondary cannot be very reassuring. Expect more of the same. Prediction: Falcons.

Dolphins @ Jets
Despite what I wrote at the beginning, about not reading too much into one game, I will say the Dolphin win was a wake-up call. They could be much better than people thought. (I said better. 7-9 would be better.) Not too many paid much attention to the acquisition of Frerotte and offensive coordinator Scott Linehan from the Vikings, but those could shape up to be big moves. Facing an already tough and now rejuvenated Miami defense that no longer has to totally carry the team, the struggling Jet offense will have problems. Prediction: Dolphins.

Browns @ Packers
Oh, this one should be exciting. As bad as the Packers are, the Browns are worse. Prediction: Packers.

Chargers @ Broncos
Antonio Gates will be back for the Chargers this week. That will open up the passing game, and in turn the Charger running game. The Broncos have a good history against Tomlinson, but that was with a different defensive front. Denver could do nothing offensively against the Dolphins (in fairness, a very good defense to face) in their worst opening day loss since before I was born. The Broncos don't have the defense to overcome so many Plummer mistakes. Prediction: Chargers.

Chiefs @ Raiders
What impressed me the most about the Raiders last week was their run defense. After being miserable the last two years, the defensive line held strong. I don't know if it's because they switched to a 4-3, to better utilize Warren Sapp, or because the defensive coordinator and half the starting line were with New England in 2003. But they played well. The secondary got ripped, though. The Chief offense looks as potent as ever, so Green should have a field day against that secondary. Combine that with an improved KC defense, and this becomes an easy pick. Prediction: Chiefs.

Giants @ Saints (@ Giants)
The Giants will play this away game in their home stadium. Both teams surprised last week, particularly the Saints in overcoming all the distractions to beat the heavily favored Panthers. But the emotions have to be taking a toll, so I do not expect anywhere near as good a performance this week. The Giants were inconsistent in their game against the Cardinals, though the score indicates a rout. They got big plays, particularly the two-fer in kick returns for touchdowns. Manning had big plays and threw for two TDs, but also two interceptions and had a completion percentage of less than 50%. He should have a better day against a weaker Saint defense. Prediction: Giants.

Redskins @ Cowboys
Remember, my prediction of a division title for Washington was predicated on the assumption that Ramsey would be the starter at QB. If Brunell takes over permanently, all bets are off. I still do not get Gibbs on this. Even in last week's game, Ramsey had better numbers than Brunell. Yes Brunell led the team to points whereas Ramsey did not, but field goals are not the thing to excite a coach. Well, he's the Hall of Famer, and I'm just me. Dallas looked good on both sides of the ball last week. Bledsoe throwing for 3 touchdowns? Wow. Prediction: Cowboys.

Last Week: 7-9
Season: 7-9

Coalition for Darfur: A Meaningless Pledge

This week's Coalition for Darfur discusses the latest draft declaration out of the UN addressing genocide.

Nowhere has the Security Council or the UN member states actually pledged to do anything. This section carries no legal obligations; rather, it merely reiterates that the UN has a responsibility "to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity," which is something they already an obligation to prevent under the Genocide Convention.

Note also that it doesn't say that the UN has a "responsibility to protect" but rather a "responsibility ... to help protect" those at risk. That is a big difference.

Typical.

Bush Takes Responsibility For Failures Of Response

The president yesterday took responsibility for the problems in the federal response to Katrina. What's really sad about this is that it is actually newsworthy that a president in his second term took responsibility for something. It took him this long to take responsibility for something his administration did poorly. This comes more than a year after British PM Tony Blair took responsibility for the intelligence analysis failures that lead to the Iraq war, something the president has yet to do. Baby steps, baby steps.

Katrina Fuels Global Warming Storm

Like any politically influential group, the environmental lobby is grabbing onto Katrina's coattails and wailing about global warming. Interestingly, even some of those jabbering about it admit Katrina wasn't caused by global warming. (After quoting European Commission spokeswoman Barbara Helfferich's warnings about global warming, which Reuters portrays as connected to Katrina, they write, "She said it was wrong to say Katrina was caused by global warming widely blamed on emissions from cars, power plants and factories." So, why write an article entitled, "Katrina fuels global warming storm"? And why do the latest round of articles on the subject have titles like "Katrina's real name: global warming"? Needless to say, the Reuters article races past this discrepancy as quickly as they can to get back to the theme of the day.) Not that political environmentalists want to confuse their cause with facts or science, but

Dr. Landsea concluded: "If you look at the raw hurricane data itself, there is no global warming signal. What we see instead is a strong cycling of activity. There are periods of 25 to 40 years where it's very busy and then periods of 25 to 40 years where it's fairly quiet.

"The last 10 years have certainly been busy but it is our suggestion that what we are seeing now we have seen before in the period from the late 1920s to the late 1960s, which was extremely active with Atlantic hurricanes. If you look at the raw data it doesn't show the last 10 years to be out of the ordinary."

And you have to love the leader of the Australian Greens party, Bob Brown, who blames Katrina on Bush's refusal to join Kyoto. "It demonstrates the massive economic, as well as environmental and social penalties, of George Bush's policies." Forgive me, but is Mr. Brown saying that if Bush had signed onto Kyoto in 2001, global warming would have so quickly changed by in 2005 that Katrina would never have happened? Like I said, they are not going to let little things like science and facts get in the way of a political cause.

Coalition for Darfur: Darfur in the Dark

This week's Coalition for Darfur post comments on the coverage Darfur has gotten in the print media. (Analysis of TV news coverage has already been done.)

The most staggering thing about these numbers is that they reveal that there has been a nearly eight-fold decrease in the number of stories about Darfur between last August and this August.

The other amazing thing is that, on August 1st of this year, former Sudanese rebel leader John Garang died in a helicopter crash. Garang, who only three weeks earlier had been sworn in as vice president under the terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended two decades of civil war between North and South Sudan, was seen by many as a man who might be able to bring peace to Darfur. Yet, despite his death and the implications it holds for the future of Darfur, coverage of Darfur plummeted.

NFL 2005 Week 1 Predictions

OK, here we go again. As last year, I will predict the outcome of each game in the NFL season this year. Last year, I went a respectable 158-98 during the regular season and pretty much nailed the post season, though I should note that I got off to a pretty slow start last year. I have already predicted division winners for the year.

Speaking of those predictions, I feel the need to defend a couple of my choices after reading some "expert" picks, particularly the SI preview and Peter King's predictions. I picked Washington to win the division when everyone seems to take them at last place. The arguments are usually that the team averaged something like 15 points per game last year. Well, the problem in Washington last year can be expressed in two words: Mark and Brunell. Under his guidance, the team never broke 20 points in a game. When Gibbs finally benched him and put Ramsey out there, the team routinely scored over 20. They have one of the best defenses in the league. With that kind of defense, they don't exactly need a Colt-like offense to win. SI calls Ramsey a "serviceable" quarterback only. Isn't that all they need?

In the AFC North, SI picks Baltimore to win. I know the Raven defense was highly ranked as always last year. But looking at the scores, as the season wore on, they were giving up more and more points. As I wrote during the playoffs last year, once a story line is written, it's hard for writers to shake it. This is why the story line for New England has never changed, even though the team has, and it's why writers continue to extol the defensive brilliance of Baltimore, even though they appear to be in decline on the field. At least King recognizes this. For Baltimore to win 11 games, as SI predicts, Boller is going to really have to step up. I'm thinking 3200 yards and 24 touchdowns. Is it possible? Sure. But I haven't seen anything out of Boller so far that makes me think he's going to be an elite QB.

Onto this week....

Raiders @ Patriots
This is a pretty big game to start the season. Not a rematch of the previous year's conference title game like last year, but big nonetheless. The year the Patriots fell off was 2002, when they played the AFC West division, the best running division in the NFL at the time, and weaknesses in their run defense were exposed. This year, they have to play that division again, and without two of their key linebackers. The division also sports some elite passing attacks, and the Raiders are no exception with Randy Moss making his debut in silver and black. So this game is a real test for the defending champs. Can their defense, minus some key figures from recent years, both on field and in the coaching booth, rise to the occasion and stop Oakland? Yes. If they can handle Indy, they can handle Oakland. But the real deciding factor in the game is the other matchup. Can the severely limited Raider defense stop the very good Patriot offense? No way. The Pats will run the ball down their throat (the Raiders have been ranked near the bottom against the run for 2 years), dominate time of possession, keep Moss and company off the field, and walk away with the win. Prediction: Patriots.

Bucs @ Vikings
Regardless of their defensive problems, the Vikings have come out fast the last two seasons (6-0, 5-1). Their problems start with game #7. The Buc defense is not up to the task of stopping the Viking passing game. With a rookie running back, their offense won't do much against the revamped Viking defensive front. Prediction: Vikings.

Jets @ Chiefs
This is an interesting matchup. The Chiefs field on of the more potent offenses in the game, and the Jets have a fairly good defense. The addition of Ty Law in the Jet secondary should have an impact on the Chief passing game. But both Law and quarterback Chad Pennington are coming off injuries and it remains unclear just how close they are to 100%. The Chiefs have their own injury issues, with star running back Priest Holmes coming off a knee injury that cut short his season last year. Of course the big question is, can the Chiefs learn to play something resembling NFL defense? I'm going to say yes. They have made some key additions themselves in the secondary and up front. And until they prove otherwise, I will have questions about the Jet offense. Prediction: Chiefs.

Texans @ Bills
Buffalo fields a powerful defense, but until further notice I will expect nothing from J.P. Losman and the Bill passing game. Prediction: Texans.

Bengals @ Browns
I think the Browns will be better than some people think. I like the addition of Dilfer at quarterback. But they just have too many holes. The Bengals, on the other hand, look to field one of the better offenses in the AFC for the foreseeable future, and Marvin Lewis ought to be able to get that defense together. They won't need it against Cleveland. Prediction: Bengals.

Titans @ Steelers
The Titans are in disarray because of annual salary cap purges. They have neither the offense nor the defense to be a force in the AFC this year. But the Steelers, coming off a 15-1 season, are in trouble too. The first string offense had a dismal preseason. Duce Staley is again hurt, putting the load on Bettis again. Still, one has to go with Pittsburgh here. But the Steelers need to get their act together before some better opponents come along. Prediction: Steelers.

Seahawks @ Jaguars
Byron Leftwich will develop into a very good QB in the NFL. What I've seen of him, I have really liked. But they need to score. Last year, the leading receiver caught 6 TD passes, and the leading rusher score 2. The offense mustered a measly 16 points per game, 29th in the league. The defense was good (just 17.5 points per game), but unless the offense scores, no amount of good defense is going to win games. Seattle has a pretty good offense, so they should walk away with this one. Prediction: Seahawks.

Saints @ Panthers
Even without the distraction of Katrina back home, the Saints were going to have a hard time with this game. The Saints defense has been an insult to the word. They make the Vikings look like the Ravens. The Panthers field a potent offense and one of the top defenses in the NFC, including arguably the best line in the league, more than enough to stop the Saint running game. Prediction: Panthers.

Broncos @ Dolphins
Miami's saving grace last year was the defense. The offense was atrocious. There have been improvements (new coordinator, new QB), but the big change is the return of Ricky Williams, which won't happen until October while he serves his suspension. When he's good, Jake Plummer can be quite good. When he's bad, he can kill his team. The Miami defense will take advantage of his unevenness and create turnovers, but the offense won't be able to capitalize enough. Prediction: Broncos.

Bears @ Redskins
The Bears have talent at some positions. Urlacher, Muhammed, maybe Benson. But everywhere else? Lousy. Given my high expectations for Washington this year, you know I have to go with them. The 'Skin defense should be able to easily shutdown whatever offense young Orton can manage. Prediction: Redskins.

Cowboys @ Chargers
The Cowboys are looking to restore their defense to Parcells-worthy caliber. They should get a good test against the Chargers. The game, though, will be decided on the other side, and the Charger defense should easily handle the impotent Cowboy attack. Prediction: Chargers.

Packers @ Lions
At the end of the 2003 season, I predicted that 2005 would be the year the Lions break through. But Joey Harrington did not develop as much last year as I thought, and they still suffer on the defensive side. On the other hand, the Packers have looked downright awful in the preseason. This will be an ugly game. I'll go with the upset since the Lions are at home. I don't think Favre will break 50,000 yards this game. (He needs 266.) Prediction: Lions.

Cardinals @ Giants
Kurt Warner gets his first shot at a former team. The Cardinal defense is better than some think. Eli Manning came on well late in the season last year, but the Giants just have too many holes. Prediction: Cardinals.

Rams @ 49ers
(It's a new year, so the name of the team in San Francisco shall be reset.) Predicting games involving SF is easy. Pick the other guy. Prediction: Rams.

Colts @ Ravens
This should be a good test of my view of the Raven defense. If I'm right, the Colt offense should put up a lot of points. If I'm wrong, the Colts won't put up that many, but the Ravens will put up even fewer with their underwhelming offense. Interesting irrelevancy: Colt coach Tony Dungy is a former Viking defensive coordinator and Raven coach Brian Billick is a former Viking offensive coordinator, and both coach teams built on the opposite discipline (Dungy with the offensive team, Billick with the defensive team). Prediction: Colts.

Eagles @ Falcons
The opening weekend closes with a rematch of last year's NFC title game. I don't have high expectations for the Eagles this year, and the T.O. saga has just added to that. But the Falcons still don't have any receivers and the Eagle defensive front can handle Vick's scrambling, as they did last year. Prediction: Eagles.

Last Week: n/a
Season: 0-0

Bush Resists Immediate Probe Into Katrina Response

The president, facing considerable criticism for his adminstration's handling of Katrina and its aftermath, said that he will resist the immediate investigation of what went wrong.

"I think one of the things that people want us to do is to play a blame game," Bush told reporters. "We've got to solve problems. We're problem solvers. [insert snickers here] There will be ample time for people to figure out what went right, and what went wrong. What I'm interested (in) is helping save lives."

Why are the two things--investigation and aid--mutually exclusive? Can't we do two things at once? Are the men and women handing out blankets and food also going to run the investigation? Surely we're talking about two distinct groups of people.

We need to be clear on this. This is a national security issue, among many other things. It is a demonstration of how our government will respond to a catastrophe, of nature or of man. Do not think that al Qaeda is not watching this, and learning. I would imagine bin Laden and others are accelerating whatever plans they have in motion now so as to strike while Mike Brown is still head of FEMA, because they've learned that having Brown in charge will add to the impact of their attack. They will not wait for the waters to recede before striking.

Michelle Malkin: MEMO TO BUSH: FIRE MICHAEL BROWN

Michelle Malkin makes the case that Bush should fire Mike Brown as head of FEMA. This is a test of Bush's credibility as a leader. He has failed the test in the past, e.g. by not holding Rumsfeld to account for Abu Ghraib, but this is a far more dramatic situation. People have died because of FEMA mismanagement (that must be the M in FEMA). The government's response has been a disgrace. Will the president hold Brown accountable, or continue to pat him on the back out of some misplaced sense of loyalty?

More on "Heck of a Job" Brown

Andrew Sullivan posts this comment from Meet the Press:

Let me give you just three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards on our line and says, "No one is getting near these lines." Sheriff Harry Lee said that if America--American government would have responded like Wal-Mart has responded, we wouldn't be in this crisis.

That last one is particularly damning. Local police totally defying the federal government in order to get things done. Yes, that's one heck of a job, Mike Brown.

It's Not All Bush

In the wake of Katrina, it seems everyone, including this blog, wants to jump on the president's back for the administration's failures in preparing for and dealing with the disaster in New Orleans. In all fairness, though, it's not all the administration's fault. Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum of the National Guard speaks of the unexpected breakdown of the New Orleans police force.

The real issue, particularly in New Orleans, is that no one anticipated the disintegration or the erosion of the civilian police force in New Orleans. Once that assessment was made, that the normal 1500 man police force in New Orleans was substantially degraded, which contributed obviously to less police presence and less police capability, then the requirement became obvious and that's when we started flowing military police into the theater.

This breakdown in civilian law enforcement contributed to delays in getting military law enforcement in place. The preparations were for the National Guard to play a support role, assisting the civilians. With the civilian force substantially degraded, additional forces had to be assembled to play a more substantial role. The general argues that going in with inadequate force levels would have actually made things worse.

Some people asked why didn't we go in sooner. Had we gone in with less force it may have been challenged, innocents may have been caught in a fight between the Guard military police and those who did not want to be processed or apprehended, and we would put innocents' lives at risk. As soon as we could mass the appropriate force, which we flew in from all over the states at the rate of 1,400 a day, they were immediately moved off the tail gates of C-130 aircraft flown by the Air National Guard, moved right to the scene, briefed, rehearsed, and then they went in and took this convention center down.

One can debate that point and its applicability to a law enforcement environment, but it is a sound military principle: you don't go in without overwhelming force.

When criticizing the administration, one has to make the distinction as to what could and should have been anticipated, and what could not have been. While the administration can rightly be faulted for not anticipating a levee breach, when all their gamed scenarios pointed to that, it's not clear to me they can be faulted for not anticipating the breakdown in civilian law enforcement and the repercussions that had.

Effective Response

The Observernotes

Fema appeared to have been taken by surprise by the extent of the New Orleans flood. It took four days to begin a large-scale evacua tion of people stranded in the Superdome stadium and to bring in significant amounts of food and water to an American city easily accessible by motorway.

Relief agencies took half that time to reach Indonesia after the Boxing Day tsunami. Fema has quickly become the scapegoat for what some American politicians are conceding is a 'national disgrace'.

Just think about this. The tsunami hit third world countries out of the blue, without warning. Katrina hit a first world country after giving warning for several days. And Indonesia had a better response time? That's pathetic!

Also keep in mind that FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security, so what does Katrina say about our government's ability to respond to a terrorist attack? With all the money we pour into Homeland Security, what are we getting?

The Fools in Charge

Andrew Sullivan publishes a damning email from a reader, formerly a supporter of the president.

A week to get buses? A week to get fishing boats? Trucks? This is the United States! I read someone who said, "All the people who weren't bedridden, or had money, or had cars left. The people that are left had none of those things."

There are people tonight who are going to sleep on overpasses for the fourth straight night. There are prisoners who will do the same. There are people dying at a convention center because no one will tell them that no one is coming for them, and the National Guard is protecting the kitchens. There are police officers who are turning in their badges because they've lost everything, have no guidance, and don't want to be shot by a looter.

There are people tonight inside a concrete domed stadium with holes in the roof and no air conditioning who were told the buses are coming today, and they might, or they might not. There is no food. There is no water. There are bodies floating through the neighborhoods.

In the UNITED STATES.

...

I've had it. I'm done. And if the other bunch of assholes can't figure out that what's important is that babies don't starve to death here (and I'm not talking some metaphorical goo-goo thing with school lunches and welfare, but real, actual starving) and we get people out of harm's way, we'll get rid of them too. And so on.

Because this is about leadership, not about bitching on CNN how no one's in charge, or listening to Peggy Noonan furrow her brow at the Governor's performance, or bragging that we've sent in one National Guardsman for every 200 people, or actually having the audacity to say that "we had no idea the levees would break."

Benefits of Katrina

Our fearless leader speaks:

We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch. (Laughter.)

...

I'm down here to comfort people.

Hey, there's death, destruction, chaos, and anarchy in New Orleans, but at least once the government-aided rebuilding is complete, rich folks like Senator Lott will have a nicer porch. I'm sure the inmates of the Superdome are comforted by that, Mr. President, as are the people sleeping on overpasses without food or water.

Gas Prices

As all Americans know, gas prices have shot up since Katrina. I've heard stories from around here about prices at the pump going up dramatically, while people were pumping. The US government has released 30 million barrels of crude oil from the strategic reserve in response. But this really isn't going to help.

Gas prices have been high for a while now, but not necessarily because of the price or supply of crude oil. The bottleneck isn't oil, it's refining. As the Detroit News points out, American refineries, which have declined in number dramatically since 1981, have been operating at 100% capacity. This means the supply of gasoline into the market cannot increase, other than by importing gasoline. The prices have been high because of this restricted supply.

Katrina has made this problem much worse, very quickly. The heart of American oil refining is along the gulf coast, from Corpus Christi to, you guessed it, New Orleans. Half of the US supply of gasoline is refined along this stretch, much of which has been devestated by the storm. In the days before Katrina, evacuations from Gulf refineries reduced production by at least 1 million barrels per day, out of a national total of 17 million barrels per day. With the remaining refineries already working at capacity, there is no easy way to make this up.

So, expect gas prices to keep rising at the pumps. Of course oil is used in a lot more than just gasoline. So the impact of Katrina is just beginning.

Funding the Levees

Andrew Sullivan and others are posting links to and transcripts of newspaper articles from last year documenting that the Bush administration cut funding for the New Orleans levees and as part of paying for the Iraq war. And this just a few years after FEMA "ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country."