Let's Compare: Obama's Katrina.

There has been a lot of comparisons between the Bush Administrations response to hurricane Katrina and the Obama Administrations response to the DeepWater Oil Leak.  I'd like to do an informal analysis of the media's coverage of these events.  I'll be short on citations (I'm lazy...they do exist but I don't want to take the time to find them) but since most of you lived through both of these events the analysis should still make sense.

First...Bush warned residents of the Gulf States in a Nationally broadcast speech to leave for higher ground.  He had already dispatched National Guard members to ready the evacuation (again three days before landfall).  This is a good example of how urgent the situation was regarded by the administration.  The urgency demonstrated by the Obama group is a little different.  On April 24th evidence of the leak is reported to Homeland Security.  Three days later when updates are showing significantly higher leak issues than on the 24th (from marginal leak on the 24th to potential of over 110000 gallons per day on the 28th) the President...with opportunity to show his administrations response at a Midwest tour decided to ignore it in his speech that day.  Now, nearly 2 months into what will eventually be the biggest oil spill in American history, President Obama is finally out to correct the issue.  Of course his sitting on the sidelines for well over a week while Gov. Jindal begged to get help and approval to set up barrier islands to protect the fragile coastal lands of Louisiana was just one example of laziness, ineptitude, carelessness or general unresponsiveness in general, or quite possibly all of the above.  The Presidents "ass-kicking" is a little late and his search for said "ass" should start and end in the oval office.

But you don't have to take my word for it.  The public has spoken.  The White House in a recent poll on the handling of this tragedy shows that 69% polled rate the response negatively.  Again for comparison purposes that is higher than the 62% rating given to the Bush White House for its handling of Katrina.  Let's see how well President Obama wears that  label.

NOTE:  The crude reference used above is quoting a President of the United States in a broadcast interview at an hour when children may have been present for his speech.  Make you own judgement on the appropriateness of that for yourself.  I'm personally not impressed.

Washington State Senate Seat...Currently Occupied by Patty Murray

So I've been kind of busy the last couple of weeks.  I haven't really invested a lot of time for my blogging.  My other blog gives a rather detailed reason why.  Most recently I spoke of a candidate from Wisconsin.  Scott Walker is an admirable man and certainly deserves the thoughtful consideration of his constituency.  I don't live in Wisconsin though.  So I will refer to the old adage that  says all politics is local.  Living in Washington State I am obliged to comment on the races that matter most to me and the one of most import right now is the one being fought for the seat in the Senate currently occupied by Patty Murray.
The last couple of months a local football hero by the name of Clint Didier has been making massive in roads into the polls in his effort to unseat Murray.  Didier is a relative unknown in the state political arena.  He had not garnered significant Republican party support but had received the endorsement of Sarah Palin, which could be regarded as a bellwether...although it can't be said of what.   In some polls Didier has reached parity in a fight with Murray.   Most recently, however, he has slipped.  What can be attributed to this slip?  None other than two time Gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi, the GOP party favorite.  Dino Rossi is a great guy.  His stance on the politics of this state are what we needed when he first won the Governors seat before being ousted after three recounts and thousands of illegal votes made Christine Gregiore our Governor.  His time was then and not now.
Dino Rossi has the endorsement and was encouraged by the GOP regulars to enter the race nearly 6 months after others in the field announced their campaign.  People like Clint Didier, who has amassed considerable statewide support, have done the hard and expensive work of gaining recognition.  Now, when much of their support is cementing, Dino Rossi comes in with his state recognition from two failed attempts at the Governors Mansion.  Even before he entered the race he was polled as more than a match for Murray he decided that he would enter the race only after his Primary opponents had spent their time and money building statewide recognition.  I wouldn't fault him this if he could point to legitimate differences in his platform that make him the better candidate.  The problem I have is that, largely, his platform matches Didier's almost plank for plank.  Rather than muddying the waters in a top two primary Rossi had the opportunity to do like Mitt Romney, throw his statewide recognition behind the strongest current campaign and leverage that for future political favors.
I don't have any problems with Rossi winning.  I think it would be a much better option to Murray.  I do, however, think that the ringing endorsements of the GOP entrenched makes his independence somewhat suspect.  I want a straight talking, frank, aggressive tight-end that is humble enough to accept a hand when he needs it but strong enough to never rely on it.  I compare this to a smooth speaking real-estate agent with deep ties to the West-side (read: left-side)of the state .
Sure the Tea-Party has embraced Didier and that may or may not be his biggest leg in but he is not the Tea-Party candidate that the left derides as racist, sexist and anything else -ist they think they can pin on someone with no evidence to support their position.  He is a true outsider with an intimate understanding of the States needs and interests in local, national and world politics.  If our top two primary works the way I want it to work then we'll have the choice between two awesome guys and either answer will be acceptable.  If it gives us a clear choice between Murray and either one of the big name GOP candidates then I hope the result is that the tight-end reaches the end-zone again.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Palin Makes Her Choice in Washington (politicalwire.com)

Hope for the Republic

Who's tired of government waste?  Who's tired of government interference?  Who's just tired of government?  Well there's hope.  I just read an article about Scott Walker in Wisconsin.  I now have hope that there are real Republican's with real values that actually act on those values.  I'm not sure I like the endorsements of Newt and Jeb but his actions speak louder than their praise.  This guy actually has returned "$370,000 in salary over eight years because he thought it was wrong for the county executive to be paid more than the state's governor".
That's more than Biden has given to charity over the last decade and nearly as much as Obama gave (as a multimillionaire) for the last two years.  This is the type of person we need running.  Someone who the competition has to resort to toothless comlaints of spending too much on campaign meals (money that I'm sure is donated by people rather than taken from tax payers).  I would like to see more leaders like Scott Walker, principled, disciplined and responsible.  If we can ask for more than that from our politicians it's because they already have these traits.  We need a George Washington and just like George Washington (who refused to be paid as Commander in Cheif durring the Revolutionary War) Scott Walker demonstrates leadership through example rather than rhetoric.

Racial profiling...it exists...now what?

So I'll admit something that I don't want to admit.  Racial profiling does, in fact, exist.  While I wish that this term, along with the concept of race in general, would just disappear, I have to admit that racial profiling exists and that while it's not nice I'm sort of glad for it...except when things like this happen.  In Seattle area (Lake Union) showed up to a 911 call of armed robbery.  They arrived and found someone that they suspected of being involved (he happened to be Hispanic) and they proceeded to treat him inhumanely (beating, kicking, swearing etc). The problem is that they didn't just beat and kick him.  The problem is that they used racially charged slurs and made it clear that they suspected him because of his race.  In the end they were able to determine that the person they beat was not a suspect and not involved in the robbery.  The Seattle police chief has done the right thing by taking them off the streets while they investigate the whole scene.  So now what?  That's the real question here.  Do we fault these officers for making a rash judgment based on experience and trends?  One of the officers is part of the Gang task force, can we blame them for assuming that a Hispanic wearing typical gang garb (rather than polo shirts and designer jeans) at the scene of a potentially violent (armed) robbery might have something to do with them being there in the first place?  (I know, that was a long sentence/question) No we cannot blame them for making judgments about potential suspects.  What we can blame them for is making the judgment that they deserved to be beat, kicked, and otherwise abused before they could determine their full involvement.  Cops detain, they do not execute the sentence. 
Cops have a tough job.  No one is denying that.  They have to make judgments on situations based on little information just to be safe.  They are expected to be the best of humanity while dealing with the worst.  They must remain composed and stalwart in the face of death.  Being a cop is working cleanly in filth, you're bound to get dirty eventually.  This said, as a cop you know this going in and thus should be held accountable when you don't match the standards society sets for you. 
I have called for profiling to be used at borders, airports and in crimes.  Why?  Because it works.  Profiling, in all its forms, works.  As children we learn patterns at a very early age.  We recognize them with no effort and we make assumptions based on those observations.  We are now expecting humans to ignore important skills in the name of being politically correct.  This is not ok.  The actions of the officers in this situation are not to be blamed for their human assumptions but on their inhuman reactions.



http://www.kirotv.com/investigations/23490010/detail.html

Illegal Immigration Mexico Style.

Image by Pacoy69 via Flickr

May Day is perhaps the most politically charged "holiday" on the calendar.   This year, as in years past, it was used to protest immigration issues, more specifically the Arizona law.  All of the outrage, from the criminals defiantly walking the streets protesting a law that they are choosing to ignore, is a little disturbing considering several facts.  I was recently made aware of the immigration laws of Mexico. (Thanks Tiffany)  In fact Mexico is particularly brutal in enforcing this law on their Southern borders.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents.

 Now lets compare this to the Arizona law.  First of all you have to be committing a crime that would get you pulled over by a cop and then if you were suspected of being an illegal immigrant you would be asked for your papers.  After producing, or not, your documents, you would be cited for the crime you were pulled over for and then deported.  Now lets look at the Mexico law.   If you enter the country lacking the means to provide for yourself you are eligible for deportation.  In Arizona there is no such clause.  Now who sounds more fascist, a country that can deport you for being physically or mentally ill, or a country who will allow you access to our hospitals and then deport you?  If you enter America and are a drain on the "economic or national interests" we welcome you anyway.  Arizona is simply suggesting that you do it legally.

Again, does anyone see the problem with a President of the United States standing on the side of criminals over the side of the law he swore to execute?  There are some serious problems with the current state of affairs and the fact that a majority of American's support Arizona's movement makes for a very interesting summer as we prepare for the fall elections.  Obama and other Democratic leaders have already said they would not be addressing immigration this year because of the election.  The more outrage by the left over this issue, however, may result in it becoming a major plank on the platform of people running this fall.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll: Majority Backs Arizona Immigration Bill (cbsnews.com)
• Mexico Is A Dangerous Place...Third In An Occasional Series (minx.cc)
• Felipe Calderone criticized Arizona's immigration law for being discriminatory. How tough are Mexican immigration laws? (slate.com)
• Some Hispanic Americans hope law deters illegal immigration (cnn.com)
• What if Arizona adopted Mexican immigration law? (tech.bl0x.info)