Comparing the Chilean and Haitian earthquakes

The New Neo Posted on by

Time magazine’s Tim Padgett writes an entire piece comparing the damage in the Chilean and Haitian earthquakes without ever once mentioning one huge difference: the Chilean earthquake, although stronger, was deeper and further away from population centers.

The Time piece—and this one by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post—speak of the quakes as though preparedness and building codes were the only factors differentiating the two. Yes, such things are very important. And yes, they almost certainly contributed a great deal to the relatively fewer deaths in Chile as compared to Haiti. But preparedness can only protect so much.

This Salon article also talks a great deal about building codes and the like. But at least it manages to factor in the following important additional facts:

The U.S. Geological Survey says eight Haitian cities and towns — including this capital of 3 million — suffered “violent” to “extreme” shaking in last month’s 7-magnitude quake, which Haiti’s government estimates killed some 220,000 people and left about 1.2 homeless. Chile’s death toll was in the hundreds.

By contrast, no Chilean urban area suffered more than “severe” shaking — the third most serious level — Saturday in it’s [sic] 8.8-magnitude disaster, by USGS measure. The quake was centered 200 miles (325 kms) away from the capital and largest city, Santiago.

In terms of energy released at the epicenter, said Calais, the Chilean quake was 900 times stronger. But energy dissipates rather quickly as distances grow from epicenters — and the ground beneath Port-au-Prince is less stable by comparison and “shakes like jelly,” says University of Miami geologist Tim Dixon.

And yet the WaPo’s Anne Applebaum ignores that reality in order to make her pre-determined point:

Despite a stronger earthquake and more damaging aftershocks, Chile will return to normal faster than Haiti. Luck has nothing to do with it.

Haiti is a poverty-stricken mess of a dictatorship. Chile is a richer country, and a democracy. These things do matter, very much. But it is hubris to leave out the elements of luck and chance, and imagine that we are able to control even more than we can when disaster strikes.

Pelosi to Americans: you’ll take your health care reform medicine, orally or otherwise

The New Neo Posted on by

This Politico piece calls Nancy Pelosi “one of the strongest speakers in modern history.” I suppose that depends on what you mean by the word “strong.” If you’re thinking Nurse Ratched strong rather than the greater strength that comes from wisdom and integrity, I suppose you’d be right.

The article goes on to call Pelosi “an authoritarian figure,” and I would be the last one to argue with that. But when it states that, as far as the voting public goes, “The electoral winds that were at Pelosi’s back in the past two cycles thanks to having George W. Bush in the White House are blowing this year in Democrats’ faces,” I almost had to laugh at the notion that the change represents some arbitrary weather fluctuation.

On the contrary. It’s not that those winds have suddenly and inexplicably reversed direction. It’s that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have stopped walking with them, and instead have turned to face the other way to walk against the prevailing winds of public opinion. And then they’ve spit at the American voters. And you know what happens when you spit into the wind.

But that’s for the next election cycle. What will happen in the meantime on health care reform? Reconciliation, of course; but is it a bluff? Can Republicans stall the process effectively by amendments? Would reconciliation only apply to budgetary elements of the bill rather than the whole?

No one really knows, because are in unexplored territory here, and rightly so. Never before has a major bill that affects every American so deeply and personally (and threatens to destroy the economy rather than fix it) been pushed through against the will of the American people, not only lacking bipartisan support, but lacking the support of some of the majority party as well. The Democratic leadership has now given up on convincing moderate Republicans to cross over; their goal now is to get enough moderate Democrats on board to pass this unwanted monstrosity, through any means they can devise.

But reconciliation is only for the Senate. Will there be enough votes in the House under Nurse Pelosi to force Americans to take their medicine? The answer seems to be “not yet, but maybe,” despite public expressions of near-certainty that the votes are there. Is this bravado? Or, as the Politico article states, will Pelosi somehow muster those votes because of her legendary ruthlessness and iron control? As one unnamed “Democratic insider” is quoted as saying (and this was meant to be some sort of compliment), “[Pelosi] will put a bullet in the head of anyone she needs to.” Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Yesterday Nancy Pelosi made two revealing statements. Here’s the first, a prime example of the trademark Pelosi wit and wisdom:

[Republicans have] had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”

Orwell, anyone?

The second came just after her assertion that Democrats in Congress should commit political suicide in order to pass Obamacare. Pelosi then added, “We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress, we’re here to do the job for the American people.”

So, even if the American people will throw the Democrats out of office for this vote, the politicians are nobly sacrificing themselves. Doing the job for the American people? Or to the American people? I can think of no better example of power-hungry condescension and contempt, masquerading as platitudinous solicitude.

Except, perhaps, for this:

ratched.jpg

If Mr. McMurphy doesn’t want to take his medication orally, I’m sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way. But I don’t think that he would like it.

[ADDENDUM: Some detailed speculation on how the votes might be accomplished—or not.]

Andy McCarthy on what is different about this administration and this Congress

The New Neo Posted on by

Andy McCarthy gets it.

The “it” is what we’ve been saying on this blog for what seems like a long, long, time: that Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress are playing a very different game with very different rules. They don’t care about re-election; they care about the transformation of our government, economy, and way of life.

There are only two questions, as McCarthy indicates. The first is whether, as he says, “there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs.” The second is whether, if there are not enough, there will be enough Republicans to take power in the next election cycle to undo the harm that has been done, by what mechanism this might be accomplished, and how quickly. In other words, will the changes be irrevocable?

[NOTE: For earlier posts that speculate somewhat along these same lines, see this and this.]

Health care reform, Prohibition: legislation vs. constitutional amendment

The New Neo Posted on by

I was thinking what a huge and personal set of changes would result from the passage of the contemplated comprehensive health care reform bill, and how close the vote will be either way. If we dodge it, it will be by the skin of our teeth. And if it’s passed, it will be by the skin of Congress’s.

Many have observed that this is the first time a bill of such scope has been pushed by Congress without the legislation enjoying fairly large—and at least somewhat bipartisan—majorities. The reason is practical; it would ordinarily be political suicide to try to pass a transformative and unpopular (or even only marginally popular) bill. But that is exactly what the Democrats are poised to do—at least, if we believe their rhetoric, which may be mere bombast but which we must take seriously.

Our founding fathers were concerned with the possibility of tyranny of the majority, and they put certain safeguards in our government’s design in an attempt to protect against it. But there’s a limit to what they could do to prevent it if a majority was bound and determined to defy the will of the people. Our government has checks and balances, but in the end it relies on a certain basic agreement and cooperation. Both sides must respect the system in some general way in order for it to function.

For example, I was thinking back to Prohibition, another big piece of legislation (although nowhere near as big as this one) that affected people’s lives in a rather intimate fashion. But the mechanism by which it was passed was a constitutional amendment (the Eighteenth), along with the Volstead Act, through which Congress defined alcoholic beverages. The process by which an amendment is passed is much more difficult, and requires much larger majorities, than a mere act of Congress. So why did they bother?

You might answer that Prohibition had to be done that way because it was a federal ban on what was until then a function only states were allowed to prohibit—the intrastate (as opposed to interstate) sale, manufacture, and transport of liquor for consumption. Previously, many states had already had such a ban, but now it was made national.

But although that is true, it is not the whole answer. For example, in Obamacare there is a nationwide requirement that individuals purchase health insurance or face a penalty. This is unprecedented, and could certainly be considered an unconstitutional overreach by Congress. And yet there is no move to require Congress to pass this sort of bill through the amendment process rather than by the usual path for legislation, and I would hazard a guess that if it were passed and there was a constitutional challenge, the Supreme Court might refuse to hear the case, or be very reluctant to rule against Congress because of the separation of powers.

Congress can contemplate this sort of thing now because they have less fear of the consequences than they did back in 1920, when Prohibition was passed. That’s the big secret the Obama administration and this Congress has discovered (or perhaps rediscovered): if it has the power to do something, why not go for it? If they don’t care about re-election (for whatever reason), and if they don’t fear the Supreme Court—nothing can stop them.

Audacity, indeed.

Power update

The New Neo Posted on by

Still no power. This time I’m sitting with my laptap in a public library, having managed to snare one of the few empty desks and unused outlets. Never have I seen such a large crowd at the library before!

After I’m finished, I will go to stay with my son, who’s got power galore as well as wifi and an extra bed. So, no biggie—as long I don’t wear out my welcome (hey, after all I’ve done for you)….

In the powerless dark

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s nighttime and the power’s still out, although right now I’m in another part of town where the lights are as bright as usual. I’m sitting in a coffee shop loaded with people, many of them—like me—busy keyboarding away at their computers and charging their cellphones.

So it’s easy to pretend that all’s well, and that I just happened to decide tonight to write this essay amidst a lot of unaccustomed company.

But the truth is that in an hour or so I’ll unplug my laptop, get into my car, and drive home. Just a few blocks away the streets will suddenly darken, even the traffic signals will go off, and the cars will slow down and practice the quaint courtesies of stopping at busy corners to let each other pass.

When I arrive home, there will only be the full moon and a few stars to light my way, plus a flashlight once my car lights have been turned off. And I will marvel once again, as I did last time the power went out for days, at how dark the night is, and how bright the moon. Then I’ll go inside to featureless rooms, with only the flashlight (or the odd candle) to guide me. Neither illuminates much, but it will be enough.

How many electrical aids I usually rely on at night! Without them, I’m not only without light and heat, but I’m also without entertainment, except what’s provided by my mind. I can talk to friends, but only on my cell phone, and I need to make sure I charge it during the day so it won’t run out of juice at night. I can listen to my iPod—but again, musn’t waste the charge. TV is out, of course, as is my usual companion, the internet. Friends huddle in their own homes, which seem more far away than ever. A hot shower is an unimaginable luxury, a cold one too shivery to contemplate.

And even this precarious existence depends on two things: batteries, and the existence of a world outside that hasn’t lost its power. I can still go to a grocery store and get supplies, and even go to a place like this one where I’m sitting right now, having bought hot food and plugged in my computer. At night, the things that now keep me company—several flashlights, a transistor radio, the little travel clock I bought a while back from Brookstone’s (the one that makes all sorts of sounds like crickets chirping or the ocean roar)—are all powered by batteries, of which I have a huge but not inexhaustible supply.

And I know that in a day or two the power will come back on again. If it doesn’t happen by tomorrow, I probably will journey an hour or two to stay with a friend or relative, and then return when all’s well. There is really nothing to worry about. But every power failure drives home—in a way that is impossible to ignore—how very far we’ve come from being able to rely on our own resources to survive.

White House Secretary resigns, but not the right one

The New Neo Posted on by

I was in the car today listening to the radio and I heard something about a White House something-or-other secretary resigning today. I felt a small leap of joy at the thought that it had to be—just had to be—the insufferable Robert Gibbs.

But then I heard the next sentence and discovered that it was Desiree Rogers, the White House Social Secretary responsible for letting unapproved guests sneak into a state dinner on her watch. who now feels a deep and suddenly pressing need to pursue interests in the corporate world.

Would it were Gibbs. But I think he’s in it for the long haul.

Power outage–tune in later

The New Neo Posted on by

Much of New England dealt with an enormous storm and high winds last night, and I was no exception. Power outage time!

I’m in the wifi-enabled parking lot of a McDonald’s in a nearby town that seems to have been somewhat spared. I probably will return later today when it’s less crowded, and I’ll be planning to write something. Who knows, I might even get my power back by then.

Such fun. And it’s all Bush’s fault!!

Meanwhile, in the ongoing Democrat war against the CIA…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the House Democrats tried to sneak a provision into an intelligence bill that would ban and criminalize any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is “degrading,” including but not limited to itemized practices such as “prolonged isolation,” “exploiting the phobias” of an individual, and the mere presence of dogs (nothing about pigs, but my guess is that would be a no-no as well).

Some alert Republicans protested:

“This will fundamentally change the nature of the intelligence community by creating a criminal statute governing interrogations,” said Rep. Pete Hoesktra (R-Mich.).

He added that it had appeared “out of nowhere” in a manager’s amendment.

“Would someone on the other side please explain the rationale behind this and why the majority was unwilling to have hearings on this issue?” he said.

Lo and behold, the addition was pulled this evening.

About that much-ballyhooed, analyzed, and largely unwatched “bipartisan” health care summit

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’m bumping this up to keep it at the top. Scroll down for newer posts.]

Well, I tried. But a couple of minutes was it for me.

I suspect that the vast majority of people will not be watching this thing, either. A few stalwart (or drunk) souls are liveblogging; the rest will wait for the post-game wrapup, the reviews, and for the MSM to assemble the clips and sound bites that will make their team—Obama and the Democrats—look good, and the Republicans bad.

Will it matter? I doubt it. But like most bloggers, pundits, journalists, and other assorted commentators, I have no idea what plan really lurks in the minds of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid—except that I have come to the point of not trusting a word they say. Mike Allen of Politico quotes an unnamed “Democratic official” that the summit’s theater is designed to “give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans,” and that it will be followed in due course by a push for reconciliation and passage of the Democratic bill we’ve all grown to know and love so well.

That would be my guess too, but it’s only a guess.

My brief look at the summit revealed that the Republicans, alas, did not follow Newt Gingrich’s gameplan. I didn’t think they would, but I still think they should have. Instead, it has been more of a back and forth, with Obama leading the show and calling the shots, and doing his best to look presidential and as though he’s really listening.

Ace points out that these seem to be the rules:

1. Democrats get more time because “I’m the President.”

2. Republicans may not criticise my bill. They can only talk about things on which we agree.

3. Republicans may not use the word “Washington” because it tips the scales.

4. Republicans may not use or reference an actual copy of the Senate bill. That’s a “prop” and it’s unfair.

Ace also noticed that, when Cantor criticized Obama, the expression on Obama’s face was a “pissed-off grimace.” During the few minutes I watched, I noticed something like that, too, although it was fairly subtle: an impatient annoyance that Obama cannot hide when listening to criticism of himself, try though he may.

Those of you with stronger stomachs than I can watch the rest. Feel free to vent in the comments.

[ADDENDUM: Interesting observation from a comment at Ace’s: the Democrats had mostly sob stories, the Republicans had mostly facts. That old heart/mind dichotomy.]