WHO ARE THOSE GUYS?

As in, the peace protesters around the White House. Let's ask a Leftist, Christopher Hitchens.

Saturday's demonstration in Washington, in favor of immediate withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, was the product of an opportunistic alliance between two other very disparate "coalitions." Here is how the New York Times (after a front-page and an inside headline, one of them reading "Speaking Up Against War" and one of them reading "Antiwar Rallies Staged in Washington and Other Cities") described the two constituencies of the event:

The protests were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus.

The name of the reporter on this story was Michael Janofsky. I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the genocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper, to mention only two radical left journalists, who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.

The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party (Ramsey Clark's core outfit) is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along, well, they just tag along.

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

LINCOLN, POWELL, AND OLIPHANT

Thomas Oliphant sees parallels in the words of Lincoln, read by Powell, in contemporary Washington. Of course, he misses the main point.

''FELLOW CITIZENS, we cannot escape history."

Normally, Lincoln always works for me, and accompanied by Aaron Copeland's uniquely American sound, he is especially stirring. But hearing Colin Powell read words that have been part of patriotism's essential sheet music for more than 60 years, they were for the first time in my experience a kind of damning boomerang.

At the National Symphony Orchestra's opening concert Saturday evening -- its 75th in a lovely odyssey that traces Washington's gradual emergence from a sleepy company town to a real city -- the choice of Powell, one of the local establishment's favorite figures, and his wife to perform the role of readers for Copeland's Lincoln Portrait was automatic.

But the war in Iraq intruded, causing more than one formally attired guest to glance with surprise at the person next to him or reach for a pen to get down the freshly discovered double-entendres in Lincoln's language.

After a day of stunningly large antiwar demonstrations that surrounded a beleaguered White House while its occupant attended to a more natural disaster, the Lincoln words bit hard.
''We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves," observed Lincoln long ago in a written message to Congress after the gore of Antietam but just a month before the Emancipation Proclamation. ''No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation. We, even here, hold the power and bear the responsibility."

Indeed. The inspiring words of the past mock the poses of the present.

Wrong point. Here is the right one.

As it was, Colin Powell even had trouble selling Lincoln's wish, articulated for the ages after Gettysburg, ''That from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain."

Oliphant can't see, because he is hard-wired to believe that the President and his people lied their way into the war, that the war itself is just, and the sacrifice of those who have died is righteous, and the only way to honor them, as in Lincoln's time, is to fight on until victory.

SO, IT HAS COME TO THIS

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada made a remarkable statement yesterday, as part of his overall speech announcing his opposition to John Roberts as Chief Justice. "The President is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary", he said. Say what? Pardon me, Senator Reid, but I thought the Constitution was pretty explicit about the process, whereby the President chooses judges with the 'advice and consent of the Senate'. Two centuries of Senators have consistently given the President a great deal of deference when choosing his nominees. Even if you set aside the Constitutional duty that seems to exist, purely as a partisan matter it doesn't make sense to give the President of the other party no deference as a President of your party would, doubtless, suffer the same fate when the situation is reversed. The Washington Post's lead editorial makes the point.

Here is yet another insidious consequence of judicial activism and, especially, the Roe decision. Since unelected judges are now making political decisions based on their personal policy preferences, then the process of appointing them must become wholly political. That is to say, no judge appointed by a President of one party, no matter how well qualified, can be consented to by the other party. Therefore, if a Democrat is elected President in 2008, but the GOP maintains a majority in the Senate, by that logic no judge would be confirmed in that four year period. Does Harry Reid understand this? I think he does.

BEWARE THE LESSONS OF KATRINA

Everyone, it seems, is looking for the lessons of Katrina. Tom Friedman says the debacle in New Orleans represents a loss of American discipline.

There is something troublingly self-indulgent and slothful about America today - something that Katrina highlighted and that people who live in countries where the laws of gravity still apply really noticed. It has rattled them - like watching a parent melt down.

That is certainly the sense I got after observing the Katrina debacle from half a world away here in Singapore - a city-state that, if it believes in anything, believes in good governance. It may roll up the sidewalks pretty early here, and it may even fine you if you spit out your gum, but if you had to choose anywhere in Asia you would want to be caught in a typhoon, it would be Singapore. Trust me, the head of Civil Defense here is not simply someone's college roommate.

Pat Buchanan says something similar, although while Friedman attributes the blame to government-cutting Conservatives, Buchanan says it is "Great Society" Liberals who are to blame.

At the Superdome and New Orleans Convention Center, we saw the failure of 40 years of the Great Society. No sooner had Katrina passed by and the 17th Street levee broke than hundreds of young men who should have taken charge in helping the aged, the sick and the women with babies to safety took to the streets to shoot, loot and rape. The New Orleans police, their numbers cut by deserters who left their posts to look after their families, engaged in running gun battles all day long to stay alive and protect people...

The real disaster of Katrina was that society broke down. An entire community could not cope. Liberalism, the idea that good intentions and government programs can build a Great Society, was exposed as fraud. After trillions of tax dollars for welfare, food stamps, public housing, job training and education have poured out since 1965, poverty remains pandemic. But today, when the police vanish, the community disappears and men take to the streets to prey on women and the weak.

Stranded for days in a pool of fetid water, almost everyone waited for the government to come save them. They screamed into the cameras for help, and the reporters screamed into the cameras for help, and the "civil rights leaders" screamed into the cameras that Bush was responsible and Bush was a racist.

Americans were once famous for taking the initiative, for having young leaders rise up to take command in a crisis. See any of that at the Superdome? Sri Lankans and Indonesians, far poorer than we, did not behave like this in a tsunami that took 400 times as many lives as Katrina has thus far.

Read both columns. I think you will agree that both make good points. Government failed, and people failed. The problem with both men is that they extrapolate what happened in New Orleans to the rest of America. The fact of the matter is this...

NEW ORLEANS IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICA!!!

Culturally, New Orleans is a city that represents a very different historical tradition than most of the rest of the country. It is a city with deep roots in French, Spanish, antebellum Southern and African/Caribbean cultures. It is a city infused by a history of pursuing pleasure in the face of Death (one official called it a 'party town', which it surely is). Faced every day with the prospect of being drowned by floodwaters or killed by disease (the common calamities throughout the history of the city), the people of New Orleans have developed a unique attitude about work, civic duty, public service, and the pursuit of pleasure.

If you are skeptical of this analysis, then ask yourself a question. Why did New Yorkers on 9/11 calmly walk home, many covered in dust and blood? Why was there so little looting or criminal disorder? Because New York is a working town. The whole culture of the city is dominated by the attitude that the business of the city is business. Add to that the idea (held by almost all New Yorkers, regardless of their cultural origins) that they are tougher than average people, you get the unified response we saw on 9/11. New Yorkers collectively spit in the eye of their attackers. You think you're going to scare us? Fuhhggetaboutit. You think you're going to get us to run around like chickens with their heads cut off? Fuhhggetaboutit.

This is not to say that there weren't many people in New Orleans who reacted calmly, and bravely to extraordinary circumstances. Certainly, though, I cannot imagine even one member of the NYPD deserting his post in the face of disaster, much less the hundreds that deserted the Crescent City's police force, can you?

The bottom line? Beware of drawing conclusions about America because of how the people and civic leaders of one city reacted to a catastrophe. Beware of drawing conclusions about the state of our Federal Government by examining the reactions of one agency, FEMA, led by a man who was clearly out of his league.

OUR SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

This story just kills me...

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget. Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible. "My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing. Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

If this represents the true thinking of the GOP leadership in Washington, then we might as well let the Democrats take over.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF KATRINA

The disaster is so enormous it almost defies comprehension. An effected area of 90,000 square miles. A million people without power. A city of 450,000 people almost completely flooded and, soon, almost completely empty of anyone except cops, firemen, soldiers, engineers and the dead. So, what are the consequences of Katrina?

One, New Orleans as we have known it is dead. Just how many of the evacuees will return to New Orleans when it is finally safe to do so? Many of the evacuees are poor, but not necessarily without skills or energy. As they find greater economic opportunities in other cities (especially Houston), just exactly what will be their incentive to return to a city beneath sea level? The phenomenon will grow larger the longer it takes to make the city inhabitable again.

Two, the scope of the environmental catastrophe is only now coming into focus. Just how toxic is the water sitting inside the city? Beyond the obvious biological hazards caused by raw sewage and dead bodies, just what kinds of chemicals are now contaminating that water? Everything from household products to gasoline to chemicals from factories is, no doubt, in that water. Every hour that the water sits in the city it works away at the foundations of buildings, rotting the wood and rusting the metal. While no one appears to have a handle on how long it will take to pump the water out of the city, it seems pretty clear to me that when the water is finally out, the whole city will be one giant superfund site. How many buildings will have to be demolished? How much soil will have to be removed? Where will the waste and debris be deposited? All these questions will have to be answered before people can begin to return to the city (except, perhaps, to those spots that were never flooded). Beyond New Orleans, one needs to ask about the damage done to the coastal barrier swamps and islands. Is New Orleans now stripped of so much of that natural protection that even a minor hurricane will stress the levees to the breaking point?

Three, who will end up being singled out for blame is, at the moment, completely unknowable. While some on the left are barely containing their glee over what they perceive as another failure of the Bush Administration, it is not at all clear that the Federal Government should be assessed the brunt of the blame for the calamity. Was the local disaster plan adequate? Was there a local evacuation plan that was not followed? Did the Governor of Louisiana react in a timely manner to the devastation? While it seems to me that FEMA failed, at least in the first few days, it also seems apparent that the local leadership didn't cover themselves with glory, either.

Four, the political consequences are unclear. Again, some on the left are arguing that this is a failure of the tax-cutting GOP. They seem to believe that an aroused public will rise up against the Republican skinflints who short-changed our people in Louisiana and Mississippi, just like they short-changed our troops in Iraq. Unfortunately for the left, an equally plausible scenario is that the people will see their view of the dangerous incompetence of government re-affirmed by the response to the disaster, leading to no change in the political landscape. After all, if government failed in the wake of Katrina, why would anyone want to reward the party most associated with big government?

These four items are just the start of an examination of the consequences of Katrina. Future generations will look back upon this storm as a seminal event in the history of our country.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

A reader asks why President Bush would nominate John Roberts to be Chief Justice. While there are a number of possible reasons, I think it boils down to two simple facts.

First, Judge Roberts has already been substantially examined by all the political interest groups, the media, and congressional Democrats. On the verge of his confirmation hearings, originally scheduled to begin yesterday, no one had found anything about Roberts that would make his nomination fit within the category of 'extraordinary circumstances' that would trigger the acceptance of a filibuster by the Democratic members of the Senate's 'Gang of Fourteen'. His confirmation as an Associate Justice seemed certain. Therefore, there are no obstacles to prevent his confirmation as Chief Justice, and no political firestorm (as there might be with the elevation of Scalia or Thomas).

Second, the next term of the court begins in just a few weeks. Justice O'Connor has promised to remain on the court until her successor is confirmed. This means the President has time to go through the vetting process on his nominee to replace her. If he hasn't made a choice by the time the new session begins, or his choice hasn't yet been confirmed by the Senate, the court can still begin the term with a full complement of justices with Roberts as the Chief.

Expect Roberts to be confirmed as Chief Justice and O'Connor's replacement to be seated sometime during the term (certainly before the end of the calendar year). As for who that person might be, your guess is as good as mine.

WBZ TONIGHT

I will be filling-in for Steve Leveille tonight on WBZ-Boston from Midnight to 5 AM. WBZ-AM can be found at 1030 AM. The phone number is 617-254-1030.

Obviously, I will be talking about the disaster created by Hurricane Katrina. Was the federal response inadequate? Disgraceful? Was race a factor? Was the lawlessness a product of the slow response or was it more about the character of New Orleans? Should New Orleans be re-built?

I may also talk about the rising price of gasoline and whether or not it will change your car-buying habits.

Time permitting, I may also spend some time on the issue of the Supreme Court, with the nomination hearings for Judge Roberts scheduled for Tuesday and now the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist.

STOPPING THE LOOTING

One of the most disturbing aspects of the disaster in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast effected by Hurricane Katrina is the looting which has broken out in many places.

David Brooks suggests that the unrest has exposed the political, social and cultural fault lines of New Orleans society, and cites historical examples of how previous disasters, including the great flood in that city in 1927, did the same. This is, I think, a cogent analysis of the greater meaning to be found in the looting.

Unfortunately, that will not help the people who are being victimized by the looting. So, what is to be done?

In my estimation, historically speaking, the only way to stop looting in a disaster situation is to shoot looters on sight. After word spreads that looters are being gunned down, people who are generally not criminal in nature will be deterred, and true criminals will be more circumspect about their thievery. Thus, the sense of disorder created by looting in broad daylight will be replaced by the sense of order created by uniformed, armed men calmly patrolling the streets.

Of course, this will not happen. The reason is simple. No political leader in this country can withstand the fallout from the first nationally televised videotape of an unarmed looter (in the case of New Orleans, probably a young , black man) being shot by a police officer or national guardsmen (probably a young, white man) after he has already dropped his loot and is fleeing on foot. Therefore, Governor Blanco being no different, a shoot-on-sight order will not be issued in New Orleans. Governor Barbour in Mississippi is also unlikely to sign such an order. Expect the looting to continue unabated.

REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS

This article, in the Boston Globe, is the first I have seen on the subject. There will, no doubt, be many more.

President Bush yesterday vowed to rebuild New Orleans, a herculean task beyond anything that civil engineers have faced in US history.

''New communities will flourish and the great city of New Orleans will be back on its feet, and America will be a stronger place for it," the president said in a nationally televised address, adding that he has ordered his cabinet to come up with a comprehensive rebuilding plan for New Orleans and smaller Gulf Coast cities devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

But even as Bush was speaking, city planners and engineers predicted that any attempt to restore the city of 469,000 -- now mostly under water -- will take years of work and tens of billions of dollars to complete, and will likely unleash political battles over which areas should get priority.

Some engineers said that replicating the exact cityscape of New Orleans, which is six feet below sea level, makes little sense. Any reconstruction should be aimed at protecting against a recurrence of the floods that devastated most of the city but left nearby areas as little as 5 feet above sea level unscathed, they said.

The engineers pointed to a long list of tasks: Levees will have to be rebuilt -- higher and stronger than before. Power plants and telecommunication centers should be spread around the city, so that all would not be lost in future floods. Even many buildings that survived the flood, which covered 80 percent of the city, will have to be razed to protect against mold and disease.

''We are talking about bulldozing entire neighborhoods," said Doug Bandow, a senior analyst at the Cato Institute who specializes in redevelopment. ''Much of New Orleans is relatively uninhabitable."

Read the whole thing. The question, of course, is whether or not it makes sense to rebuild a city below sea level in a hurricane zone. The solution, of course, will not be based on logic. Rather, it will be based on emotion. Therefore, expect the city to be rebuilt on the exact same spot.