Subsidiarity and Violence

I have talked alot about subsidiarity:

"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." (Pope Pius XI, "On Reconstruction of the Social Order", 1931)

On of the reasons for this is diminishing spontaneity:

as a hierarchy of associations and relationships rise from the individuals and families at the base of the social structure (up to and including government), the higher the rung the less spontaneous it is and the more contrived; or, the higher you go the less help the structure gets from nature and the more help it needs from culture.

So, as this article points out:

[Subsidiarity] holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy

That is because the closer, and more organic, organization is the more natural organization and easiest for the folks affected to control.

One thing I noticed (and haven't directly mentioned in connection with subsidiarity) when I wrote "The Era of Bloodshed" was (as mentioned by Conyers) that Hannah Arendt:

suggested that where power, in the sense of effective action within a community is missing, violence takes its place. Moreover, once the institutions of government have outgrown the individual and the neighborhood, so that the very scale of governance no longer permits effective action for most people, then those people are more likely to take to the streets and address their grievances in destructive ways.

If you are not just going to take things like the Tea Party movement and the outcry at the health care town halls as astroturfing, then you can see this feeling of ineffectiveness and lack of control beginning to explode into anger and violence.

Even folks who supported President Obama are feeling the same: it seems to many that regardless of the promises made during the election, and the vote, and the control of Congress by the Democratics - that nothing has changed. Nothing. Arendt's critique still explains: we, the electorate, are simply to far from the "halls of power" to have any impact on policy - or at least not the same impact as the lobbyists sitting in their offices. Certainly not the same impact that organized citizens can have on city, county, and state governments.

There was a reason the Federal Constitution left so many powers in the hands of the several states - and it has not been particularly good that the Federal government has moved more and more control, over more and more areas, into Washington D.C. One thing that political activists of all stripes need to realize - the Federal Government is too large, and too distant, for there to be effective citizen control.

Read more!

The Obama DOJ and the Federal DOMA

This popped up at The Volokh Conspiracy (HT: Parableman) and seems like a discussion item.

The Obama Justice Department yesterday filed a brief urging a California district court to dismiss a little-known constitutional challenge to DOMA filed in late 2008 by a married gay couple . . . For lots of reasons, gay-marriage advocacy groups would like to see this case go away . . . A dismissal on jurisdictional grounds would nicely suit that purpose, and that seems to me the most likely outcome.

But the DOJ brief goes further than it needs to go at this point in the case by addressing the merits of the constitutional issues in the case, . . .

Of most interest is what the DOJ has to say about the due process and equal protection claims, rejecting just about every single variation of an argument that gay-rights scholars and litigants have made over the past 30 years.

Certainly, there can be lots of discussion on the Federal DOMA and it's constitutional merits - but what caught my conservative eye was Carpenter's point of interest #3:

(3) The Obama DOJ also has new understanding of federalism:

[B]ecause Congress recognized both the freedom of States to expand the traditional definition, and the freedom of other States to decline to recognize this newer form of marriage, a policy of neutrality dictated that Congress not extend federal benefits to new forms of marriage recognized by some States. Given the strength of competing convictions on this still-evolving issue, Congress could reasonably decide that federal benefits funded by taxpayers throughout the nation should not be used to foster a form of marriage that only some States recognize, and that other States do not. (emphasis added)

Historically federal marriage benefits have been available to anyone married under state law. The federal definition was parasitic on the state definition. If a state chose to allow 14-year-olds to marry, but most states did not allow that, nobody thought federal recognition of such marriages functioned as a subsidy forced on the taxpayers of other states. DOMA changed that, but only for gay marriages. "Neutrality," as the Obama administration understands it, does not mean federal recognition of state choices in this matter. It means denying federal recognition of state choices.

The continual erosion of the rights of the several states vs the Federal government is, of course, worrisome to me.

Obviously, for folks who expected President Obama's administration to support gay marriage, Carpenter's conclusion may be a surprise:

My point here is not to claim that the DOJ's arguments are anti-gay, homophobic, or even wrong. Much of the brief seems right to me, or at least entirely defensible, as a matter of constitutional law. My point is only to note how much continuity there is in this instance, as in others, between the Bush and Obama administrations. In short, there's little in this brief that could not have been endorsed by the Bush DOJ. A couple of rhetorical flourishes here and there might have been different. Perhaps a turn of phrase. But, minus some references to procreation and slippery slopes, the substance is there.

Obama says he opposes DOMA as a policy matter and wants to repeal it. Nothing in the DOJ brief prevents him from acting on that belief. He is, he says, a "fierce advocate" for gay and lesbian Americans. When does that part start?

Read more!

What Kind of Conservative Are I?

Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House has listed some points that he believes do, and do not, define being a political conservative. It seems like a worthy task:

• the Bush Administration has been anything except my version of conservative


• the Obama presidency is going to be anything but conservative


• a lot of folks who say they are conservative are anything but conservative.

All of that is, of course, purely subjective on my part -- so I, like Rick, need to be clear on my definition of conservative. Rick is a political conservative, and an atheist; and I am a political conservative and a theologically conservative Christian. So, let us start with a division there: while my religious beliefs do inform my political beliefs, these are entirely separate categories. I know political conservatives who are either unreligious, or very liberal in a theological sense. I know theologically conservative folk who are liberal politically. I like a lot of what I see of Rick's political ideology - and of course think his theology is absolutely wrong. So, we really have to be careful about drawing too many conclusions about someone's political ideology from their theology; and vice versa.

Another problem with being a political conservative is the company I keep. Moran nails it:

For it appears to me from my vantage point that we are entering a period where someone’s conservative bona fides will not depend on what he believes as an intellectual frame of reference that informs his stand on issues as much as how much he agrees with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter . . .

. . . there lies a whole slew of litmus tests where many of these conservabots will brook no opposition, no nuance, no independent thinking whatsoever.

A partial listing:

If you are pro-choice to one degree or another, you are not a conservative.

If you are pro-choice to one degree or another, you are not a conservative.

If you criticize the war or the military, you are not a conservative and unpatriotic to boot.

If you say anything nice about a liberal anytime, anywhere – if you agree with a liberal on anything or praise a liberal past, present, or future – you are not a conservative.

If you don’t agree that torturing the enemy is necessary and/or good, you are not a conservative.

If you say anything nice about any media besides conservative mags, talk radio and Fox News, you are not a conservative.

If you believe in evolution, you are not a conservative and are probably going to hell.

If you believe that there is a possibility of man made global warming based on scientific evidence collected so far, you are not a conservative and should probably be committed.

If you believe that Barack Obama is just a stupid liberal and not a clone of Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden all rolled into one, you are not a conservative.

If you believe that Democrats don’t have horns, a tail, and a pitchfork, you are not a conservative.

And most of all, unless you believe Sarah Palin is the second coming of Ronald Reagan, the bees knees, the cat’s meow, the apple of our eye, and the greatest thing to hit the conservative movement and the Republican party since Robert Taft first uttered the immortal words “US out of the UN” – you are not a conservative.

The problem with all those issues (and most of the things that "progressives" use to define being "progressive") is that none of them have anything to do with a theory of government or governance - nor any other historic definition of conservatism. They are all superficial and non-ideological guages. To put it into theological terms, they are all about behaving and appearing righteous, without any discussion of the reasons for the behavior or who the behavior serves: there is nothing about the heart or really even about the head. All of that was about partisanship and not political theory.

Yet another problem with being a conservative (or a progressive really) is that there is little source of good discussion about political theory as opposed to issue-oriented partisanship. If the coming election of Barack Obama - and a whole slew of liberals to Congress - is really going to mean that political conservatives really start to discuss what it means to call yourself a conservative then that is great. That may happen after all the blame gets tossed around. More likely we will have at least 4 years of folks opposing everything their opponent supports, even if that opposition has no coherant political or philosophical framework informing it. That is pretty much what we have seen from the left for the last period of time. They are fortunate that the Bush administration was fairly incompetant - they are not winning this election because they have put forward a coherant vision. They are winning because they oppose President Bush and he is not loved.

How do I relate to Rick Moran's principles for his conservatism?

I believe first and foremost in American exceptionalism - the idea that we are a different country and people from any other nation on earth.

Of course the United States is exceptional on an historical level; and in the world today. Does this mean better - especially in some form invoking superiority or the right to expect other nations to attempt to duplicate what we are? No. It does mean, to me, that "to whom much is given much is expected". Also, this is where my theological conservativeness raises up. J. Budziszewski:

The mistake in all these stages is confusing America with Zion. She is not the inheritor of the covenant, not the receiver of the promises, not the witness to the nations. It may well be that all nations have callings of sorts — specific purposes which God in His providence assigns them. But no nation can presume to take God under its wing. However we may love her, dote upon her, and regret her, the Lord our God can do without the United States.

I am first, and foremost, a member of the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God - and, frankly, this is where the famed split on the right between the social conservatives (read "fundamentalist" Christians) and the political conservatives may be based. Political ideology, and especially partisanship, do not trump theology.

I believe the free market economic system is the fairest, the most productive, and the greatest engine for human liberty ever conceived.

I believe that American defenses must be second to none – conventional and strategic.

I believe in a robust, forward thinking, “America first” foreign policy.

What does this last mean? The use of "America First" as the cover slogan for the pro-Nazi Americans who wished to keep the US out of WWII makes this an unfortunate phrase at best. That aside, what does a foreign policy that puts the United States first mean? What kind of foreign policy has the US ever had that didn't put us first? Is the key phrase here "forward thinking"? Now, foreign policy that is forward thinking would be new.

I believe in a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and that a president should appoint judges to the federal courts who reflect that view.

This would be the first (maybe second) real ideological point I see Rick Moran making. I agree, and I like how one of the commentor's explained this:

The term “strict constructionist” is probably liberal term invented in academia as a dysphemism to make proper interpretation of the Constitution seem like a bad thing.

The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. It has an amendment process so we can add other things that we think it should say. Instead of just making up what we think it says, we should rule that it says what it says. The legislative branches all over the country have the right (and duty) to correct and amend it as needed.

Exactly. It is the impatience -- and laziness -- of folks to do the political work necessary to "win the hearts and minds" of enough people to change the constitutions of the federal and state governments that make them go to the courts in order to get judges to legislate from the bench. This, as Jefferson warned, creates a judicial oligarchy and makes the constitution blank by construction.

I believe in the inviolable rights of private property as the guarantor of American liberty.

I believe in equality of opportunity for all Americans regardless of color, ethnic heritage, or national origin.

I believe America should strive to create the smallest government realistically possible, possessing the lightest touch imaginable on the individual citizen.

This is one of those things I agree with absolutely, and see very few folks giving an ideological depth to. Without a concept like subsidiarity informing this view, it is largely rhetoric:

Since Aristotle two principles have been seen:

1. connaturality: culture should develop in partnership with our design filling the outline our first nature provides; and


2. diminishing spontaneity: as a hierarchy of associations and relationships rise from the individuals and families at the base of the social structure (up to and including government), the higher the rung the less spontaneous it is and the more contrived; or, the higher you go the less help the structure gets from nature and the more help it needs from culture.

These two features imply the risk that though the higher rungs ought to protect and co-operate with the more spontaneous lower rungs - the higher rung's lesser spontaneity means they may not.

This implies a rule, subsidiarity, which was a natural assumption but not put into words until 1931 by Pope Pius XI:

"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." ("On Reconstruction of the Social Order")

As Pius said, what brought this to the forefront was the industrial revolution, and the danger that between the collectivists on one side, and the individualists on the other, all the "little platoons" between the state and the individual would be destroyed and/or absorbed.

Back to Moran's list:

I believe in a just and moral society with a as clear a sense of right and wrong as is consistent with reality.

I believe that all of these things should be taught in American schools and that an appreciation of these values and qualities should be encouraged.

Someone in the comments asked where exactly this list is published - which is, of course, a great question. I believe in natural moral law so I have some ideas on the matter; but Rick and I do not agree on the existence of God (and a natural set of moral principles arising from that) - which conservatives like Burke and Russell Kirk took as granted. From Kirk (the first of his six canons of conservative thought):

Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality . . . cannot of itself satisfy human needs. . . . True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the Justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.

[Kirk later expanded these six canons into ten principles which are listed below]

And I believe we should have the freedom to say what we think, write what we want, worship however the hell we please, do anything, go anywhere, and enjoy life according to our own lights – as long as we do no harm to anyone’s person or property

Most liberals would agree with this - until we got to the definition of what constituted harm.

Now, I criticized Moran for lack of ideology - as he has criticized current conservatives for a lack of a intellectual foundation for their views. Kirk, however, dismissed ideology for the conservative:

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries. After some introductory remarks on this general theme, I will proceed to list ten such conservative principles.

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

To cap this piece, I will list Kirk's ten principles as well.

Conservatives

1. believe that there exists an enduring moral order


2. adhere to custom, convention, and continuity.


3. believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.


4. are guided by their principle of prudence.


5. pay attention to the principle of variety.


6. are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.


7. are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.


8. uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.


9. perceive the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions.


10. understand that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.

Read more!

False TestimonyThe Wasilla Earmarks

Someone pointed out this article from the Washington Post: "Palin's Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds":

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor, according to an analysis by an independent government watchdog group.

I am a fiscal conservative. I believe that - to the highest degree possible - things should be organized, and paid for, at the lowest level of government possible. It is part of my belief in subsidiarity:

One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

This is why Pope John Paul II took the “social assistance state” to task in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. The Pontiff wrote that the Welfare State was contradicting the principle of subsidiarity by intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.”

One of my criticisms of the Bush administration is that they have spent "like a drunken sailor on shore leave": more massively than any administration in US history. Indeed, it is difficult for me not to laugh when folks talk about the Bush administration cutting social service spending - no administration has ever spent more by any gauge.

However, subsidiarity doesn't mean that higher levels of government do not exist, or that they do not need to collect and spend money in support of lower levels of government. The principle is that lowest possible level of government should do the work and raise the money - the one closest to those served. Sarah Palin, as a mayor of Wasilla and Governor of Alaska, has supported this idea - saying that Wasilla, or Alaska, should attempt to do what it needs to do without higher levels of funding.

Higher levels of funding are necessary though. There are issues that cannot be resolved by a single city, or a single state. There are necessary and important improvements that a smaller entity may not be able to afford. Believing that spending should occur at the lowest level does not mean that all higher spending is necessarily wrong. Indeed, this comparison in the Washington Post article seems to me exactly wrong:

In fiscal year 2002, Wasilla took in $6.1 million in earmarks -- about $1,000 in federal money for every resident. By contrast, Boise, Idaho -- which has more than 190,000 residents -- received $6.9 million in earmarks in fiscal 2008.

A city of 190,000 should be better able to "pay its own way" and receive less Federal or state funding than a city of 6,000. Right? Also, I haven't looked into why the shift in years for the comparison - what did Boise get in 2002? If they picked on Portland, OR during the years when we have received the bulk of the funding for the Light Rail projects, our numbers might approach a billion. Finally, Boise has existed and been building infrastructure a lot longer than Wasilla - or indeed Alaska. That is one of those ways half-truths are hatched.

What is an "earmark"? The article says:

federal spending sought by members of Congress to benefit specific projects

That is technically correct; but fails to identify the real problem with earmarks. Barack Obama identified the problem as he teamed up with Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John McCain to call for an end to earmarks (at least until the election):

"We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project," Obama said in a statement. "We can no longer accept an earmarks process that has become so complicated to navigate that a municipality or non-profit group has to hire high-priced D.C. lobbyists to do it." [Notice that Obama just explained why Wasilla had to hire a lobbyist]

Earmarks are line items inserted directly by members of Congress into legislation - typically large bills. This is not a reference to spending by executive department branches as part of their granting process. The problem with earmarks is:

On paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen.

In addition, earmarks are rarely considered by the entire U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark. In addition, through the process of logrolling, members often agree to support a bill with another’s earmark in exchange for the same treatment. The result is bills with hundreds, if not thousands, of specifically-directed funding projects. Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that 98 percent of earmarks to appropriations bills in 2005 were added in the conference phase.

Earmarks have been defended:

In 2001, Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) argued that politicians know better than federal agencies how to properly spend money for higher education. He stated, “Nobody knows their constituents or their academic institutions or their programs better than the members of the House or the Senate who represent these organizations...We are in a better position to evaluate the merits of these programs than any executive agency.

Again, the distinction is Congressperson directed spending and not executive branch directed spending -- and really about largely unexamined spending. So, let's look at that list in the first linked article:

A sampling of the 14 earmarks, totaling $26.9 million, directed to the city of Wasilla from 2000 through 2003. Sarah Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002.

$1.9 million for the Wasilla Intermodal Transit Project, to realign rail and bus routes to increase use of public transit in the region. First, this was not an earmark - it was a grant from an executive branch agency - the US Department of the Transportation. Second, it was built in Fairbanks and not Wasilla:

The Alaska Railroad Corporation will use the $1.9 million grant to build the new intermodal facility to accommodate future expansion and tourism growth . . . “We understand that transportation plays a key role in the economy of Fairbanks . . . The new location is easily accessed from downtown Fairbanks and the airport . . . Major construction is scheduled to be completed in April 2005 with passenger operations set to begin in mid-May. Final completion of the center, including exterior landscaping is expected in July 2005 and will serve passengers arriving from and departing to Denali National Park and Preserve, Talkeetna, Wasilla and Anchorage.

One down

$500,000 for Kids Are People Inc., an emergency shelter for youths transitioning out of juvenile detention facilities. This was an earmark - and you will find it on page 8 of the linked PDF. And, it was actually built in Wasilla. One up.

$15 million for a rail project to connect Wasilla with Girdwood, the home town of Sen. Ted Stevens (R). That was the cutest rhetorical trick here. Do you think Stevens is the only resident? This little chunk of railroad is part of this overall plan to solve commuter and recreational traffic problems between Anchorage and the Mat-Su borough - home of 57,000 people of whom 35% commute into Anchorage:

Wasilla is located in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in south-central Alaska on the (Anchorage to Fairbanks) Parks Highway. Located 43 miles north of Anchorage, Wasilla (and the Mat-Su Valley) is among the fastest growing regions in Alaska. Wasilla . . . is located alongside the Alaska Railroad mainline which stretches from Fairbanks to Anchorage, and then on to Seward.

Population growth has been rapidly shifting from Anchorage to the Mat-Su Borough over the past 15 years. The population growth in the Borough is partly attributable to the lack of affordable housing and developable land for new residential land tracts in Anchorage. The Mat-Su Borough gained more than 20,000 new residents between 1990 and 2000. The 2000 census states Mat-Su’s population at 59,322, up from 39,683 in 1990, and 17,816 in 1980.

The majority of people live in the southern part of the Mat-Su Borough (the Mat-Su Valley) within about an hour drive time of the Anchorage metropolitan area. The two largest towns in the Mat-Su Borough are Palmer and Wasilla, each with a current population of roughly 5,000 residents. The “Core-Area” of the Mat-Su Valley is largely residential. Approximately 35% of the employed labor force commutes south to Anchorage on a daily basis

. . .Direct road access to and from Anchorage through Wasilla came with the construction of the Parks Highway in the early 1970s. This development enabled Anchorage workers and their families to live in the Wasilla area, and commute each day to the city for employment. Support and service industries began to expand to meet the needs of new residents. The City of Wasilla incorporated in 1974, and has developed as the retail and commercial hub of the central Mat-Su Borough.

Land use patterns have been largely shaped by the early development of the rail and highway corridor. As Wasilla grew, it grew linearly along the rail/highway corridor. As the population increased, demand for north-south crossings of the rail/highway corridor also increased. When the population was small, these crossings were not a problem. With the community’s rapid expansion over the past 15 years, however, the growing population and roadway traffic has overburdened the road network and increased the traffic crossing the highway and railroad as well as the traffic running along these major corridors. The increasing cross traffic (road and pedestrian) coupled with increasing through traffic causes safety concerns for at-grade crossing of both rail and highway facilities. Recreational land development north of Wasilla increased through traffic dramatically and now presents its own problems burdening local traffic pattern. The growth and inefficient layout of the road network exacerbates conditions.

To deal with the growing traffic problems, the State has embarked on an aggressive road construction program in the area. The state’s emphasis on the Parks Highway corridor reflects the highway’s importance as one of the state’s main commercial corridors and Mat-Su Valley’s rapid growth. Up to 20,000 cars and trucks a day travel along the Parks Highway south of Wasilla. Wasilla is the hub for several regional roads, including the Palmer-Wasilla Highway, Wasilla-Fishhook, and Knik-Goose Bay Road.

For many years, long-term transportation plans in Wasilla have included either a rail or a highway bypass. The 2002 Parks Highway Corridor Management Plan calls for a possible second or even a third corridor to address the traffic volume anticipated by 2030. The Plan says that if all the roadway(s) have direct access, as many as 12 lanes could be needed to carry the expected east-west traffic in downtown Wasilla. A 1982 Parks Highway location study investigated alternative alignments for the Parks Highway through and around Wasilla to accommodate the projected traffic growth. Eventually, additional travel lanes will be needed on any section not bypassed.

To help alleviate the growing travel demand through the corridor into Anchorage, the Alaska Railroad has been pursuing rail improvements that, when complete, will provide commuter rail and enhanced passenger services through the corridor

Sounds to me like part of a comprehensive plan to re-work the entire transportation pattern of a rapidly growing commuter area coupled with a great deal of recreational traffic. Probably not about Steven's house. Two down.

[Update 9/14/08: ABC also dealt with this $15M in their "Palin's Record on Pork: Less Sizzle than Reported". Alaska Railroad received this money - not Wasilla; although Wasilla supported the request]

I included that whole description because one of those "half-truths" is that Wasilla is some "small town" with 5,000 people. Obviously, the description of the region above makes it clear that there is a whole lot more going on in the Mat-Su valley than that.

$1.75 million to upgrade emergency communications between authorities at the Wasilla dispatch center. It was a Homeland Security grant, and not an earmark. Also, I found one explanation of part of its use - $440,000 for a mobile communications command vehicle:

During the flood disaster in August, scouring rivers cut two phone cables. For residents from Willow north, cell phones and the Internet didn't work at one point. Flood responders had fewer paths to communicate through as well. Krill said he and others drove up suitcases of radio equipment that had to be set up in Talkeetna. "We did it piecemeal," Krill said. "With this, if communications are disrupted, the command van can fill that void. We can take it anywhere in the Borough and have an already-established communications operation."

Three down.

$600,000 to upgrade bus stations.. Couldn't find this - so call it an earmark. It is part of the whole intermodal transportation plan for the Mat-su above. two up

$900,000 to upgrade water and sewer facilities. This is an earmark that was part of (see page 136)

$40,000,000 for grants to address drinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs in rural and Alaska Native communities

Three up. Again, this is a rapidly growing area - and the need to upgrade water and sewer facilities to safeguard the health of the citizens is obvious.

So, three of the six earmarks were actually earmarks - and actually directly aimed at Wasilla. The reception of those three is not, in and of itself, a problem. As Barack Obama stated the problem with earmarks is that they are not necessarily judged for their necessity and importance - we do not really know whether Congress did that or not. You now have some information to judge their necessity and importance; and thereby the fitness for office of the one who sought them (and of course the Congress that approved them). Was she representing her community well as its Mayor, or

"She certainly wasn't shy about putting the old-boy network to use to bring home millions of dollars," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "She's a little more savvy to the ways of Washington than she's let on."

Another issue is that one commenter criticized Wasilla (and Sarah Palin as it's Mayor) for:

• Placing itself in debt through bond issues in order to pay for infrastructure; and


• avoiding debt by seeking funding for necessary infrastructure from the federal government; and


• doing what Obama pointed out was necessary in order to get federal money - hiring a lobbyist

How then is Wasilla supposed to pay for necessary infrastructure? As a spokeswoman for Palin said about all this:

Palin sought the Wasilla earmarks because she was "working in the best interests of Alaska, working within the confines of the current system."

The political decision: Does this experience recommend Sarah Palin as a Vice-Presidential candidate; or speak against her. Did she feed at the public trough like the rest of the pigs; or did she do what was best for the well-being of the folks she was elected to represent? If you think the earmarks process is broken, will her executive experience seeking and receiving them be a benefit in that reform; or not?

Read more!

Good Job Mayor Nagin!

I bashed him hard three years ago so it is only fair that I praise him just as hard now.

From the AP through Yahoo News: "New Orleans evacuates as massive Gustav bears down":

In New Orleans, Nagin used stark language to urge residents to get out of the city, calling Gustav the "the mother of all storms."

"This is the real deal, not a test," Nagin said as he issued the evacuation order Saturday night. "For everyone thinking they can ride this storm out, I have news for you: that will be one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your life."

The mandatory evacuation of New Orleans is the first test of a revamped evacuation plan designed to eliminate the chaos, looting and death that followed Katrina.

Residents of suburban Jefferson Parish, swollen by residents who did not return to New Orleans after Katrina, were also ordered to leave in the first-ever mandatory evacuation of the entire parish.

The city will not offer emergency services to those who choose stay behind, Nagin said, and there will be no "last resort" shelter as there was during Katrina, when thousands suffered inside a squalid Superdome.

For residents with no other means of leaving the city, the last buses were going to leave at 3 p.m. Sunday.

Lines for the evacuation buses queuing up at the city's main transit center were much shorter Sunday than they'd been a day earlier.

To stop the looting that arose after Katrina:

Mayor Ray Nagin instituted a dusk-to-dawn curfew to take effect at sunset and continue until the storm has passed. The curfew allows officials to arrest residents if they are not on their own property.

"Looting will not be tolerated," Nagin said. "Looters will go directly to jail. You will not get a pass this time."

This time there are thousands of buses along with trains shuttling folks out of New Orleans, and efforts to move through the neighborhoods to find those who cannot get to the evacuation points on their own.

Thank you Mayor, and the rest of the New Orleans and Jefferson Parish officials.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Read more!

Rick Moran Goes Off

I like Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse. We share at least one thing - the principles upon which he bases his political conservatism are close to my own. We do not share at least one thing - a belief in God. Rick is a professed atheist.

We share another belief I think: the marriage of theologically conservative Christians with the Republican Party in 1980 and increasingly in 1984 was not really because of shared political philosophy.

It was because the Republican Party staked its verbal claim (at least) to being opposed to abortion and the repeal of Roe v Wade; while the Democratic Party staked his big tent firmly for abortion choice and the defense of Roe. For those who believe that the death of 1,200,000 unborn children a year is horrific, and the most important issue facing the country, they really had no other place to go. The rise since then of a movement for re-defining marriage as any two loving people, even if they are the same biological sex - again generally opposed verbally by the Republican Party and supported verbally by the Democratic Party - has increased that feeling that being Republican was where it was at for theologically conservative Christians. Since they constituted 40ish% of the Republican Party, and were essential to its victories since 1980, they have wielded some weight.

However, both the Republican and Democratic parties have both completely pandered on the latter point (a Democratic president signed the Federal DOMA) and the Republicans have largely pandered on the former. The results are that the two Supreme Court appointees of George Bush will NOT (imo) vote to overturn Roe if they get the chance; and (imo) - they were never intended to; and John Roberts - claiming hired gun status - successfully argued the case against the Colorado DOMA before the Supreme Court before he was nominated. While both are strict constructionists whom I support, there is hardly a reason to believe they will violate that strict constructionist philosophy to make social conservatives happy in the areas of gay marriage and abortion.

In exchange for (imo) nothing, some of the leadership of theologically conservative Christians in this country have traded the centrality of Christ's power in their life, as well as the spreading of the Gospel, with the quest for political power - or really just recognition at the "kid's table" of American politics. Now, the first time one of those social conservatives takes a shot at political power itself the screams from the right of American politics is deafening.

That brings us to Rick's "Facing up to the Unbearable Truth" - a rant every bit as hateful really as any I have seen from the most rabid anti-faith secular liberal. It made me want to put my shoes on, take that straw outa my mouth, and march right up and hit him in his citified face with a bowl of grits - and I will not be voting for Mike Huckabee. To Rick's credit, he apologized, and in doing so brought up the real issue:

There is going to be a reckoning within the conservative movement between classic conservatives who believe that a society must have a just, moral order to survive and social conservatives who wish to “take back (sic) the country for Jesus” while imposing a moral order on the rest of us via top down, government solutions . . . the solution will eventually be found in local communities who will decide for themselves the definition of “moral order” without diktats from Washington. [I am going to ignore that "imposing morality" nonsense for now]

Every married couple - especially after being married for 30 years - has had those periods of strained civility for the sake of peace - a horrible caricature of relationship to be sure. Suddenly, when the peace breaks and the long-stifled issues surface - the marriage has either reached its end; or a new and deeper relationship will be formed. Welcome to that moment in the social conservative and political conservative marriage. It is hard for me to see how the marriage can be saved.

First of all, both parties have lost their way. Christianity is not, at its heart, a legislative religion - the failure of Mosaic Law to make us righteous was one of the reasons for Christ's advent - to write the law on our hearts instead of in stone. It is not possible to use secular political power to spread the Kingdom of God. If you are going to use secular law to restrain immorality, the process of doing so shouldn't obstruct the real building of a real Kingdom. Admittedly, over a million lives a year is an astronomical pressure on pro-life Christians to ban abortion. I cannot blame them for trying even if it will never work before you win the hearts and minds of a super-majority; and the current political/legal battle may actually get in the way of winning those necessary additional hearts and minds. However, the amplification of homosexuality to some special class of sin has no Biblical justification whatsoever in my opinion.

Politically conservative Republicans have also lost their way - becoming "big government" "big spenders" at the Federal level (at least). Frankly, it matters not whether your deficits are created by cutting taxes or increasing spending - conservatives have not been paying the bills and instead have left them for future generations. When the only President in the last 27 years to actually balance a budget and pay down the debt was a Democrat - it shows the bankruptcy (literally) of the current version of (un) "fiscal" conservatism.

Also, whether it be actively usurping state's rights through use of the Commerce Clause, or centralizing control of FEMA so it was unable to respond quickly to a regional crisis like Katrina - the idea of subsidiarity has been lost to the Republican Party. This goes for attempting to usurp state power through proposed constitutional amendments governing marriage and abortion: even if pandering to social conservatives, these political impossibilities (coupled with liberal top-down social engineering) should have never been proposed. Republicans, in general, have been just as much about giving power to the Federal government at the expense of lower levels of organization as the Democrats. Witness President Bush's use of the Commerce Clause and the FDA to assault California medical marijuana and Oregon's acceptance of physician supported suicide.

The use of torture and the building of vast Federal domestic spying programs are anathema to classic conservatism and its support for individual rights vs. the intrusion of the state. Admittedly, the need for security in a post 9/11 age requires some giving up of individual liberty in order to protect the general population - but excess is excess. President Bush's claims to unrestricted executive power in such cases do not ring true - whatever classic conservatives trust, it is not unrestricted government power.

Luckily, political marriages are not made in Heaven, are not forever, and divorce is not banned. This couple needs to examine themselves, repent and return to their respective philosophical and theological roots, and then decide whether they should part for the good of both of them.

Hey, they can still remain friends.

Read more!

The Monday Tour: Appendix

A couple of things missed my attention yesterday - and I didn't want to wait another week.

• At my FMO group last night I watched James Dobson's last interview with Ted Bundy before his execution. The text is here but you should try to find a copy of the video
• Read "The Catholic Court Appeal" which examines the interesting fact that while 5 of the current 9 justices are Catholic (all appointed in last 20 years) - prior to that only 7 Catholics served on the Supreme Court in 200 years. It examines natural law, subsidiarity, and religious freedom as explanations for this phenomena
• Finally, my email to President Bush on the stem cell bill:

  Subject: Please do not veto stem cell bill

  July 18, 2006

  Sir,

  As an evangelical, pro-life Republican I urge you not to veto the stem cell bill if passed.

  First, I think the United States should take action like Italy to prevent IVF lab wastage: 3 eggs harvested and fertilized and all fertilized eggs re-implanted.

  Second, I think umbilical stem cells offer a much greater hope - and should be funded to a higher degree.

  Lastly, parents allowing their currently frozen embryos due for destruction to donate their "bodies to science" is giving the possibility of good coming from this unneccessary waste. Frankly, I see no more ethical problem than bodies being donated to medical schools and medical research.

  I admire your stand on this issue - but the problem is the creation of surplus embryos in fertility clinics to begin with; and not what to do with those embryos when they are slated to die anyway.

  This was sent today through a really interesting site: PoliticsOL.com which will link you to the email addresses of all your federal representatives from the President on down by zip code - and give you the tools to compose a letter or email. Also, you can post what you sent on site to be read by others.

Read more!

Natural Law: The Four Witnesses

[Number five in a series]

This continues to look at the concept of natural law - primarily tied to ideas presented in What We Can't Not Know, by J. Budziszewski (J Bud from here out).

J Bud lists four "witnesses" (he says "at least" so there may be more) that tell us of the content of natural law, or as C.S. Lewis called it in Mere Christianity: the law of human nature or decent behavior. Very little of what follows, quoted or not, isn't a direct quote or paraphrase from J. Bud's book. I will try to make it clear when I depart from that - so that I do not put my words (or someone else's) in J. Bud's mouth.

----------

"Classical education taught its pupils that there was some real moral knowledge in the universal common sense of plain people; the task was not to get free of it but to refine it. By contrast, modern education teaches its pupils to distance themselves from this common moral sense, to call it not knowledge, but "belief". A person of modern education wants to know how we know before deciding what we know; he demands a critique of the faculty of knowing before conceding he knows anything at all.

This suspicion is partly reasonable and partly unreasonable. The reasonable part is that, up to a point, we can certainly investigate how we know things. The unreasonable part is that in order to do so, we have to know something already - otherwise we have no equipment for the investigation. There must be some first principles that are not derived from other principles, some first knowledge that comes to us without prior investigation. It isn't because we are taught ethics that we know we have duties to other people; and if we didn't already know it, we couldn't be taught ethics."

He goes on to point out that this "underived" knowledge is not all of natural law; and it is the most fundamental part - and the most disturbing. It is disturbing because, since it is underived, "the investigation of how we know is mostly descriptive". We just know, and the mechanism for that cannot be defined.

What are the four witnesses?

The Witness of Deep Conscience

According to theologians of the Middle Ages (5th century to 15th century), the conscience is divided into two parts. Synderesis (probably a misreading of suneidesis) is the faculty in human beings that knows God's moral law; this faculty remained unaffected by the Fall and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Conscientia is the faculty by which human beings apply the moral to concrete cases; it dictates what should or should not be done under particular circumstances. Whereas synderesis cannot err, conscientia is fallible (Encarta)

Synderesis, or deep conscience: Cannot be erased, cannot be mistaken, and is the same in every single human being. The only way to tamper with it is by self-deception - to tell yourself you really do not know what you know. It includes the knowledge of inviolable goods like friendship; of formal norms like fairness; and everyday moral rules like "Do not murder".

Deep conscience is the reason a person who says they do not believe in right and wrong may shrink from murder; why even a man who murders may have pangs of remorse; and why even if the man has deadened himself to remorse shows other symptoms of deep-buried guilty knowledge.

Conscientia, or surface conscience: J Bud gives "at least" nine ways surface conscience can be blurred or err (and asks you to compare Aquinas's Summa Theologica, Prima Secundæ Partis, Question 94, Articles 4 and 6):

1. insufficient experience: we do not know enough to reach sound conclusions;
2. insufficient skill: we haven't learned the art of reasoning well;
3. sloth: we are too lazy to reason;
4. corrupt custom: it hasn't occurred to us to reason;
5. passion: we are distracted by strong feeling from reasoning carefully;
6. fear: we are afraid to reason because we might find out we are wrong;
7. wishful thinking: we include in our reasoning what we are willing to notice;
8. depraved ideology: we interpret known principles crookedly; and
9. malice: we refuse to reason because we are determined to do what we want.

J Bud points that underneath the results of this bad reasoning is still the witness of deep conscience, no matter how "twisted and falsified on its path into current awareness". In a later part of this series, I will look at deep and surface conscience, and the implications of violating them.

The Witness of Design as Such

If, as Richard Dawkins wrote:

"We are survival machines, robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (Preface to "The Selfish Gene")

then why should we listen to the "witness" of our conscience at all? If our genes are blindly programmed, then our conscience may be part of the program - a means for our genes to direct us by remote control. In that case, a wise man may try to find a way to turn off the remote. Dawkins thinks so:

"Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something no other species has ever aspired to do" ("The Selfish Gene")

J. Bud:

"Unless deep conscience is designed to tell us the truth, there is no particular reason why it should. And so a pre-supposition of regarding deep conscience as a witness - as we all, deep down, know it is - is that it has been designed to tell us the truth by someone wise enough to do so"

As J Bud points out "He has set eternity in the hearts of men" - He has designed us to long for Him, reverence Him, and adore Him. The best evidence for the sensus divinitatus is that we were designed to have it. J Bud states that this recognition of design does three things for our moral knowledge:

1. It vindicates deep conscience: if Synderesis has been designed by God as a witness to moral truth; then we can trust it to be reliable;
2. It confirms we have duties not only to neighbor but to God Himself, to whom we owe the possibility of the experience of anything good;
3. It informs us that just as our deep conscience is designed, so are we.

The Witness of Our Own Design

J Bud points out four ways that our moral design shows itself not individually, but at the level of the species.

First, interdependence. We are not hive creatures, but we are not self-sufficient either. It shows in a number of ways. We depend on each other:

1. Physically
2. Intellectually
3. Developmentally
4. Procreatively
5. For identity
6. Morally
7. Politically including public justice

Second, complementarity. Not only do we depend on each other, we depend on each other in a particular way. One illustration is in the natural diversity of our bents and abilities, which is the basis of our division of labor. J Bud posits this not like two fingers working together, but like the fingers opposing the thumb in order to grasp. Our differences are precisely what allows us to work together. J. Bud of course mentions men and women in this area.

Third, spontaneous order. Humans, if left to themselves, quickly form a rich array of associations such as family (this is the central and foundational structure), neighborhoods, villages, businesses, vocational groups, religious societies, and schools. Edmund Burke wrote:

"to be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind. The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of all those who compose it; and as none but bad men would justify it in abuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own advantage" ( Reflections on the French Revolution )

Fourth, subsidiarity. Since Aristotle two principles have been seen:

1. connaturality: culture should develop in partnership with our design filling the outline our first nature provides; and
2. diminishing spontaneity: as a hierarchy of associations and relationships rise from the individuals and families at the base of the social structure (up to and including government), the higher the rung the less spontaneous it is and the more contrived; or, the higher you go the less help the structure gets from nature and the more help it needs from culture.

These two features imply the risk that though the higher rungs ought to protect and co-operate with the more spontaneous lower rungs - the higher rung's lesser spontaneity means they may not.

This implies a rule, subsidiarity, which was a natural assumption but not put into words until 1931 by Pope Pius XI:

"As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them." ( "On Reconstruction of the Social Order" )

As Pius said, what brought this to the forefront was the industrial revolution, and the danger that between the collectivists on one side, and the individualists on the other, all the "little platoons" between the state and the individual would be destroyed and/or absorbed.

The Witness of Natural Consequences

One penalty of breaking natural moral law is guilty knowledge. There are other consequences:

• those that give offense to others are hated;
• those that live by the knife die by them;
• those that betray all of their friends have none left;
• those that abandon their children have none to stroke their brows when they are old;
• those that travel from bed to bed lose the capacity for trust;
• those that torture their consciences are tortured by them in return;
• those that suppress moral knowledge become stupider than they intended

J. Bud notes some curious things (which apply to civil law as well as natural law):

• The consequence is not the reason the act is wrong; it only declares its wrong and disciplines us for committing it. In the United States, there is a penalty for driving on the left because it is a hazard to the public good.
• The declaration of what is wrong not only announces what is needed for the common good; but partly "determines" it. Driving on the left didn't have to be wrong - we could be in England.
• The system of penalties is not perfectly efficient; up to a certain degree of corruption in the will of the person subject to the law the penalty discourages violation, but beyond that point it actually provides a motive to go further. The person driving on the left may exceed the speed limit and careen around corners - a greater offense - to avoid capture for the lesser offense.

Next: "Natural Law: The Five Furies of Conscience"

Read more!

My Katrina Links and Nagin Rant

I am trying very hard to stay out of the blame game. However, I must say that one person in the chain has earned my contempt - Mayor Nagin from New Orleans. The man is at best a fool not worthy of his job; at worst a criminal. Outside of that, this will be where I link articles I find good; discussions I have been in; arguments I have come to make; and philosophical/religious arguments worth reading.

Let's start out with this chronology. It is being updated (at least through 9/7) and he is actively seeking anyone who can give him confirmed, linkable information to adjust the chronology with. Part of this is coupled with my:

Nagin Rant
[I probably wouldn't go off on him if not for his appearance on Oprah]

Who is most responsible to the people of New Orleans. Is it local government with only that as a responsibility - or the federal government with the whole country to oversee? It has got to be the locals. Look at this section of the very good timeline [My comments in brackets]:

* * *
Saturday Afternoon:
[Just before this (see here )the hurricane was upgraded to a 3 (limit of levies) and expected to hit land as a 4]

A press conference with Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco sounded the alarm. The Mayor urged residents to take the storm seriously saying to residents of low lying areas, “We want you to take this a little more seriously and start moving — right now, as a matter of fact,” Nagin said he would open the Superdome as a shelter of “last resort” for people with “special needs.”

He advised anyone planning to stay there to bring there own food, drinks and other comforts such as folding chairs, as if planning to go camping.

“No weapons, no large items, and bring small quanties of food for three or four days, to be safe,” he said.

Also: "This is not a test. This is the real deal,” Nagin said. “Things could change, but as of right now, New Orleans is definitely the target for this hurricane.” The mayor said he would stick with the state’s evacuation plan and not officially call for residents to leave until 30 hours before expected landfall, allowing residents in low-lying surrounding areas to leave first. But he recommended residents in low-lying areas of the city, such as Algiers and the 9th Ward, get a head start." [I think he is ahead, and behind, the game here. The New Orleans plan called for evacuation anywhere up to 72 hours. Later, the National Hurricane Center warns that the storm surge could come over the dikes up to 32 hours before landfall. The state plan was too short term; but he tries to get people moving early. Did he send buses into these areas to help those without transport get out? Nope]

Nagin spokeswoman Tami Frazier stressed that the mayor does not want citizens to plan on staying in the Dome—instead, they should make arrangements to leave the city if possible. [My emphasis: NO!!: The start of the Superdome Plan. This is when those school buses, and RTA, should have been moving. Anybody showing up at the superdome without a way out of town should have been loaded up as they showed up.]

Police Superintendent Edward Compass said that looters would be “dealt with severly and harshly and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

By mid-afternoon, officials in Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, Lafourche, Terrebonne and Jefferson parishes had called for voluntary or mandatory evacuations.

THE MISTAKE!!!!
this is where people died and got hung out to dry at the Superdome

Mayor Nagin issued a voluntary evacuation order at 5:00 PM

Nagin said late Saturday that he’s having his legal staff look into whether he can order a mandatory evacuation of the city, a step he’s been hesitant to do because of potential liability on the part of the city for closing hotels and other businesses. [My emphasis: I think he should be indicted for not calling for a mandatory at this point - especially for this reason. School buses, and RTA buses should be moving. Contraflow established] “Come the first break of light in the morning, you may have the first mandatory evacuation of New Orleans,” Nagin told WWL-TV.

The National Hurricane Center warns officials that Katrina is strengthening and will probably make landfall as a Category 4 or 5. This is really scary. This is not a test, as your governor said earlier today. This is the real thing,” said Director Max Mayfield. “The bottom line is this is a worst-case scenario and everybody needs to recognize it,” he said.

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield calls Mayor Nagin at his home telling him that a mandatory evacuation was needed. Revised 9/7

SUNDAY, AUGUST 28
Morning

By 8:00 AM, Katrina, a category 5 hurricane, is headed straight for New Orleans. According to this piece in Editor and Publisher FEMA Director Brown, DHS Secretary Chertoff as well as local and state officials are informed by National Hurricane Director Max Mayfield via electronic briefing that the storm will cause massive damage and flooding – including levee breaches – in New Orleans 32 hours before the eye of the storm makes landfall. Revised 9/6

The Superdome opens at 8:00 AM and begins to take people in. [Buses, buses, where are the buses?]

In the face of a catastrophic Hurricane Katrina, a mandatory evacuation was ordered Sunday for New Orleans by Mayor Ray Nagin. [9:30am: At least 16 hours late]

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation. The President’s call came just prior to the news conference and occurred after the decision had already been made for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding. Revised 9/6 (HT: Jay) Lexis-Nexis Subscription needed to access link.

“There doesn’t seem to be any relief in sight,” Blanco said.

The Mayor’s office announces at 9:30 AM that RTA (Regional Transit Authority) busses will pick people up at 12 locations throughout the city and take them to shelters – including the Superdome [My emphasis: The Superdome again? This is about 18 hours after he advised people to get out of low-lying areas; and 16 hours after voluntary evac notice]. This despite the city’s Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that calls for busses to be used to evacuate citizens out of the city. Revised 9/7

At 11:30 AM the President delivers a statement vowing to help those affected by the hurricane.

By noon, the city puts its contraflow traffic system in effect so that both sides of major highways will allow for traffic out of the city.

* * *

Read the rest of the timeline. He updates it as he gets more information.

Discussions/philosophy:

Deliver Us From Evils. Subsidizing Subsidiarity. On the Wrath of God. The Compact of Civil Societies

News/Information:

Eurota(MSM: Questions Answered, Loops Closed , In Their Own Words, A Continuing Series and Blamestorming Under the Radar ). Interactive Map. The nomination of Michael Brown to head FEMA, Read from here up, What Went Wrong at Superdome and Convention Center; Faulty levies, not Overtopping; Death Toll at Superdome

Opinions of Note:

The View From a Professional.

Royal Buck Passing (and other degenerate blaming):

Nagin Blames Others (and Asks for Buses!), Some local and state folk, Killed by Contempt (and The Fulminator)

Political swats:

Send me any links you think should go on the list.

Read more!