Morning Fog

FEMA Disaster Relief Budget Running On Empty

The current situation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency budget throws the whole debate about cutting costs of government into sharp relief.  FEMA could run low on funds, even as the nation has faced more than its share of natural disasters this year (the two most recent were damage on the East coast from Hurricane Irene, and the flooding taking place this week in the South).  

Money will probably be found, but the insistence of cost-cutters that additional funds for FEMA must be offset by cuts elsewhere is foolish.  Those of the same age as the average Republican lawmaker may recall the old saying, "Robbing Peter to pay Paul."  Swapping money around in the budget requires political agreement that could make it very difficult - not to mention slow - to free up additional funds for FEMA. 

It makes no sense, because although those who insist on offsets have persuaded themselves that most government spending is just waste, the fact is that waste accounts for a tiny fraction, but most programs serve real purposes.  Will those who think we can cut both costs and revenue wake up and heed state governors who seem to find it very convenient to have disaster relief funds available? 

 

Can The CIA Speak With Many Voices?

David Ignatius, in the Washington Post, wonders how new CIA Director Petraeus will handle a difference of view that exists between himself and his analysts at the agency concerning Afghanistan.  (The agency's experts say our efforts have led to a stalemate, at best; Petraeus believes we're making progress.) 

Ignatius correctly points out that Petraeus will have to find a way to give his analytical staff the "independence" and leeway they need to produce honest assessments.  He seems to imply, though, that it would be OK for the general to continue to voice his own opinion (if it conflicts).  That would be a bridge too far.  As Director, Petraeus will need to assure himself that agency intelligence analysis is as accurate as possible, takes all factors into account, etc. -- but he cannot conceivably profess a divergent view publicly.   The CIA has had enough trouble in the past shaping its product to fit political needs;  when they do, they (and the country) come a-cropper.

Fortunately I don't think there's much reason to worry.  As Ignatius himself says, Petraeus has acknowledged the potential problem and promised to work around it.  If he doesn't, I'd say he won't be long in the job.   

Memorializing Martin Luther King

The new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial was officially opened to the public in Washington DC this week.  It has caused a lot of controversy. 

First there is a certain element that complains that it's unnecessary, or that only "Democrats" (a code word, in this case) wanted it, or that King shouldn't be memorialized because he had foibles (do they mean unlike Jefferson, just down the road?).  This group can be dismissed as small-minded, I think.

Then there are those that complain that the actual statue of King was sculpted by a Chinese sculptor (yes, really!) and it looks like Mao-Tse-Dung.  Actually I agree with this complaint.  Tell me they couldn't find an American sculptor, maybe even an African-American one?  I don't think it much resembles King, and it does have a communistic style to it.  (I was going to put in a photo at this point, but better, have a look at the graphic and video in the Post, which offers a myriad of views from every angle)  However, these decisions were made and publicized years ago; it's too late for complaint on this score; the time to challenge would have been when sketches and renderings were everywhere in the media.

Most recently, there is a kerfuffle about a statement King once made using the term "drum major."  It was a longish quote, and when the planning commission (headed by one Ed Jackson) changed its mind about where to place it, the sculptor said it was too long to fit.  The Commission's decision was to "paraphrase" it, but in doing so, they gave it a completely different nuance.  Maya Angelou, a member of the commission who doesn't seem to have paid much attention to its proceedings, now complains of this fact. 

This latest quote kvetsch has reawakened all the other objections again.  The group described in the second paragraph above, for example, thinks Angelou should be ignored, or blamed for not noticing sooner.  But those plaints are essentially irrelevant to the matter of the quote.   This is a historical monument.  It seems to me you just don't "paraphrase" a quote on a historical monument.  It's antihistorical and wrong.  Nothing against chief architect Ed Jackson, Jr., but the blame must fall on him.  He is an architect but not a historian.  He had two viable choices:  Not to move the quote, or to insist on the full quote.  Paraphrasing was not an option.  Would we tolerate a Lincoln Monument that would have Abe saying "About ninety years ago..."? 

Taken as a whole, the monument is an impressive and worthy memorial.  Now, regardless of who's at fault, the inscription should be corrected.