As readers of this blog have undoubtedly noticed, I've been focusing heavily on the recovery process of Hurricane Katrina lately. Much attention has been devoted to the initial response and its shortcomings, but critiques of the reconstruction are harder to come by.

And now... we come to an issue that is not only being overlooked, but appears to have a very strong public relations effort underway to spin it a certain way.

This is a multi-pronged issue, but in a nutshell, it's this: Big industry is getting free rein to buy up anything it can get its hands on, with encouragement and aid from the government at several levels. In the meantime, coastal residents and local businesses are having to rely on private charities (as well as an Attorney General who will fight for them against people trying to ruin them financially) to get back on their feet.

It's fairly common knowledge that war profiteering on a truly grand scale is taking place in Iraq while the Iraqis and our own soldiers watch the country degenerate into total anarchy and civil war. This same type of corporate profiteering, often by the same companies, is taking place on our very own Gulf Coast as well, while the residents of the coast are left to fend for themselves.

This issue deals with the great divide between the haves and the have-nots, and as such, it is intimately related to the housing and insurance problems associated with the Katrina recovery. This story is likely to have some overlap with previous entries.

It's no secret that the response to Hurricane Katrina was a fiasco, wherein no one got really suitable treatment but the level of recovery was still dramatically divided by race and class boundaries. Based on some of the stories in the news, which speak glowingly of Mardi Gras or the rehabilitation of the Superdome, you'd be led to believe that these disparities only surfaced during the immediate response attempts, and that things have been hunky-dory since then.

Well, you'd be wrong. The recovery of Hurricane Katrina is plagued with problems, the first of which I have already touched on--it does not consider the coming rise of the sea levels or the inundation of the coast's natural defenses, which global climate change is predicted to cause. As I've said, there are several others: environmental damage, the domination of the rebuilding process by big industry, and the class-based inequality of personal property recovery. Although they are all closely related, today's blog will only look at the last one.

The homeowners of coastal Mississippi have been parties to a lawsuit headed up by the state's Attorney General. The basis of the suit was that their home insurance companies wrongly denied them damages for wind damage, because water damage that occurred later (and may or may not have been insured) obscured what part of the damage was actually caused by wind. Contrary to a popular claim, the lawsuit did not seek to award flood insurance damages to anyone who did not have flood insurance, nor did it award any damages to anyone who didn't have hurricane insurance. In its sales pitches, the insurance industry misrepresents just what "hurricane insurance" really is (it's homeowners' insurance and does not include flood damage), but they don't outright lie in the legal contracts. The fine print is there to read. Any lawsuit based upon this would have been, well, dead in the water. (Sorry for that.)

They won their suit. And one of the companies, State Farm, retaliated by freezing new policies for the state, as well as issuing a veiled threat to the entire Gulf Coast that they would pull as much existing coverage as they could legally get away with before the 2007 hurricane season begins. Louisiana pre-empted this by implementing a rule for insurers that:

suspends the right of any insurer to cancel or nonrenew any personal residential, commercial residential or commercial property insurance policy covering a dwelling, residential property or commercial property located in Louisiana that sustained damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina or its aftermath, or Hurricane Rita or its aftermath.

As appalling as the treatment of Mississippi's insured coastal homeowners is, though, the plight of the uninsured or under-insured is far, far worse.

Chip Pickering, Representative from Mississippi, has become Mississippi Chairman of John McCain's presidential campaign, and Co-Chair of the southern region.

He gives an explanation for this in the Hill Blog. There's really nothing new or surprising in it. The issues of importance to him are Staying the Course, stacking the Supreme Court with right-wing judges, and advocacy of Religious Right wedge issues such as marriage.

If Pickering wants to hitch his horse to the dying viewpoint that the war in Iraq is "winnable," that's perfectly all right with me. And if John McCain wants to coast on the strength of the Religious Right in the South, that's fine with me too.

However, the Religious Right should be made aware of Pickering's ties to Jack Abramoff, particularly some of Abramoff's dirtier associations that involve drugs, prostitution, and child slavery. (Yes, it really is that sordid.) Quite a curious background for one who talks about government reform. I was planning on getting into some depth about this, and at a later date, I will. For now, I am focusing on Hurricane Katrina and the issues surrounding that.

Oh, speaking of which, my dear Representative has something to say about it:

The federal response to Hurricane Katrina teemed with waste as each layer of bureaucracy siphoned off needed federal funds, until sometimes only half or a quarter of what Congress appropriated reached the victims. John McCain’s dedication to a smaller government through cutting waste and restraining unnecessary spending shows he will not bend in the fight to make the government more effective and more responsive to tax payers.

OK.

While I suspect that, had McCain been at the helm, the response might have been somewhat better (I mean really, how could it have been any worse?), Pickering needs a slap of reality upside his head.

The problem with the recovery was emphatically not that there was too much government. Perhaps he needs to talk to his own constituents on this issue; he seems a bit out of touch. The complaints certainly were not that there was too much government involved with the response.

Secondly, George W. Bush allowed the federal bureaucracy to twiddle its thumbs while he was photographed presenting a birthday cake to John McCain on August 29, 2005.



Funny. You'd think that if McCain were at all interested in Hurricane Katrina victims, he would have told the "Decider" to get off his duff, go back to Washington, and do something about the situation. You'd think that McCain would have used the power he had as a member of the then-Majority and shown some leadership. It was a national crisis, a natural disaster with a death toll the likes of which had not been seen since 1928.

Pickering is just cynically using Hurricane Katrina for his own benefit and McCain's, name-dropping the storm because he represents part of Mississippi that was impacted by it. We don't need more of that.

The barrier islands of the Gulf Coast are an important defense against hurricanes. Mostly uninhabited, they are the first landforms that a Gulf Coast hurricane strikes. While they do not weaken the hurricanes (they aren't large enough), the islands take the brunt of the hurricane's storm surge, diffusing it somewhat before the eye makes landfall on the mainland. They are also an important defense against tsunami, a real (if little-known) threat. Significant seismic activity has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico fairly recently.

Global warming is predicted to melt part of Greenland and/or West Antarctica, raising sea levels worldwide up to 20 feet (more if all of Greenland and some of West Antarctica melted). This would have horrific consequences on coastal cities around the globe, of course. This blog, however, will focus on one specific area -- the United States Gulf Coast. (Ha, doesn't it always?)

If global warming raised sea levels as predicted, most of low-lying Louisiana -- as well as the critical barrier islands -- would be underwater. The low-lying swampland of Louisiana, which has been receding for years now, is another natural barrier for the coast, as well as an environmental treasure. It too would be covered in water.

The coastline would lose its natural defenses against hurricanes.

And, as research is indicating, global warming would also intensify the hurricanes themselves.

In the wake of the lawsuit in favor of coastal homeowners who were victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, State Farm Insurance has announced that it will not write any new policies for residents of Mississippi:

Bob Hunter of the Consumer Federation of America said he believed State Farm's action was a warning to other Gulf Coast states.

"I would say it's a warning shot," Hunter said. "The insurance company here, State Farm, is basically saying, 'If you make us pay what we owe, we're gonna … take it out on your citizens.'"

And here's Mississippi's Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood on it, after the company tried to blame "judicial uncertainty" for its move:

"They [State Farm] created the problem," he said. "If they would have paid what they owed in the first place, there never would have been a lawsuit filed."

I could not agree more with either person.

In a printed article that I read this morning, the company is also cited as "assessing how many of the current policies in Mississippi will be renewed this year."

That's a red alarm that homeowners on America's most vulnerable coastline will have their insurance revoked before the 2007 hurricane season kicks off -- a season that is forecast to be a repeat of seasons such as 2003 and 2004, after the current El Nino dissipates. If one company is allowed to get away with it, you can rest assured that others will follow in its wake.

Apparently, the company tried to pull this in Florida as well, but -- in a series of events that truly blows my mind -- was stymied by the new Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist. Credit where it's due, I guess, although from this article, it appears that he did it for the wrong reasons.

Insurance companies can't cancel your homeowner policy before December or raise your rates for the next 90 days.

Throwing another hard jab at the property-insurance industry, Gov. Charlie Crist persuaded his fellow Florida Cabinet members to pass an emergency order to that effect Tuesday.

The 90-day rate freeze is intended to make sure companies preparing rate-adjustment requests take into account the steep savings they should get under an insurance law Crist signed last week.

...

The order, which prevents insurers from dropping customers until after the next hurricane season, was approved despite strident objections raised by insurance-industry lobbyists and concerns from state Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink and Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson, who both said the rule could put some companies in too much of a financial bind.

Although Florida does tend to treat its hurricane victims better than the victims of Hurricane Katrina in MS and LA, this whining about profits really rings hollow when you consider that

[a] year and a half after Hurricane Katrina, 35,000 Mississippi households remain at odds with State Farm, and now the company says it won't issue any new homeowner policies in Mississippi.

Yeah, cry me a river.

I sat through this hurricane. My family's house in Mississippi took roof damage that still has not been repaired. I have since then moved out of the area, but I follow developments very closely. I have come around to the conclusion that disaster victims and potential disaster victims need a media-savvy group to lobby for them. Their entire livelihood depends on the whim of political power-brokers, and, while the insurance industry is rich and powerful, the small businesses and homeowners have NO voice after the storm passes through.

(Cross-posted on the Daily Kos.)

Embattled John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte resigned, despite being told by the campaign that she was welcome to remain as a blogging consultant. I don't particularly blame her; she probably felt that the best thing to do was to remove herself from the auspices of the official campaign, because her effectiveness as a supportive voice had been reduced dramatically.

You thought that would discourage the "religious" group that started all this in the first place? Think again.

They've sent letters to the other two front-runners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (warning: both links are PDF), to condemn the bloggers (and, implicitly, the Edwards campaign itself). Some samples:

By taking up this issue publicly, you will be able to distinguish your candidacy from Mr. Edwards[...].

They [a professor and a member of a think tank] believe that Mr. Edwards mishandled this attack on Catholics and Christians, and by permitting Marcotte and McEwan to remain on his staff, it has harmed efforts aimed at building coalitions between Christians, Catholics, and Democrats.

On blogs, there is a term for this: concern trolling. It's when a complete outsider, often (usually) opposed to the person or group's aims in the first place, comes forward and expresses concern that some action a person or group took will harm those aims. It's pure psyops, intended to create self-doubt and weakness among the ranks.

This group, known as Fidelis America, self-identifies as a Republican/Conservative political action committee. Here are the contributions that they made for the past election cycle, from disclosure database Open Secrets:

2006 Cycle:
Burns, Conrad (R-MT) - $100
Ensign, John (R-NV) - $100
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) - $100
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) - $5,100
Talent, James M (R-MO) - $100
Total to Democratic Senate Candidates: $0
Total to Republican Senate Candidates: $5,500

And Democrats should cater to the demands of this group why, exactly?

These people will not endorse Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In all likelihood, they'll endorse Sam Brownback. This is the Religious Right. Democrats have absolutely no obligation nor responsibility to condemn other Democrats at the urging of this group. The group donates to Republicans and does not care one bit about coalitions between Christians and Democrats. It probably shrinks in horror at the thought of the Religious Left becoming a force in politics. The purpose of this action is to create division and doubt among party ranks.

However, the right wing has sensed that the party tends to conduct itself this way -- attack each other out of sheer terror. They did it to John Kerry last year in the face of a right-wing onslaught (although, to their credit, Edwards and Obama did not join in the attack -- unfortunately, Clinton did). This behavior gives the right wing encouragement to continue with their attacks.

I sincerely hope that the other two front-runners repudiate this.

(Hat tip to Kagro X of the Daily Kos for the blog piece inspiring this entry.)

When I first watched An Inconvenient Truth, I went to the special features on the DVD and watched the follow-up interview with Al Gore. He spoke about recent research about global warming that had come out since the shooting of the film, such as information about a link between hurricane intensity and global warming. But far more disturbing than that was a discussion of how global warming could cause the tundra to thaw enough to release methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further compounding the problem.

Think of it as twisting the cap too fast on a soda bottle that has been shaken. After that seal is broken, the carbon dioxide in the bottle rapidly bubbles up, and nothing can stop the inevitable horrid mess. You just want to get out of the way of it.

Obviously, that's not an option for us if the permafrost thaws.

But I wanted to see for myself. Gore's interview didn't go into great detail about what might happen if this occurred, and I wanted to see just what the ramifications of it could be.

One trend that I am thoroughly sick of seeing is the one that goes something like "let's attack the victims of Hurricane Katrina."

The first kind of it is the government-endorsed attack line branding the victims as fraudsters who were ripping off taxpayers. This is epitomized by the December 2006 GAO report that makes note of "questionable" payments amounting to about $1 billion. (Now, let's see, how long did the Coast have to wait for help to arrive in the first place, and, oh, how much have we spent in that wasteland known as Iraq, again...?)

CNN reported on the findings. Some choice samples:

In one case, FEMA sent $46,000 to 10 people in Plano, Texas, to cover out-of-pocket housing expenses while at the same time paying for their apartments. Seven of the 10 people "self-certified" to FEMA that they needed rental assistance despite the fact they were living in rent-free housing.

Since, of course, no one who's lost their home and most of their property might have any expenses to cover beyond rent. And that average of $4,600 per person is just outrageously over-the-top. How dare the government be so wasteful?

The GAO says FEMA also sent nearly $17 million in potentially improper rental assistance to people living in FEMA trailers.

Potentially improper. But I've forgotten; this has become a world of "guilty until proven innocent."

And don't even get me started on those FEMA trailers. If I had to live in one of those things after experiencing a natural disaster and having my home destroyed or condemned, I'd want some spare cash too.

And nearly $20 million went to individuals who registered for assistance for both hurricanes Katrina and Rita. For example, one individual received two housing replacement payments of $10,500 each, despite the fact he had only one property to replace.

Where can I get one of these $10,500 houses?

There is, of course, another line of attack used against the hurricane victims.

John Edwards has shown courage and class in deciding not to fire the bloggers after a rather dirty mini-campaign to smear him because of what they wrote in their private blogs. He could have done the easy thing, the thing that most politicians would do, and fire these people in the face of media onslaught -- but instead he kept them on, "talking to them" as he said to the press (because you have to tell these people that you're doing something or they'll never leave it alone). That has reinforced my support of him quite a bit, the fact that he doesn't cave to demands from the media machine.

I have no statement on the controversial comments themselves. I do realize that it is VERY common for bloggers, especially under protection of their online identities, to say things that they probably wouldn't say under other circumstances. Blogs on all sides of the political spectrum are often very politically incorrect, often vulgar, and generally highly emotional. It's the nature of the beast.

People really like it, too. Otherwise blogging wouldn't have taken off like a rocket in the past few years.

Blogging, in fact -- citizen media, as it's being called in some circles -- is becoming a major threat to the domination by mainstream media. It's a funny thing; news from mainstream sources is often politically correct to a fault. A major problem with the news in recent years has been the stubborn determination to present "balance" -- even if one side of the issue is patently wrong and has no facts to back up its point of view. There are some purported news sources that taint their product with sprinklings of political or ideological bias (*ahem*FOX*ahem*), but even from these sources, the bias isn't in-your-face in the way that blogging is. It's subtler.

However, the political scream shows on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are a different matter altogether. Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, etc. -- the shows where a self-styled pundit is given a microphone and allowed virtual free rein. Beck is the host who insulted Rep. Keith Ellison, a Muslim, by demanding that he say that he "wasn't working with the enemy" as a "Democrat, a Muslim, saying cut and run." This level of discourse is easily just as bad as anything that John Edwards' bloggers may have insinuated about Catholics.

And let's not even look at political talk radio. Just don't go there. The level of racist, sexist, and pseudo-religious vitriol on those shows far exceeds anything that is present on the respected political blogs.

The Edwards blogger "scandal" was a trumped-up sideshow blown completely out of proportion by the mainstream press, which is feeling very threatened by this new form of media that they cannot control or buy up. Kudos to him for not giving in.