"You got me"

Apparently, Trayvon Martin was not your average hoodie-wearing thug who preyed on innocent men that had 100 lbs on him.  He was a hoodie-wearing thug whose patter came right out of 1940s film noir.

Sounds reasonable to me.

T-H-E-M, Them

Obamacrow

They had me at "Imagine a small American town..."

Blue Monday, Mississippi Joh Hurt edition

Louisiana sinks to new lows

And no, the title of this post does not refer to the fact that Republican primary voters sent climate change-denier...something...Rick Santorum a bunch of delegates.  Rather, this (subscription required, I think):

GOLDEN MEADOW, La. - Here on the side of Louisiana’s Highway 1, next to Raymond’s Bait Shop, a spindly pole with Global Positioning System equipment and a cellphone stuck on top charts the water’s gradual encroachment on dry land.

In 1991, this stretch of road through the marshlands of southern Louisiana was 3.9 feet above sea level, but the instrument - which measures the ground’s position in relation to sea level - shows the land has lost more than a foot against the sea. It sank 2 inches in the past 16 months alone.

That’s a problem because Highway 1, unprotected by levees, connects critical oil and gas resources in booming Port Fourchon to the rest of the nation.

Ten miles of the highway is now standing 22 feet above sea level on cement piles. But another 7 miles is not, and if less than half a mile of this highway succumbs to the 14-foot storm surges expected in the future, the highway will need to be shut down, cutting off the port.

Residents and business leaders are demanding that the federal government help pay to rebuild and elevate the additional section of Highway 1. Federal officials have provided scientific and technical expertise but will not contribute funding unless the state pledges to complete the road. Louisiana says it does not have the money. The dilemma facing this important lowland road is one shared by communities across the country as climate change begins to transform the nation’s landscape.

How to behave in large gatherings

Why we vote

President Obama chooses an expert on poverty to lead the World Bank.

It’s unlikely that very many of the people who volunteered on phone banks and went door to door for Obama in 2008 were thinking about the future head of the World Bank. But it’s probably safe to say that most of them will be pleased to see an expert on global poverty take over an organization that can really do something about it. It’s decisions like these that remind us why elections matter.

As Greg Sargent notes, it is likely a very different choice than one that would have been make by a President McCain and, surely, a President Romney.

In what way IS Mitt Romney like an Etch-a-Sketch?

Let Rachel Maddow count the ways.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Cole thinks it's the best 15 minutes or cable news this year (for whatever reason, BJ's links seem to suck for me these days, so you'll have to scrawl down.

A very unserious man, or, Lord of the Flies

Kevin Drum is correct -- Paul Ryan's plan is not "brave" or "serious."  In fact his plan is not a budget plan at all, it's a political one.  Whether he hopes to be on the Romneybot 2.0 ticket or has higher aspirations for national office, his annual hat tip to the wealthy and defense contractors is intended to position himself as the green-eye shade wearing, intellectual leader of the Republican party.

And I can pretty much clear things up for Ezra Klein.

As I said at the top; I don't take this as evidence that Paul Ryan wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. I take it as evidence that, given the set of commitments Republicans have made to their base, he didn't really have a choice. It was the only way to make his numbers work.

No, it's not evidence that Ryan wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, because his plan will not balance the budget.  Ever.   But it does signal to conservative voters that he, like Mitt Romney, doesn't "care about the poor."  Whereas, not long ago we had a Republican candidate that ran on "compassionate conservatism," we now have Republican leadership who push each other out of the  way to preeningly exhibit their disdaining of the poor (and the young) bona fides.

Etch-a-Sketch Rope-a-Dope?

I mean, what else can you say?  Or, maybe, if you ask, "Are they stupid or cynical?"  The answer would be, "Yes."



Oh, and have I mentioned, to paraphrase Charlie Pierce, what a colossal asshole Mitt Romney is?

I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed

The U.S. and Israel are operating from very different assumptions.

The results of the war game were particularly troubling to Gen. James N. Mattis, who commands all American forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, according to officials who either participated in the Central Command exercise or who were briefed on the results and spoke on condition of anonymity because of its classified nature. When the exercise had concluded earlier this month, according to the officials, General Mattis told aides that an Israeli first strike would be likely to have dire consequences across the region and for United States forces there. 

The two-week war game, called Internal Look, played out a narrative in which the United States found it was pulled into the conflict after Iranian missiles struck a Navy warship in the Persian Gulf, killing about 200 Americans, according to officials with knowledge of the exercise. The United States then retaliated by carrying out its own strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 

 The Israelis, apparently, view this differently.

I am not capable of sorting through the elaborate layers of bluff and counterbluff that may lie behind the Israeli assumptions, or assertions, that Jeff Goldberg reports. And neither I nor anyone else can prove what I strongly believe: that such "best-case" predictions, assuming that the Israeli officials really hold them, are wildly unrealistic. The first, in particular, smacks unmistakably of Dick Cheney's "we will be greeted as liberators" forecast about invading Iraq, or the earlier CIA fantasies that the downtrodden people of Cuba would rise to welcome the Bay of Pigs landing party in 1961.

What I can say is this: if Israeli officials really have adopted best-case-ism as their military "planning" doctrine and basis for decision-making, we are fully into "March of Folly" territory, and the "psychological inversion" that a reader described recently has in fact taken place.

When Barbara Tuchman coined the phrase March of Folly, she meant self-destructive behavior on a collective, organizational scale, as a group walked into a disaster it could easily have avoided.To qualify as epic-scale folly, by her standards, a ruinous decision had to:
  -arise from a sustained set of policies, not just one instantaneous wrong choice;
  -involve many people's agreement and collaboration, not just the excesses of one madman;
  -prove clearly destructive to the long-term interests of the group involved; and
  -have been warned against in real time, before the bad consequences happened, not just in retrospect.

If Netanyahu's team goes ahead, they will have met those tests.

Meanwhile, back to the Times report:

Israeli intelligence estimates, backed by academic studies, have cast doubt on the widespread assumption that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would set off a catastrophic set of events like a regional conflagration, widespread acts of terrorism and sky-high oil prices. 

“A war is no picnic,” Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio in November. But if Israel feels itself forced into action, the retaliation would be bearable, he said. “There will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead. The state of Israel will not be destroyed.” 

Folly, indeed.

The ever-helpful Time magazine

I'm sure the president is grateful:

Five Tips For President Obama on Nuclear Negotiations With Iran

 

Blue Monday, Hank Williams edition

Sen. Huckleberry -- public intellectual

I cannot wait to hear Mitt Romney's stand on Paul Ryan's latest plan to throw grandma from the train.

At Thursday’s news conference, Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times pointed out that the lawmakers were proposing to do with Medicare almost exactly what President Obama’s reforms do for non-retirees: Direct them into private insurance with a subsidy for those who need it most.

Paul was flummoxed. “Uh, anybody want to comment on that?” he asked, producing laughter in the Senate TV studio.

DeMint gave it a try. “Medicare’s already set up as a government program, so we’re beginning to privatize with this idea,” he said. He said his plan takes Medicare recipients “out from under that manipulative umbrella of the Democratic Party.”

With each answer, the senators seemed in danger of sparking an all-out Mediscare in the populace. No, seniors could not opt to keep Medicare as it now exists. Yes, this would sharply increase insurance costs for federal workers.

DeMint’s justification: Medicare will soon be dead anyway. “It is not going to be there in five or 10 years if we don’t do anything,” he reasoned.

True, Medicare is in trouble. But is killing it before it dies the best solution? “Trust me, it’s a good deal,” Graham assured the public. “We designed it. I can assure you, you will like it.”

 The best line of the story?

The end-Medicare sponsors are key figures: DeMint is the godfather of the Tea Party, and he was joined by Paul and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), two conservative rising stars. Completing the foursome was Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an influential thinker. 

 And people say Dana Milbank isn't a wit.

Via.

All the federales say they could have had him any day

It's Vegacura Day.  And I'm sitting here with a cat purring on my lap.

A big fucking deal

I wish they'd included Joe Biden's famous reaction to the signing of ACA, but still, pretty good.  I found it interesting that they included scenes of angry protests against health care reform -- another risk and challenge not shied away from.



It certainly paints a different America than the one Romney wants "restored."

Scooters and jell-o

Fatal Accident at NY Jell-O Museum Brings Lawsuit

Burning down the house

This morning I found myself in an odd position while reading Greg Smith's fuck you resignation letter op ed in the NY Times.  I bow to no man in my desire to see banksters like Blankfein chased through the streets of lower Manhattan by angry investors and drowning homeowners carrying burning torches.  And yet...

It might sound surprising to a skeptical public, but culture was always a vital part of Goldman Sachs’s success. It revolved around teamwork, integrity, a spirit of humility, and always doing right by our clients. The culture was the secret sauce that made this place great and allowed us to earn our clients’ trust for 143 years. It wasn’t just about making money; this alone will not sustain a firm for so long. It had something to do with pride and belief in the organization. I am sad to say that I look around today and see virtually no trace of the culture that made me love working for this firm for many years. I no longer have the pride, or the belief.

But this was not always the case. For more than a decade I recruited and mentored candidates through our grueling interview process. I was selected as one of 10 people (out of a firm of more than 30,000) to appear on our recruiting video, which is played on every college campus we visit around the world. In 2006 I managed the summer intern program in sales and trading in New York for the 80 college students who made the cut, out of the thousands who applied.

I knew it was time to leave when I realized I could no longer look students in the eye and tell them what a great place this was to work. 

Um...bullshit.  Smith, who is in his mid-thirties and has been earning millions from G-S for years is either naive or has his own scam going.  First of all, the timing -- this is about the time when bonus checks clear.  But even more to the point, I don't recall Wall Street ever being confused with a Buddhist retreat.  I don't believe G-S was considered some sort of paragon of virtue even before they went public, and certainly not since -- which happened around the time Mr. Smith joined the company.  And they've been mentoring candidates for 100 years To Make Money and to mentor others To Make Money.   Those interns are there not for the teamwork and spirit of humility, but to make a lot of money.   I'm guessing Smith did all right because of that, up until this crisis of confidence.  Perhaps, like Mitt Romney, they only talked about ripping the eyes out of their client muppets in "quiet rooms" when Smith joined the firm.  

And clients who came to Smith to buy derivatives knew G-S was making money on the deal -- they likely prided themselves on their own sophistication because they also figured they'd make money off the deal, too.  That's kind of how it works.  It ain't pretty, but pretty's for losers.

I think Felix Salmon responded best:

Smith has been in this business for 12 years, and he’s done extremely well by it. And to a certain extent, if the people who work for him are constantly asking how good a deal is for Goldman, rather than how good the deal is for Goldman’s clients, then that’s because of the example he set. What’s missing in his op-ed is any sense of mea culpa, any sense that he was at all part of the problem.

There’s a strong smell of faux-naive coming from Smith’s op-ed. “Leadership used to be about ideas, setting an example and doing the right thing,” he writes. “Today, if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence.” Here’s a question for him: back when he made videos for Goldman urging candidates to join the company, were the people who got promoted those who had ideas and did the right thing? Or were they the ones who made lots of money for the firm? To ask the question is to answer it.

So let’s not pretend to be shocked that the most successful bankers are the ones who make the most money off their clients. And let’s not try to imply that the solution to this problem lies at the Goldman Sachs board level. It doesn’t. The real muppets, in this story, are Goldman’s board members, who have never had any real control over how the company is run. And, frankly, never will. The most remunerative skill, at Goldman, is the ability to flatter someone into believing that they’re incredibly important and clever and sophisticated, even as you’re getting that person to do exactly what’s in your own best interest. No one rises to lead Goldman Sachs who doesn’t have that skill. And you can be sure that Lloyd Blankfein uses it on the board every time he meets with them.

 I look forward to Greg Smith joining the Occupy Wall Street movement (it's been very warm here in the Northeast, so his timing on this is pretty good, too). 

MOT Humor

Jeffrey Goldberg exams what sort of Jew Barack Obama really is.

After he cracked wise about Maxwell House, I told the president -- this is the part the Times left out -- that, as commander-in-chief, he could use whatever Haggadah he liked, though it seemed to me that our Haggadah might add some depth and meaning and aesthetic charm to his seder, as it would to any seder. I knew, of course, that he would stick with the Maxwell House Haggadah -- tradition! -- but it didn't strike me until later exactly why he would stick with it. The reason he's sticking with Maxwell House is the same reason he spoke at the AIPAC convention, and is once again not speaking at the upcoming convention of J Street, the left-leaning pro-Israel group.

Read the whole thing if for no other reason then to get the headline of this post.

Blue Monday, Blind Willie Johnson, Willie Nelson edition

Evidence of the socialist nature of Obamacare

Our new poster child for the Affordable Care Act.

Thigh rubbers dig deeper into the lady parts

You can almost feel the burn of this stupid.  It is astonishing how obsessed a "self-described libertarian" can be with women's contraception and how astonishingly ignorant about the basics of...um...insurance.

Remble on

But they're Democrats

Linda Greenhouse compares last week's Sandra Fluke "kerfuffle" with Lucy Ledbetter's tale from four years ago, who became a darling of the Obama campaign and a Democratic congressional cause.  But she suggests Democrats be careful not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by overplaying what looks like a strong hand.

If you think my concern is unfounded, here’s a little experiment. Go to YouTube and listen to Loretta Lynn sing “The Pill.” The song was a country music hit for her back in 1975, a feminist anthem in its message if not in its rustic imagery:

“You wined me and dined me when I was your girl
Promised if I’d be your wife you’d show me the world
But all I’ve seen of this old world is a bed and a doctor bill
I’m tearing down your brooder house ‘cause now I’ve got the pill.” 

Listen to the song, and don’t miss the line: “This incubator is overused because you’ve kept it filled.” Listen, and ask yourself whether this song would get air time on a commercial station today. I wouldn’t bet on it.

She's got a point.

You get what you pay for

Really, Michael Kinsley writes for the NY Post now?

Rombot 2.0 reboots on the minimum wage

It shouldn't, but I continue to be amazed at Romney's sneering disregard for voters, especially Republican ones.

It didn't get much notice amid the buildup to Super Tuesday. But after conservative outcry over his support for raising the minimum wage, Mitt Romney quietly reversed his position this week.

"There's probably not a need to raise the minimum wage," the Republican front-runner told CNBC's Larry Kudlow on Monday.

As recently as January, Romney said he was in favor of a hike in the minimum wage. "My view has been to allow the minimum wage to rise with the CPI [Consumer Price Index] or with another index so that it adjusts automatically over time," he told a staffer for a labor-backed group that supports a raise. And he confirmed that stance last month, telling reporters: "I haven't changed my thoughts on that."

Romney took the same position as governor of Massachusetts, an office he held from 2003 to 2007, and as a candidate for president in 2008.

As Yahoo News reported last month, Romney's support for a minimum wage raise—something Democrats have been pushing for and Republicans have generally opposed—provoked a furor on the right. "All it does is give the base another reason to be unenthusiastic about him," conservative publishing magnate Steve Forbes, who made his own bids for the GOP nomination in 1996 and 2000, told us.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Club for Growth and several other major conservative players also slammed Romney's stance, arguing that raising the minimum wage makes small businesses less likely to hire workers. A 1993 study by the economists Alan Krueger—now President Barack Obama's top economic adviser—and David Card found no such effect.

None of Romney's rivals for the nomination support raising the minimum wage, and one of them, Rep. Ron Paul, has said the concept should be scrapped.

Romney's new stance may help him consolidate his position on the right, but could hurt him in November. According to Gallup, public support for raising the minimum wage has consistently exceeded 75 percent over the past two decades.

DEVELOPING: OBAMA GUARANTEES BULLS CHAMPS, 5 MORE YEARS. CLAIMS CREDIT FOR 'LINSANITY.' MUST CREDIT VEGACURA

As Jesse Singal asks, can you imagine any of the GOP candidates, and especially Mittbot, speaking so casually and comfortably with Bill Simmons?

Not bluffing

Jeffrey Goldberg's long interview with President Obama is worth reading.  I am unclear, though, whether he considers it unacceptable for Iran to have a "nuclear program" or a nuclear weapon.  Very different -- refusing to give the Iranians recourse to the former gives them incentive to pursue the latter.

As would, most certainly, an Israeli air strike that would require U.S. support (both tactically and spiritually).

The president also said that Tehran's nuclear program would represent a "profound" national-security threat to the United States even if Israel were not a target of Iran's violent rhetoric, and he dismissed the argument that the United States could successfully contain a nuclear Iran.

"You're talking about the most volatile region in the world," he said. "It will not be tolerable to a number of states in that region for Iran to have a nuclear weapon and them not to have a nuclear weapon. Iran is known to sponsor terrorist organizations, so the threat of proliferation becomes that much more severe." He went on to say, "The dangers of an Iran getting nuclear weapons that then leads to a free-for-all in the Middle East is something that I think would be very dangerous for the world."

The president was most animated when talking about the chaotic arms race he fears would break out if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, and he seemed most frustrated when talking about what he sees as a deliberate campaign by Republicans to convince American Jews that he is anti-Israel. "Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept," he told me. "Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they've had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?"

Though he struck a consistently pro-Israel posture during the interview, Obama went to great lengths to caution Israel that a premature strike might inadvertently help Iran: "At a time when there is not a lot of sympathy for Iran and its only real ally, [Syria,] is on the ropes, do we want a distraction in which suddenly Iran can portray itself as a victim?"

And I also thought this was inerstin'.

GOLDBERG: Are you friends? Do you talk about things other than business?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, the truth of the matter is, both of us have so much on our plates that there's not always a lot of time to have discussions beyond business. Having said that, what I think is absolutely true is that the prime minister and I come out of different political traditions. This is one of the few times in the history of U.S.-Israeli relations where you have a government from the right in Israel at the same time you have a center-left government in the United States, and so I think what happens then is that a lot of political interpretations of our relationship get projected onto this.

But one thing that I have found in working with Prime Minister Netanyahu is that we can be very frank with each other, very blunt with each other, very honest with each other. For the most part, when we have differences, they are tactical and not strategic. Our objectives are a secure United States, a secure Israel, peace, the capacity for our kids to grow up in safety and security and not have to worry about bombs going off, and being able to promote business and economic growth and commerce. We have a common vision about where we want to go. At any given moment -- as is true, frankly, with my relationship with every other foreign leader -- there's not going to be perfect alignment of how we achieve these objectives.  

I don't recall hearing Obama describe his administration as "center-left" before, and it is refreshing.  At least, that is, I take him to mean his "administration," as opposed to the "government."  Given the fact that the majority of the House show more fealty to the Israeli government than they do to their own, that wouldn't be quite accurate.

Blue Monday, The Cream edition

Cardinal Dolan goes all Alinsky on us...or something

According to the head of the Catholic Bishops, the criminal enterprise just needs more attractive spokeswomen to convey its message of intolerance and misogyny.

Though the Obama administration has suggested a compromise that could let employers offer the coverage without paying for it directly, Cardinal Dolan told the crowd at Holy Trinity Diocesan High School that the government sought to make the church do something “we find unconscionable.”

“It is a freedom of religion battle,” he said. “It is not about contraception. It is not about women’s health.” He added: “We’re talking about an unwarranted, unprecedented, radical intrusion” into “a church’s ability to teach, serve and sanctify on its own.”

The cardinal mocked a secular culture that “seems to discover new rights every day.”

“I don’t recall a right to marriage,” he said, describing marriage, instead, as a “call.”

“Now we hear there’s a right to sterilization, abortion and chemical contraceptives. I suppose there might be a doctor who would say to a man who’s suffering some type of sexual dysfunction, ‘You ought to visit a prostitute to help you.’ ”

Cardinal Dolan said that the prelates, though, might not be the church’s most persuasive advocates. He told a story about bishops hiring an “attractive, articulate, intelligent” laywoman to speak against abortion and said it was “the best thing we ever did,” adding, “In the public square, I hate to tell you, the days of fat, balding Irish bishops are over.” 

 Funny, he didn't mention the right to destroy the records of child rape.

Nearly two decades ago, Allentown Bishop Edward Cullen was one of two or three high-ranking clergy present when the head of the Philadelphia Archdiocese ordered the shredding of a list of 35 priests suspected of sexually abusing children, according to a recent court filing in Philadelphia.

A copy of that list and a 1994 memo recording Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua's instructions to destroy it has turned up in the case of Monsignor William Lynn, a former archdiocesan official charged with endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy for allegedly enabling priests to molest children.

But I digress, back to that other cardinal.

Obama officials have pointed to recent polls showing that most Catholics favor the new contraceptive rule, and in a recent blog post, the cardinal wrote that officials in the Obama administration had recommended that bishops “listen to the ‘enlightened’ voices of accommodation” within the church. At a news conference after Saturday’s speech, Cardinal Dolan said, “We kind of got our Irish up when leaders in government seemed to be assigning an authoritative voice to Catholic groups that are not the bishops.”

He added: “If you want an authoritative voice, go to the bishops. They’re the ones that speak for the truths of the faith.” 

Quite a thing to say, given the bishops' recent history.  I am reminded of Santorum...er, I mean his excuse for Rushbaugh: "He was being absurd."

"Inappropriate"

John Boehner's lengthy denunciation of Rush Limbaugh for calling a 30-year old Harvard Georgetown law student a "slut" and a "prostitute" for her views on women's health issues, and suggested that in exchange for her health care insurance paying for birth control she put tapes of herself having sex on the Internet, is profoundly moving.

On Friday, the House speaker, John A. Boehner, called the Limbaugh comments “inappropriate.” Rick Santorum, the former senator whose run for the Republican presidential nomination has thrust social conservatism into the spotlight, told CNN that Mr. Limbaugh was “being absurd.”

Who knew Santorum is such a fan of  post-modernism?

And the wingnut chorus outrage is simply profound.

Dr. Tina Strobos, 1920-2012

One fearless woman has passed.

During the German occupation of the Netherlands, between 1940 and 1945, Dr. Strobos and her mother, Marie Schotte, set up a sanctuary in their three-story rooming house at 282 Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal, behind the Royal Palace in the heart of Amsterdam. With the help of the Dutch resistance, they had a secret compartment built to hold up to four people behind a hard-to-spot door in the attic.

“A carpenter came with a toolbox and said, ‘I’m a carpenter from the underground,’ ” Dr. Strobos recalled in a 2009 interview with The New York Times. “ ‘Show me the house and I’ll build a hiding place.’ ”

A changing cast of Jews, Communists and other endangered individuals spent days or weeks on the upper floors, and if the Gestapo visited, an alarm bell on the second floor allowed Dr. Strobos and her mother to alert the fugitives. They also drilled them in clambering out a window to the roof to reach the relative safety of an adjoining school. Most Jews stayed in the hideout for brief periods until the Dutch resistance could find more reliable sanctuaries.

“We never hid more than four or five at a time,” Dr. Strobos said. “We didn’t have enough food.”

The Gestapo searched the rooming house several times. But Dr. Strobos, a tall, soft-spoken woman, beguiled the Germans with her fluency in their language and her cool, ingenuous pose. Among the Jews she helped hide was a close friend, Tirtsah Van Amerongen; an Orthodox couple with five children who brought their own kosher food; and her fiancé for a time, the particle physicist Abraham Pais.

Dr. Strobos rode her bicycle for miles outside the city to carry ration stamps to Jews hiding on farms. She transported radios to resistance fighters and stashed their guns. She created fake identity cards — ones that were not stamped with a J — either by stealing photographs and fingerprinted documents from legitimate guests at the boarding house or making deals with pickpockets to swipe documents from railway travelers.

She was cold and hungry when she took those risks and was interrogated nine times by the Gestapo. Once, she was left unconscious after an official threw her against a wall.

“It’s the right thing to do,” she said when asked why she had taken such gambles. “Your conscience tells you to do it. I believe in heroism, and when you’re young you want to do dangerous things.”

Donna Cohen, executive director of the Holocaust and Human Rights Education Center in White Plains, said that Dr. Strobos found ways to help the beleaguered throughout her life.

She worked as a family psychiatrist, specializing in the mentally impaired, Ms. Cohen said, and used her modest fame to speak out against the torture of terrorists. After Hurricane Katrina, when she was in her 80s, she worked diligently, though unsuccessfully, to find homes for displaced Southerners at her senior-citizens residence in Rye.