Washed It!

Police detained eight unlicensed welders Tuesday in connection with Monday’s deadly apartment fire in Shanghai that left 53 people dead and at least 70 injured, city officials said.

Investigators believe that the welders may have been using their equipment improperly, sparking a blaze that engulfed a 28-story building in the heart of the sprawling Chinese metropolis.

About 17 people remain in critical condition, said Shanghai Deputy Mayor Shen Jun.
Family members were reportedly scouring local hospitals for any information on missing loved ones, and aiming their frustration at authorities.

“It is hard to believe the government now. The drills on TV are successful, but when a fire truly happens, it’s just useless. We feel helpless,” a woman who gave only her surname, Liu, told the Associated Press. Her mother lived on the ninth floor of the building and died in the fire.

Chen Fei, director of the city’s firefighting bureau, said the blaze erupted on the building’s 10th floor.

Survivors either had to scamper down stairs or descend scaffolding that surrounded the tower. The apartment block, which housed 440 people, was undergoing renovations to add insulation at the time of the fire.

Firefighters facing difficulty reaching the upper levels set up hoses on top of an adjacent building to finally contain the blaze, which raged for more than four hours.

Rescuers were seen carrying survivors out of the building. Earlier attempts to airlift people off the roof with helicopters had to be called off because of thick smoke.

One resident said he and his wife climbed down to safety on the scaffolding from the 23rd floor, where their apartment was, according to the Xinmin Evening Post, a local newspaper.

The man, who identified himself as a retired teacher with the surname Zhou, said he was napping when he was awakened by smoke. He said he rushed through his front door into the hallway and uncoiled a fire hose to extinguish flames next to a window by a stairwell. He and his wife were then able to flee, the newspaper said.

Another survivor, Li Xiuyun, 61, said she hurried down stairs inside the building with her husband, son and granddaughter from their home on the 16th floor, cutting her feet on shattered glass along the way.

“The smoke was very strong and the glass from the windows was scalding,” she told the Agence France-Presse news service.

“My son took off his socks and soaked them with water, and we used them to cover our noses. I stumbled on people on the floor when walking,” she said at one of the nine hospitals that took in victims.

China’s minister of public security, Meng Jianzhu, rushed to Shanghai and called for a thorough investigation through the State Council, the country’s Cabinet, the New China News Agency said.

Although China has been undergoing a construction boom for many years, building safety has remained controversial.

Last year, firefighters could do little to stop a massive blaze in a nearly completed Beijing skyscraper housed in the same complex as China’s state television headquarters. The building, slated to be a luxury hotel, burned after being set alight by an illegal fireworks show.

Critics also point to substandard construction practices as a major source of safety problems.

They cite the collapse of thousands of buildings, including many shoddily built schools, during the deadly 2008 Sichuan earthquake as a prime example of the poor construction common in much of China.

The following year, a nearly completed 13-story apartment tower in Shanghai toppled, killing one worker in a high-profile incident that attracted stunned onlookers for days because the building remained largely intact on its side.

Chinese have come to call buildings constructed poorly for the sake of cutting costs “tofu dregs,” a reference to the mushy curds left behind in the tofu-making process.

david.pierson@latimes.com

Tommy Yang of The Times’ Beijing Bureau contributed to this report.
8 welders detained in deadly Shanghai high-rise blaze

His white shirt pressed, the chef glides through the crowd like a ship in full sail, checking tables, nodding to waiters. His world is full of hurry but he is not rushed. He sits down in the shade, wiping his brow amid a lunchtime crowd of gunrunners, clan elders, beggars and bankers.

They drift down unnamed roads toward his tables, the air sweet with meat, crushed vegetables, sprigs of spearmint. Scores of diners at a time cram elbow to elbow slurping and scooping at the edge of town, where big trucks haul white stone down from the mountains.

They know Abdulkarim Harazi has three wives, 18 children, a worn dagger and the humor of a man not done in by adversity. When he speaks, his customers, sopping broth with soft bread, listen, knowing that no matter how circuitous or embellished the tale, there’ll be wisdom waiting at the end.

“You handle a big family with justice,” says Harazi, pausing the way he does, eyes bright with mischief. “Justice means sleeping with one wife one night and another wife the next. This brings balance. Justice can’t control some things, though, like the passion of the heart.”

Harazi’s fires spit blue flames and hum like storms, searing blackened bowls filled with a traditional meat dish called fasha and a stew known as saltah. Thick with chilies, herbs, onions, potatoes, coriander and maybe a speck of cilantro, the meals bubble and cool beneath conversations of impatient men.

“Quality and cleanliness are the keys” to a fine meal, Harazi says.

His waiters have blistered fingers and gold-trimmed caps. From sunrise to just before dusk, they serve 1,300 pounds of beef and 660 pounds of vegetables to 4,000 diners at the Fakhi restaurant. Nobody rests, not the ladle men, nor the dicers, knives chopping, oil hissing at the culinary crossroads of the capital, where, for a brief moment and a few dollars, businessmen sit with junkmen for a taste that’s the same to everyone.

The main floor is shaded and dim, the tables long. Finding a seat requires cunning and swiftness and dodging men with quick hands. Some have guns, most have daggers. Outside, down steps faded by sunlight, more tables are lined beneath narrow shelters and there’s a feeling of an army encamped beneath the hills circling the city. From the road, amid clatter and the glow of fires, the word is that eating lunch anywhere else would be a pitiful miscalculation.

The men — not a woman in sight — speak of private misfortunes and national troubles. A land of deserts, rock ridges and sea coves, Yemen is both beautiful and tormented. Rebellions rattle north and south, Al Qaeda fighters roam the outlands and the Americans are talking about missile strikes and the cost of terror. Poorest country in Arab world, that’s what they keep saying, a place of thin wallets and drought. Here, though, you polish your spoon, stay away from the flame and eat.

“It’s simple,” says Harazi. “The cost of living is too high and the country is too unstable. It’s all about food and worry these days. There’s no hope because you can’t see anyone improving around you. I try to do the best for my children. Education, they must have that.”

He’s a solid man with thick hands and black stubble, settling into his chair like a priest hearing confessions. He knows that life needs places like this restaurant, reliable and intimate as home but without home’s predictability. You never know who might pull up on a motorcycle or amble in from the fringes. Harazi’s eyes gather them all, watching, ever watching.

By midafternoon the men are restless, waiting to dip into crinkly bags of shiny narcotic khat leaves that will mellow them out until way past sunset. It’s a ritual as common as sleeping or waking. Nearly everyone at the restaurant finishes lunch and chews khat, cheeks bulging, eyes calm, the world suddenly fixable.

“Khat makes you forget about things,” says Harazi. “Khat gives you many ideas, but behind them is no planning.”

He laughs.

Wheels spin through gravel; a tribal leader in an SUV arrives in the parking lot, draped by dust and a well-armed entourage. Diners pause. No shots fired. Spoons resume. The leader, kissing cheeks, slapping backs, finds a seat.

“Look at that,” Harazi says, “Barack Obama doesn’t have as many bodyguards.”

“How many employees do you have?” someone asks.

Harazi looks around and whispers.

“One hundred, but if the taxman comes, only 20.”

Food for thought at one culinary crossroads in Yemen

Roxanne Brummell has thrived in what many consider the toughest new testing ground for teachers in the nation.

The fifth-grade teacher in Washington, D.C., earned a “highly effective” rating under the district’s controversial system that rewards — and sometimes fires — teachers based in part on their students’ progress on standardized tests. In just seven months, she helped boost her students’ reading scores by an average of 24%.

Brummell’s reward: a $20,000 bonus and recognition at district award ceremonies.

Brummell, a Guyana native, likes the acknowledgment and the data-driven feedback. But she frets that the district is relying too heavily on standardized tests and isn’t doing enough to help teachers who are struggling.

As for the bonus, she almost didn’t accept it. One condition was that she give up various rights if laid off in a budget crunch.

“I love it, but it has its flaws,” she said of the district’s evaluation system, as she recovered from a busy day of explaining improper fractions.

Her complex feelings reflect the nationwide ambivalence toward the growing movement to hold teachers more accountable for what their students actually learn. Until now, evaluations typically have involved a school administrator making a quick, pre-announced visit to a teacher’s classroom. But in major districts including Washington’s, New York’s and Houston’s — and perhaps soon, Los Angeles’ — officials are using a method called “value-added” to bring a measure of objectivity to the process.

Value-added assesses a teacher’s effectiveness at raising students’ performance on standardized tests compared with how they did in previous years. Virtually no one endorses the method as the sole measure of an instructor.

For states to qualify for certain federal grants, the Obama administration is requiring that they link teacher evaluations to student performance. At least 27 states have passed or are considering legislation to meet that requirement.

“There is an absolute laser focus on teacher evaluation in this country now — I’ve never seen anything like it,” said Rob Weil of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 2,200 school districts.

But the trend has stirred opposition. Some educational experts and union leaders say that value-added is not reliable enough for high-stakes decisions on firing, tenure or pay; that it is a narrow gauge of teaching; and that it pressures instructors to “teach to the test.”

Supporters say it is one important tool to be used in combination with others, perhaps including end-of-course tests or reviews of student work. How much weight to give it, what stakes to attach, how many years of data to consider and even how to calculate the scores are not settled questions, leaving much room for discussion and debate.

At the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is studying many of these questions, senior program officer Steve Cantrell said concerns that the method may inaccurately assess some teachers must be balanced against the likelihood that it will improve the chances for children to have an effective instructor. “If you shift the perspective from what is best for adults to what is best for students, then it’s super clear that value-added can improve the system over time,” he said.

In Los Angeles, the teachers union has adamantly opposed using value-added in teacher evaluations — but a school district panel named by the superintendent has recommended that it go forward. The debate erupted in August, when The Times published a database of the value-added scores of about 6,000 elementary school teachers based on seven years of testing data, prompting union protests and vows by the district to raise the issue during contract negotiations. It was the first time in the nation such information had been made public.

In New York, the city school district’s recent announcement that it would release value-added scores to the media drew an immediate court challenge from the teachers union. Underscoring warring perspectives within the district, a Brooklyn public school on Friday sent a notice to parents urging them to protest the release, saying: “OUR STUDENTS AND TEACHERS ARE NOT TEST SCORES!!”

Perhaps nowhere has the approach drawn more attention — and outrage — than in Washington, which has probably taken value-added further than any other district in the country.

Former Chancellor Michelle Rhee said she came to the nation’s capital three years ago knowing her changes would wreak political havoc. But she said she was willing to take on a system that was giving passing evaluations to 95% of teachers even as only 8% of students were performing at grade level in mathematics.

“How can you have a system where you’re that misaligned?” Rhee asked in a recent interview. “For me, it’s always about putting this in the lens of children and families … as opposed to making this a fight between groups of adults.”

She rolled out value-added analysis last year for a group of teachers in fourth through eighth grades. This year, administrators fired 75 of those teachers with poor appraisals and gave more than 700 others rated minimally effective one year to improve. The district also rewarded more than 630 “highly effective” educators with bonuses ranging from $3,000 to $25,000.

For L.A., possible lessons in D.C.’s controversial teacher evaluation system

For years in her native Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi has been known simply as “The Lady,” a pro-democracy stalwart and Nobel Peace Prize laureate who has languished for years in an arbitrary solitary confinement imposed by the nation’s ruling military junta.

Although she was snatched from the public limelight, residents of the former Burma have always known this about the charismatic Buddhist activist, now 65: She would not be broken by the military generals she has long defied.

On Saturday, Suu Kyi proved them all right. She was finally released from the mildewing, two-story villa where she has spent much of her house arrest, spanning 15 of the last 21 years.

Whether in prison or not, supporters say, she has remained a quiet but defiant symbol of struggle against political repression for residents of the impoverished Southeast Asian nation.

Always cutting a slight figure, the daughter of a national hero who had generations earlier campaigned for Burma’s independence from Britain endured personal hardship to uphold her political principals, often going years without seeing her husband or sons.

But as popes, presidents and activists called unsuccessfully for her release, she never wavered. Once asked if she thought her story had the makings of a Greek tragedy, she responded: “Don’t be silly. I don’t go in for melodrama.”

She later added: “I look upon myself as a politician. That’s not a dirty word, you know. Some people think that there is something wrong with politicians. Of course, there is something wrong with some politicians.”

Time and again, Suu Kyi showed her mettle since taking up the democracy struggle in 1988.

Spending much of her early life abroad, Suu Kyi had returned home that year just as street protests erupted against a quarter-century of military rule. The daughter of martyred independence leader Gen. Aung San, she quickly assumed a leadership role.

Then 44, she campaigned for the government to stage proper elections and became the first secretary general of the fledging National League for Democracy.

Explaining why she risked prison or worse by taking on the nation’s military, she responded: “I could not, as my father’s daughter, remain indifferent to all that was going on.”

Her unsuccessful efforts to stop a brutal military suppression that killed thousands of protestors, repeatedly facing own armed soldiers, gained her worldwide notoriety, including the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, being proclaimed by the Nobel committee as “an outstanding example of the power of the powerless.”

But Suu Kyi’s sons, Alexander and Kim, accepted the award in Oslo on behalf of their mother who, seen as a threat by the country’s new military rulers, was detained in 1989 on national security charges.

She spent the next six years under house arrest at the family home at 54 University Avenue, enduring various periods in detention since then. Over the years, she has waged repeated hunger strikes to call attention to the military’s brutal repression of protesting students.

But Suu Kyi endured. When her husband, British scholar Michael Aris, died in London in March 1999, they had only seen each other a handful of times since her first house arrest a decade earlier.

Press reports have painted her life in captivity as austere. Rising each day at 4 a.m., she meditated, read and listened to one of five radios that were her only link to the outside world. She had no telephone, no television, no Internet. Her mail, if delivered at all, was heavily censored.

Once an accomplished pianist, Myanmar’s muggy equatorial heat long ago warped her instrument. Her only companionship: two long-serving, mother-and-daughter assistants.

Recent months have brought particular frustration. Suu Kyi was just a few weeks away from being released last year when she had an unexpected visit by an American, John Yettaw. She was found guilty of harboring anti-government elements and her sentence was extended.

At the time, one of her assistants told reporters: “It has been a hard life, she has sacrificed a lot. But she is used [to it] now. And she keeps working, waiting for the day she will be released.”

john.glionna@latimes.com
Suu Kyi outlasted her oppressors

In a sharp setback, the United States and South Korea failed to reach agreement on an elusive free-trade deal but will continue pressing for an accord in the weeks ahead, President Obama said Thursday.

Obama had hoped to announce a deal on the long-stalled pact while in South Korea for meetings of the Group of 20 economic powers, but instead he will return home empty-handed.

“We have asked our teams to work tirelessly in the coming days and weeks to get this completed,” Obama said at a joint news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.

“We don’t want months to pass before we get this done,” Obama said. “We want this to be done in a matter of weeks.”

Prospects for reaching a deal seemed unlikely before Obama’s meeting and subsequent appearance with his South Korean counterpart.

At issue is a pact to slash tariffs and other barriers to trade, one that was signed in 2007 when previous administrations were in power. It remains unratified by lawmakers in both countries, and trade between the nations has slipped. The U.S. wants the deal to address a trade imbalance and beef access to South Korea’s market before submitting it to Congress.

Earlier in the day in a speech marking America’s Veterans Day, Obama condemned North Korea for continuing on “a path of confrontation and provocation” that he says deepens its isolation from the world and worsens the poverty of its people.

Obama said the reclusive communist nation must show a “seriousness of purpose” before the U.S. will restart six-party talks aimed at curbing the country’s drive to become a nuclear power.

He saluted the bravery of U.S. troops who defended South Korea during its war with North Korea.

Speaking at an Army garrison in a country where the U.S. keeps more than 28,000 troops, Obama said North Korea knows the path to prosperity and suggested its leaders take it.

“Because the Korean War ended where it began geographically, some used the phrase ‘Die for a Tie’ to describe the sacrifice of those who fought here,” Obama said. “But as we look around at this thriving democracy and its grateful, hopeful citizens, one thing is clear: This was no tie. This was victory.

“This was a victory then, and it is a victory today,” he said.

In the Veterans Day address, Obama said that, some 60 years after the war, the Korean peninsula provides the world’s clearest contrast between a society that is open and one that is closed, between a dynamic, growing nation like South Korea and a North Korea “that would rather starve its people than change.”

“It’s a contrast that’s so stark you can see it from space, as the brilliant lights of Seoul give way to utter darkness in the North,” he said, describing the difference as a direct result of the road taken by the reclusive, communist North.

Obama said the U.S. “will never waver” in its commitment to South Korea’s security and that North Korea’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will only lead to more isolation and less security. He urged Pyongyang to take another path, a road that he said will offer its people growing opportunity instead of crushing poverty.

The commander in chief spoke inside a packed gymnasium, addressing a uniformed audience of service members from the different branches of the U.S. military. They surrounded him from all sides and many snapped photos as he spoke.

Obama condemned North Korea, saying its circumstances were not “an accident of history” but a direct result of the country choosing “a path of confrontation and provocation.” That path, Obama said, includes its relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons and the deadly sinking earlier this year of a South Korean warship.

“In the wake of this aggression, Pyongyang should not be mistaken: The United States will never waver in our commitment to the security of the Republic of Korea. We will not waver,” he said. “The alliance between our two nations has never been stronger, and along the with the rest of the world, we have made it clear that North Korea’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will only lead to more isolation and less security.”

Obama said North Korea has another path available to it.

“If they choose to fulfill their international obligations and commitments to the international community, they will have the chance to offer their people lives of growing opportunity instead of crushing poverty — a future of greater security and greater respect; a future that includes the prosperity and opportunity available to citizens on this end of the Korean peninsula,” he said.

After the speech, Obama laid a wreath at a war memorial.
U.S. fails to reach free-trade deal with South Korea

For former insiders at some of the several hundred banks that collapsed during the financial crisis and in its aftermath, a day of reckoning has arrived.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has told dozens of former bank officers and directors that it has drawn up lawsuits accusing them of misdeeds such as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. The federal agency is seeking damages to help offset losses in the nation’s deposit insurance fund.

It’s time, the FDIC warns these officials, to sit down and work out settlements — or head to court to decide the matters there.

The letters being sent by the agency are “very detailed,” said Jeffrey A. Tisdale, a Los Angeles lawyer for former officials of five banks targeted by the agency.

“I mean eight to 10 single-spaced pages of purported misdeeds,” he said.

The showdowns follow FDIC probes that typically take well over a year.

“We’re only doing this after careful investigation. We don’t bring suit every time a bank fails,” said Richard Osterman, the FDIC’s acting general counsel.

The FDIC board has authorized suits seeking to recover more than $2 billion from more than 80 former bank officials, up from about 50 a month ago, Osterman said. The number could multiply as the agency works through its investigative backlog.

The agency could end up suing or settling with former insiders of about one-quarter of the more than 300 banks that have failed since the start of 2008, officials say.

“This is only the first wave,” Tisdale said. “I’ve got my next five-year professional plan laid out pretty well.”

Although the FDIC says it will try to settle the cases, officials expect to file a significant number of suits. Criminal charges could result in a few cases.

“We are investigating [criminal] bank fraud and related cases in many different parts of the country, including in California,” said Fred Gibson, deputy inspector general at the agency.

So far only two civil suits have been filed. The first, filed in July, accuses four executives of Pasadena’s defunct IndyMac Bank of negligence in granting construction and development loans that the suit says were unlikely to be repaid. The defendants are contesting the suit, which seeks $300 million in damages.

Last week, the FDIC sued 11 former insiders at defunct Heritage Community Bank in Glenwood, Ill. Calling the case “regrettable and wrong,” defense lawyers said in a statement that their clients, in failing to foresee the economic meltdown, were no different from Wall Street and the FDIC itself.

Tisdale concurs that the FDIC is going after people for failing to accurately predict the future.

“The economy is the real culprit here,” he said. “There was no way to plan for real estate values dropping 30% to 50% throughout California, Nevada and Arizona.”

But Darren Robbins, a San Diego lawyer who specializes in filing investment fraud suits, says the FDIC has plenty to work with just by looking at what banks said about their assets toward the end of the boom.

“It’s our belief that in places like Illinois, Georgia, California and Arizona there was an inordinate amount of game-playing with financial statements in ‘07 and ‘08,” said Robbins, whose firm has fraud suits pending against several casualties of the bust, including PFF Bancorp, the former parent company of Pomona’s PFF Bank & Trust, which failed in November 2008.

In targeting the former officials, the FDIC typically also has its eyes on insurance companies that would be on the hook for damages stemming from alleged misconduct by the bankers. In many cases, the FDIC formally gave notice of possible litigation months ago, just before the expiration of the relevant insurance policies, to ensure that the coverage would apply.

Some policies covering directors and officers don’t apply to actions by the FDIC. In such cases, the agency is going after bank officials only if they have sufficient assets to justify the expense and risk of litigation, Osterman said.

The FDIC’s litigation strategy borrows from a playbook the agency used after the savings and loan meltdown of about two decades ago. From 1986 through 1996 the FDIC recovered $5.1 billion from former insiders at failed banks and savings and loans, Osterman said. That’s a small fraction of the eventual cost of the S&L crisis.

scott.reckard@latimes.com
FDIC prepares to crack down on officials of failed banks

The first great American autobiographies both appeared in the 19th century, were born of conflict and written by public men — “The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass” and “The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.”

Since then, what we might call the publishing-industrial complex has turned the reminiscences of our public men and women into a never-ending stream. As former President George W. Bush — barely two years out of office — points out in the acknowledgement of his memoir, “Decision Points,” virtually every member of his extended, very political family has published a bestseller, including his parents’ dogs.

Where does Bush’s account of his astonishingly eventful eight years rank in such company? Probably far higher than many of his detractors expected. As Bush writes in “Decision Points,” he enjoys surprising those who underestimate him. As the title suggests, the former chief executive elected to abandon the usual chronological approach to these volumes (except for a brief, obligatory foray into childhood and school years) in favor of his recollection of his presidency’s key choices and the personal decisions that Bush says prepared him to make them.

Foremost among the latter were his conversion to active Christianity, which he attributes to an after-dinner talk that evangelist Billy Graham gave to the extended Bush family at their Maine compound, and to participation in his male friends’ Crawford, Texas Bible study group. According to Bush, he continued to read the Bible every morning of his presidency — like his daily run, a comforting habit. Bush credits his religious awakening, along with a growing sense of obligation to his wife and daughters, with his other foundational personal choice: the decision to quit drinking after a night of boorish overindulgence in celebration of his Laura’s 40th birthday. It’s a change Bush credits with making possible his subsequent public life.

Leaks and an active publicity campaign of television and radio appearances have made many of the substantial points Bush makes rather familiar. Essentially, “Decision Points” confirms many of the better nonfiction accounts of his presidency published while he was in office, particularly Bob Woodward’s four volumes and Robert Draper’s “Dead Certain.” The Bush White House may not have been given to doubts or its chief executive to indecision, but it did have a penchant for ad hoc deliberation, stubborn persistence in the face of failure — as in Iraq up to the surge — excessive personal loyalty and for being “blind-sided” by events beyond the unforeseeable tragedy of 9/11.

Nearly midway through “Decision Points,” Bush writes that, “History can debate the decisions I made, the policies I chose, and the tools I left behind. But there can be no debate about one fact: After the nightmare of September 11, America went seven and a half years without another successful terrorist attack on our soil. If I had to summarize my most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it.”

For that reason, Bush is singularly unapologetic and clear about the fact that he personally ordered the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who CIA interrogators were convinced held information of other planned terrorist attacks. (Bush also continues to insist that waterboarding is not torture.) When then-CIA Director George Tenet asked whether he had permission to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, Bush replied, “Damn right.” Bush writes that about 100 “terrorists” were placed in the CIA interrogation program and that about a third “were questioned using enhanced interrogation”; three were waterboarded. All, according to Bush, gave up usable intelligence that thwarted other acts of terrorism. Other reports have contradicted that assertion, but Bush is firm on the point.

Similarly, he writes that his stomach still churns over the fact that he and the rest of the country were misled by faulty intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but that the nation and world still are better off with the Iraqi dictator deposed. His only real regret, in fact, is that he failed to act more rapidly and decisively when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

Many readers will be surprised by Bush’s warm account of his cooperative relationship with the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and his disappointment that they were unable to push through comprehensive immigration reform, which both felt was within a vote or two of their grasp. Given the contentious political use Karl Rove and other Bush aides made of abortion, readers also may be interested in the former president’s unfailingly respectful discussion of the abortion-rights advocates with whom he disagrees. (There’s also something amusing about Bush’s account of urging the late Pope John Paul II not to waver in his pro-life convictions.)

Actually, one of the impressions that arises repeatedly in “Decision Points” is how much civility and bi-partisan cooperation matter to Bush. “The death spiral of decency during my time in office, exacerbated by the advent of 24-hour cable news and hyper-partisan political blogs, was deeply disappointing,” he writes.

Looking back on his exit from office, Bush recalls, “I reflected on everything we were facing. Over the past few weeks we had seen the failure of America’s two largest mortgage entities, the bankruptcy of a major investment bank, the sale of another, the nationalization of the world’s largest insurance company, and now the most drastic intervention in the free market since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. At the same time, Russia had invaded and occupied Georgia, Hurricane Ike had hit Texas, and America was fighting a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was one ugly way to end the presidency.”

There’s a great deal in that statement of what this unexpectedly engrossing memoir suggests is the essential George W. Bush — a disarming candor, for example, combined with almost alarming off-handedness about the implications of what’s being said. The man and the president portrayed in these pages is, at the same time, passive and strong; intelligent but not curious; a public person apparently at his best in private; willing to admit shortcomings, but not particularly self-critical; unfailingly civil himself, but happily surrounded by bare-knuckle partisans. There is a kind of pragmatic courage that makes a leader fearless of contradictions. Bush, for his part, seems oblivious to them.

Immediately after the admission that his presidency was coming to an “ugly” end, Bush adds, “I didn’t feel sorry for myself. Self-pity is a pathetic quality in a leader…. As well, I was comforted by my conviction that the Good Lord wouldn’t give a believer a burden he couldn’t handle.”

One suspects that Bush hopes to have the way in which he bore his unexpected burdens compared to the service of another wartime president, Lincoln. “Decision Points” records that, during his eight years in the Oval Office, Bush read 14 books on the first Republican commander-in-chief.

Somehow, though, it isn’t the Great Emancipator who comes to mind at the end of this memoir, but Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

“To know my deed, ’twere best not know myself.”

timothy.rutten@latimes.com
Book review: ‘Decision Points’ by George W. Bush

A dispute among influential Republican lawmakers over a ban on “earmark” spending threatens an area of potential bipartisan agreement between the GOP and White House in the aftermath of last week’s midterm election.

The incoming House Republican majority has proposed extending a moratorium on earmarks, which are funds requested by individual lawmakers for specific projects back home. On Tuesday, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said that he would press his GOP colleagues in the Senate to adopt a similar moratorium when lawmakers returned to Washington next week.

But several senior Republican lawmakers consider earmarks part of their constitutional obligation to determine how federal money is spent. They disagree with election-year rhetoric that government spending can be reined in with a strict earmark ban. A ban is an idea that “doesn’t save any money,” said Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader.

The disagreement is surfacing at a crucial point. Republicans, fresh from winning control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate, will make their first attempt next week to convert ideas from successful political campaigns into governing policy.

Earmark spending is a favorite campaign symbol of government excess. Examples of pork projects go back years — among the most well-known is the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska.

Yet attempts to limit lawmakers’ ability to steer funding to their home states regularly runs into dissent. Popular Capitol wisdom holds that one lawmaker’s pork is another’s vital infrastructure project, representing a road or hospital that would not get built without federal government funds.

The House GOP this year imposed a moratorium on earmarks within its own ranks as a way to burnish its conservative credentials heading into campaign season, particularly among “tea party” voters. Earmarks soared to unprecedented levels prior to 2006, the last time the GOP had been in the majority.

Senate Republicans, though, did not agree to such a ban. DeMint proposed a halt on earmarks this spring, but senators voted it down.

Now, in a first test of their newly bolstered numbers in Congress, Republicans in both chambers are returning to the issue. The GOP is intent on showing voters it understood the lesson of the election and the message of tea party conservatives who helped propel the party to power.

President Obama identified the earmark ban as an issue “we can work on together.” Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said he would like to take Obama up on the offer.

Yet old spending habits are hard to break among Congress members who see the power of the purse as one of their greatest strengths. Although earmarks make up a tiny fraction of the federal budget, they are an enormous source of power for lawmakers to provide resources to constituents.

The Republican leaders of the main House and Senate spending committees are divided on the question. Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands supports an earmark moratorium, while Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi does not.

In recent days, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) has appeared on 10 conservative radio talk shows across the country with an appeal about the importance of such spending.

“People now realize you can’t have a ban on earmarks,” Inhofe said.

If Congress chooses not to direct spending, Inhofe argues, the responsibility will fall to the administration, which already exerts influence over its own pet projects in the president’s annual budget. Inhofe said his aim was to reform the earmarking process, not eliminate it.

The conservative Oklahoman, who is perhaps most widely known for calling global warming a hoax, is intent on branding earmark foes as “goguers” — those who demagogue the issue to score political points.

“It’s the most demagogued thing I’ve run into in the years I’ve been in politics,” Inhofe said. “Many of the big-spending Republicans demagogue earmarks so people think they’re conservative.”

Inhofe will argue for new Senate rules to make the earmarking process more transparent, without an outright ban.

But he will face a challenge from fellow conservative DeMint, who will be seeking an unqualified ban next week from his peers.

The South Carolina senator counts support from several newly elected colleagues — including Rand Paul in Kentucky, Marco Rubio in Florida and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania — and other tea-party-backed candidates he supported in the election.

“Many Republicans are still addicted to earmarks and won’t give them up without a fight,” DeMint wrote in a letter to supporters Tuesday. “I know it’s difficult to quit this habit.”

He should know. DeMint confided to supporters, “I used to request earmarks too.”

lmascaro@tribune.com
‘Earmark’ ban proves an early obstacle to GOP unity

President Obama said Monday that India should rise to the status of holding a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, a dramatic show of respect to the powerful nation he hopes will play a key role in support of U.S. interests around the world.

But the stature would come with a price, Obama told members of parliament, exhorting them to join with the international community in difficult fights ahead.

“Let me suggest that with increased power comes increased responsibility,” Obama said in an evening address here. The U.N. exists to preserve peace and security and advance human rights, he said, which the responsibilities of all nations “but especially those that seek to lead in the 21st century.”

The pledge is only a step in direction of new international stature for India. The nation likely won’t attain permanent council status anytime soon, and the U.S. is backing its addition only as part of a series of council reforms that could be years in the making.

Still, the promise fulfills India’s top priority on the agenda of Obama’s visit, a three-day series of meetings to build what the White House is now calling an “indispensable partnership.”

In his final scheduled day in the country, Obama met with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to craft the broad outlines of that partnership, agreeing to collaborate anew in the effort to root out terrorists, reform export controls and combat hunger.
The talks touched on sensitive subjects, as Obama unveiled for Singh the findings of a new report on the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks and what the U.S. knew in advance about the American collaborator David Headley.

The report, due to be released publicly as early as Monday, shows that American intelligence community had picked up general suspicions about Headley but that the information didn’t point to a specific plot in the works, administration officials said.
Obama supports U.N. Security Council seat for India

President Obama, challenged by Indian students Sunday to explain why the United States had not labeled Pakistan a terrorist state, defended his administration’s efforts to help the Pakistani government root out extremism and urged Indians to remember their own stake in promoting their longtime rival’s stability.

Obama’s call to India for a gradual rapprochement with Pakistan, made during a sometimes lively town hall-style meeting at St. Xavier’s College in the Indian city of Mumbai, is likely to be repeated at a speech Monday to the Parliament in New Delhi.

Despite the pointed exchange over Pakistan, Obama’s day with students included a session of impromptu dancing by the president and the first lady that offered personal images to balance the generally serious and carefully scripted elements in the Obamas’ first visit to this nation.

A day earlier, Obama met with survivors of the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai by Pakistani extremists, but he was careful to avoid mentioning Pakistan.

On the second day of a 10-day Asia trip, Obama was clearly ready for more direct engagement on the matter. “I must admit I was expecting it,” he said, eliciting laughter from the college audience assembled outdoors on a sunny afternoon.

Obama said the U.S. approach toward Pakistan on the issue of terrorism has been “to be honest and forthright … to say we are your friend, this is a problem and we will help you with it, but the problem has to be addressed.”

He said he was “absolutely convinced that the country that has the biggest stake in Pakistan’s success is India.”

“So my hope is, is that over time trust develops between the two countries,” he said, “that dialogue begins — perhaps on less controversial issues, building up to more controversial issues — and that over time there’s a recognition that India and Pakistan can live side by side in peace and that both countries can prosper.”

India was partitioned to create Pakistan at the time of independence from Britain in 1947, and the two neighbors have fought three major wars since.

Although Indian students also grilled him about his views on jihad and Afghanistan policy, as well as his take on the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, Obama kept at least a part of his message focused on the main aim of his second extended trip to Asia: opening up markets to create job opportunities for Americans.

Over the weekend, he spoke about the “enormous untapped potential” in trade, calling on India to lower barriers in everything from retail imports to telecommunications. On Sunday, he told students that Americans were frustrated with the U.S. economy and how the midterm election results had forced him to make “some midcourse corrections and adjustments.”

“So I want to make sure that we’re here because this will create jobs in the United States and it can create jobs in India,” Obama said. “But that means that we’ve got to negotiate this changing relationship.”

Some listeners were skeptical, aware that Obama and other Democrats often speak disapprovingly of U.S. companies that “ship jobs overseas.” India has long been a favored destination for American outsourcing of data processing, call centers and back office functions.

“It is offensive,” said Lopa Mullick, an owner of an events-management company who attended Obama’s session at St. Xavier’s College. “It hurts us…. You’re not looking at all the opportunities that India has created for the U.S., at the economic benefits both sides get.”

Still, the young entrepreneur said she came to listen to Obama because she believes he can “shift the focus” and that he may actually want to do so.

During an earlier visit with schoolchildren, Michelle Obama broke out into a lengthy dance that dominated TV and inspired local newspaper headlines such as “When Michelle Got Into the Groove.”

The president himself showed off his footwork as schoolchildren enticed him to join the first lady in a traditional Indian dance during a Diwali celebration. It inspired some low-key moves, though mostly unrelated to the elaborate steps everyone else was doing.

cparsons@latimes.com

don.lee@latimes.com

Parsons reported from Mumbai and Lee from Washington.
Obama fields tough questions from Indian students