Log in

View Full Version : "An Unnatural Disaster"



Atlanteax
09-08-2005, 01:25 AM
I saw this posted on the SIMU forums:

.

An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

by Robert Tracinski
Sep 02, 2005

It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

" 'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.' "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

Source: TIA Daily -- September 2, 2005

Atlanteax
09-08-2005, 01:25 AM
I found myself agreeing with the article's main thrust that the humane disaster that is unfolding in New Orleans is predominantly man-made... and serves as a real world (as opposed to paper argument) example of what exactly is the curse of the Welfare state.

When you have an acquantince with a "problem" (such as drinking), you are generally encouraged to not be an "enabler" (where you look the other way).

The Welfare State is a society-wide "enabler" of problematic human behavior.

.

Yes, we do need a degree of social programs to help the poor and unfortunate... BUT it should be of a limited nature where it is designed to help get people back on their feet and be independent again.

Social programs should not exist in the form of perpetual "babysitting" with a lifetime of handouts, as it is now.

Numbers
09-08-2005, 01:39 AM
Definitely an interesting article.

Hard to form an opinion on whether it's right or not. I agree that a lot of the shit's that happening down there is man made. If it weren't for people acting like animals, I doubt it would be nearly as bad as it is now.

Of course, letting prisoners free is just downright stupid.

However, to blame it on people on welfare is a bit of a broad brush stroke. Some generally good and decent people are on welfare, probably not by choice. The write should have put more of an emphasis on the "welfare parasites," as he put it. People on welfare who have no intention of actually doing anything for their own to get off of welfare.

That's why it needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. That's what welfare workers are for. Apparently they're not doing their job, as people are on welfare way too long. Honestly, if a person is on welfare for more than five years and has shown no effort at learning new skills or getting a job, they should be deported to Mexico.

GSLady17
09-08-2005, 03:06 AM
Dang, you'd give them five years? hehe.

ElanthianSiren
09-08-2005, 09:26 AM
First, Atlan, I'm disappointed that you'd even bother to listen to this bunch of bs. To say that NO's situation is due primarily to the release of convicts is both ignorant and baseless. I think it's more likely that NO's situation is based on conditions akin to what you'd have found in Rwanda/any isolated third world country; when people cannot get the necessary things to survive, wars break out OVER necessities.

While I am willing to admit that the people at the TOP of the "NO Insurgent" groups were likely not the most savory of people, they were also probably alpha men. Do we shoot all alpha men (oh please, can I?)?

While I'd never argue that some of the crime may be due to the prisons being emptied, I would ask you to ponder why, these criminals would choose to "prey" on their own kind if those are the individuals primarily left in NO. It doesn't make sense. It isn't logical, as humans naturally arrange in groups of social hierarchy, and you are admitting that the problem is *not* individualism.

-M

Atlanteax
09-08-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
First, Atlan, I'm disappointed that you'd even bother to listen to this bunch of bs. To say that NO's situation is due primarily to the release of convicts is both ignorant and baseless. I think it's more likely that NO's situation is based on conditions akin to what you'd have found in Rwanda/any isolated third world country; when people cannot get the necessary things to survive, wars break out OVER necessities.

While I am willing to admit that the people at the TOP of the "NO Insurgent" groups were likely not the most savory of people, they were also probably alpha men. Do we shoot all alpha men (oh please, can I?)?

While I'd never argue that some of the crime may be due to the prisons being emptied, I would ask you to ponder why, these criminals would choose to "prey" on their own kind if those are the individuals primarily left in NO. It doesn't make sense. It isn't logical, as humans naturally arrange in groups of social hierarchy, and you are admitting that the problem is *not* individualism.

-M

The criminal element was the secondary element.

The primary element is the welfare-centric nature of NO contributed to the human tragedy...

... where those who grew accustomed to hand-outs, failed to exercise any sign of personal responsibility, and instead contributed to the crisis by behaving like lemmings (that constantly needs to be "babysitted" ).

As for the criminal element, the writer was suggesting that the abnormally passive behavior of the welfare recieptants made them easy prey, as they apparantly lacked the will to take actions of self-determination.

Such as protecting themselves, instead of deluding themselves to believe that someone will magically show up with a fistful of dollars and tell them where to go, and what to do.

ElanthianSiren
09-08-2005, 10:20 AM
Were that true (about the criminal element), there would be a whole lot less than 300,000 people unsettled in NO. Simply put, the figures do not jive.

Further, as it's been stated, the majority of those individuals that remained in NO did so because they had no way out. By the time the evacuation was announced, Amtrak and the airlines had both stopped service. Much of the populace live so far below the poverty line, they cannot afford a car.

It comes down to the old argument -- what would you have them do? Walk out and be prime targets for the storm, or would you have them travel back in time and get better jobs in an area as socio-economically depressed as the gulf coast? You seem to be saying that these people DESERVED, for whatever reason, to die in a hurricane/looting due to their poverty status, which is easily understood when you look at where the WORST schools in the country (No child left behind indeed) are.

-M

Rainy Day
09-08-2005, 10:26 AM
There may be some ideas worth discussing in that article, but I think it's overlooking some very basic facts of human nature in an attempt to support a viewpoint near and dear to the writer's heart.

We have seen a lot of senseless tradgedies perpetrated that had zero to do with people on welfare or the catastrophic conditions seen in New Orleans. Crowds trampling dozens to death at a rock concert. A group of men in a bar gang raping a woman while others present ignored what was going on. Kids going to school and opening fire on their classmates. Crowds going wild after a sporting event and violently beating each other up. Those just lept immediately to mind, but there are plenty of other examples.

The point: it doesn't take being on welfare or losing everything people own in order for the ugly side of human nature to rear its ugly head.

But, when you add in the loss of everything, lack of resources, and lack of anyone being visibly in control, you are begging for that ugly side to rear its head.

I'm willing to bet anyone that if you took the entire population of Beverly Hills and a few surrounding wealthy areas, stripped them of everything but what they were wearing, told them that their homes were complete losses, made sure quite a few had family members die in front of them, and then crammed them all into a stadium for a few days with no air conditioning, no food, no water, no plumbing, and no way out...you'd get the same exact result.

What's interesting to me, and this may seem like a really lame reference but I still think it's interesting, is how this whole thing compares to some of what we saw in the movie War of the Worlds. That movie showed society breaking down into lawlessness and mayhem very quickly under dire circumstances where lives were threatened and resources were limited. I found that disturbing as I watched it and wondered how realistic it was. I don't wonder anymore.

RD

Warriorbird
09-08-2005, 10:33 AM
"They'd be so much more civilized without welfare."

Seriously, that's the implication here.

If I was a citizen (or former citizen) of New Orleans, I'd be pretty offended. As it is, I just shake my head.

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by Warriorbird]