Katrina again

[robinturner]

I just posted (somewhat) about how unmoved I was by hurricane Katrina. Generally, natural disasters move me no more than road accidents - they are upsetting if someone close to you gets killed as a result, but otherwise they are just part of life. People die in hurricanes and earthquakes, but then they also die from cancer, which is a much nastier way to go. I read once that psychologists identified 33 degrees of pain (one for each masonic rank?); only cancer manged to reach 33, and childbirth could occasionally go up to 32 (let's hear it for epidurals!). In a weird way, this is almost reassuring, since you know that the worst tortures that humans or nature can expose you to aren't that bad. So, as I wrote, I thought it was just a case of bad weather on the other side of the world, and thought no more of it - after all, Bangladesh faces much worse flooding every few years, and nobody seems to give a dingo's kidney about that.

However, I am now moved - it is just that I am moved to anger. In a way this is worse. Suffering because of the suffering of other people is undesirable, but it's still better than anger (anyone familiar with Stoicism or Buddhism will be familiar with this issue). But now, after watching the BBC's coverage of the aftermath, I feel anger. No one can prevent a hurricane, but one would have thought that the world's most powerful nation would have been able to prevent a breakdown of law, and basic services. I mean, they can bomb a country "into the stone age" but they can't supply clean water and electricity? They can send rapid response forces to every corner of the world, but they can't take sick people to hospital?

The one thing that is worse than anger is hatred, which I think is a kind of congealed, putrefied anger. I really don't want to hate George Bush, because I don't want to hate any sentient (or in this case, semi-sentient) being. But I can't help it, and Katrina seems to be intent on teasing my tendency to hate. Never having been the ruler of a country, I am not exactly sure what the appropriate response would be, but I would have thought that if you are a king, president, emperor or whatever, and a major disaster happens in your domain, you would get down there immediately, not a couple of days later. Forget the normal compassionate human response - from a purely Machiavellian view, it makes sense to get a photo-opportunity as soon as the hurricane strikes. You could even get wind-ruffled hair, if you had a bit more hair than GWB. If I were president, I'd have jumped on the first plane to New Orleans. No wait, I wouldn't have had to, because I would have had Airforce 1. Hey George, there's this plane that can take you anywhere in the world at a moment's notice. You only remembered it today?

Then there's this shoot-to-kill policy. Hmm, we have a situiation where the residents of old people's homes have been bundled into a stadium and would really like to get somewhere where they could have a cup of tea, medical attention and a nice lie-down, and you are more concerned about people getting the food they need to live by taking it from stores who are in any case covered by insurance. In times of need, all things are common. That's not something I thought up or quoted from some anarcho-communist, it's Saint Thomas Bloody Aquinas!

I could go on, but I'd only annoy myself more.

Comments

[cf.livejournal.com]

it gets worse. go look at interdictor's lj.

Have they broadcast the tape of the Mayor of NO cussing out the president of the USA?

[cf.livejournal.com]

also the mayor screaming.

Very justifable imho.

[drx.livejournal.com]

This is why I am upset. The hurricane is a part of life, but this level of apathy is so fucking American. And the various propaganda machines have this country by the nuts.

[asteriskhere.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I think the shoot-to-kill has more to do with people who shoot at the police and other citizens than it has to do with looting.

But it really boggles my mind how people were left to their own devices for five days!!!

[solri.livejournal.com]

Thing is, in most parts of the world, you could leave people to their own devices for five days, and they'd get along OK. Let's imagine a similar disaster hit Belgrade (OK, I know floods are out of the question there, let's say an earthquake or a big bomb dropped by vengeful Croatians). If my knowledge of Balkan culture is anything to go by, it would be a bit chaotic, but everyone would be helping each other out, and they'd muddle through pretty well in the end. Certainly there wouldn't be people shooting at ambulances or police afraid to go out on the streets. Same goes for Britain.

[asteriskhere.livejournal.com]

There already is a relatively low rate of violent crime here in Belgrade. New Orleans has always been one of the worst cities in the United States for violent (and other) crime.

http://neworleans.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

This compares crime rates in New Orleans to the national average.

Though there is no question that the United States is a violent country. The availability of guns doesn't help.

[asteriskhere.livejournal.com]

I think 'left to their own devices' wasn't the best phrase for me to use to express what I meant. I didn't mean that naturally leaving people on their own for five days would lead to the kind of violence that it has. I meant that I can't believe that so many people were left without food, water, and medical care for five days.

[solri.livejournal.com]

I can see how that might make people a bit ratty.

[trochee.livejournal.com]

they can bomb a country "into the stone age" but they can't supply clean water and electricity?

word.

the same could be said of Iraq, too.

[mein.livejournal.com]

You're interesting. Add me.