Brian Barder rightly points out that everything in the Guardian’s report of the tape of British suicide bomber Mohamad Sidique Khan is wrong.
He also lambasts Ken Clarke for his speech in which points out that the attack on Iraq made Britain a less safe place. I actually thought Clarke’s speech was pretty good – much better than anything we have had from a Labour Politician. Clarke was smart to draw attention to his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq, as this differentiates him from all the other candidates for leadership of the Tory party. He is right to question the attack on civil liberties being perpertrated in the name of reducing the risks of terrorism. And, as Tony Hatfield rightly says, he is one of the few British politicians to speak out on the appalling practice of "rendition". Clarke is the potential leader of the Tories that Labour fears most: fortunately the Conservative Party is likely to elect a leader who is liked by committed Conservatives rather than popular in the country as a whole.
We are witnessing appalling scenes from New Orleans, reminiscent of the dystopic vision of Mad Max blended with Waterworld. Heart wrenching scenes of people desperate for food, water, health care and transport. A breakdown in law and order. Police officers bravely defending the their stations under sustained attack. Gangs of youths roaming the city, looting and raping. Troops sent in with shoot-to-kill orders. Shanty towns developing in sporting facilites. Maybe some of this is sensationalism by the mainstream media; let us hope that this is not the reality faced by most people.
I have two immediate reactions.
First, just how close we all are, all the time, to a collapse in civilisation, and a Hobbesian state. On the surface, the institutions of society seem strong, natural and permanent. But this is a facade. Take away that superstructure, even if only for a few days, and apparently our humanity deserts us. We saw during the Rwanda genocide how crowds can be whipped into hysteria, and persuaded to commit atrocities that seem to us unthinkable. Within days of hardship in America, the richest society on earth, founded on noble principles, society appears if not to have fallen apart then to be fraying at the edges. Society must never be taken for granted, and we must never be complacent about what we need to do to nurture and sustain it.
Second, I wonder if this would have happened quite like this in Europe. Leave aside whether the rescue services would have done a better job. Has Europe developed stronger instincts of cooperation and mutual support? Has America developed a more individualistic, survival of the fittest society? Has the social and economic exclusion of poor blacks, who have been worst affected by the flooding of New Orleans, created a group of people who do not feel they owe anything to their community? In Europe, would the relative social cohesiveness have done more to keep social structures and community cooperation together? Let us hope we never find out. How much difference does it make having guns?
A tragedy has befallen New Orleans. May hope and society be soon restored.
You will recall that there was a flutter in blogland a couple of weeks back about the causes of the famine in Niger, triggered by an article in the Washington Post which claimed that “the rise of a market mentality” had contributed to the famine in Niger. A number of us, including Cafe Hayek, TechCentralStation, Newmark’s Door, The Globalisation Institute, Tim Worstall and me, reacted with a discussion about the circumstances in which there might be a famine but no general shortage of food, and pointing out that the solution may lie not in providing food but money to the very poor.
So it was interesting to see this article on BBC News Online, which is based mainly on an interview with Bill Easterly, making essentially the point that a number of us were making:
"It is axiomatic that flooding the market with food drives down the price for local farmers," Mr Easterly says. …
Mr Easterly and others are not arguing that the solution to perverse incentives lies in withholding emergency aid.
They contend that it could be made to work better in a number of ways, including:
- Providing compensation to local farmers
- Making sure aid stops when things improve
- Giving cash rather than food
But the most effective move would be to focus less on emergencies and more on chronic problems. Mr Easterly says this could be done cheaply in the Sahel.
Quite so.
My thoughts are with the many thousands of people who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina; those who have been killed and injured; those who are trapped and need to be rescued; those who are now refugees seeking shelter and food; those whose posessions and homes have been destroyed; and the family and friends around the world who wait anxiously for news of their loved ones.
We should pause also to reflect on the bravery and selflessness of those in the services who are working round the clock to help.
FEMA has recommended this list of charities for those who wish to give donations; see also Stygius and Instapundit. (I personally think that in a country as rich as the United States, it is the responsibility of Government, not charity, to meet the needs of people affected by disaster. Should ordinary working folk on moderate incomes give what they can so that the Federal Government can cut taxes for the very rich? I don’t think so.)
The blogosphere has already begun to discuss whether anyone is to blame: cuts in investment in flood defences; reduced capacity of the National Guard; climate change. In due course, there should also be a debate about whether it is sensible to restore the city of New Orleans at all, given its vulnerability to natural disasters, or whether, like Pompeii, it should remain a memorial.
There will be plenty of time for all that. For now, let’s focus on getting help to those who need it.
Some rights reserved
Recent Comments