My musings on the lesson of Katrina are a bit more philosophical. For an up to date, on the ground report, peruse Jere's description towards the end.
Actually, the question that popped into my head today is what's the relationship between the aftermath of Katrina, and her sister Rita, and the Roe v. Wade decision?
It may seem strange that the failure to provide an adequate response to a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina and the effort to regulate the termination of a pregnancy via regulation are connected, but in my mind they are. And it's not just a matter of the government not doing what it ought and doing what it oughtn't; though that's the result.
The failure to respond appropriately to a natural disaster and the effort to interfere in the medical response to a naturally inevitable, but dangerous, situation is rooted in an assumption about human nature and the purpose of government. To wit, the persons who have taken charge of our government (they call themselves conservatives) base their behavior on a false assumption. So, of course, the consequences are bound to be disasterous.
What is that false assumption? Quite simply it's the conviction that human beings are by nature evil (born in a state of sin, according to the Catholic Church) and because of that condition, the purpose of government is to make man "fly right" or, at least, behave himself and do better.
Now, you might think in the back of your mind that it's the function of religious establishment to "improve" mankind. And you'd be correct. But what you have to understand is that religion is simply a handmaiden of government, a kinder and gentler way of getting humans to do what they ought--and probably more effective in the long run than the use of force because force tends to generate a lot of resentment. And it costs more.
Which is why a "faith-based government" is presumably a lot more effective and cheaper. (Unless the faith happens to be Islam).
One inevitable consequence of the assumption that man is naturally evil is the perception that he's definitely not entitled to exist and has to demonstrate through appropriate subservient behavior that he deserves to live. Civil rights--i.e. active participation in the political direction of the society--aren't an entitlement either. People who haven't consented to submit (the captives in Guantanamo, for example), don't have any rights.
In other words, the government reserves the right to terminate any life at any time and any other claim to make that determination needs to be rejected. Which suggests, doesn't it, that the government's assertion of the sole right to interfere in the process of procreation has far wider ramifications than most people think. Individual autonomy at the end of life is also a challenge to the assumption that any decision about who lives and who dies is a government prerogative. And it all come back to the initial assumption that humans are basically worthless unless they prove their value.
Of course, if government's role is perceived as simply countering human falibility, then it's not logical to expect any behavior other than exhorations to do better (an evacuation is nothing more than an order to get out) and punish those who don't follow orders. Which is exactly what we have been witness to in Iraq and more intimately in the region devastated by Katrina.
The assumption that humans are basically evil has all kinds of "beneficial" consequences. It absolves those who have taken on the responsibility of dealing effectively with natural disasters of actually taking any action; it makes it possible to rationalize any adverse consequence as the fault of those who, for whatever reason, were incapable of following orders; and it makes it possible to ignore that there is a basic difference between "giving an order" and "making order." And that's more than apparent in both Iraq and the American Gulf Coast.
Can we conclude that the conservative (or neocon) assumptions have been proven to be bankrupt? I do. The only question now is how to explain what's happened to people who never even considered that the purpose of government was to make them better people.
*********
Jere and Ted's further adventures in the aftermath of Katrina------
Ted and I were able to get lodging for a night, and so we drove into New Orleans yesterday morning from Mississippi and spent the day touring town and had dinner with friends who live a block from Bayou St. John, and another block from where Julian and I lived during the war. The area is near City Park and like most of the city had water, but not as long or deep as other areas. Also most of the houses are raised with basement apartments.
Basement level is at ground, nothing is under ground, not even graves in the city. They had water in the basement and have recently completed repairs. Mary and Clyde separated some years ago, and have a better relationship for it. Mary?s house is in Gentilly and substained six feet of water for several weeks. She was one block from the good side of the Industrial Canal so that tells you what the ninth ward suffered witch was on the wrong side. She is living with Clyde again and works as a nurse at the East Jefferson Parish Hospital where she lived for two months during and following the storm. City Park is very badly injured and the trees that survive are questionable I would guess.
We drove out Canal street to the Lake and the whole of Lake View, which is an area from the Cemeteries to the Lake is shocking. It is dead. No vegetation, except a few palmetto palms. Ted?s family is buried in several of the Cemeteries at the end of Canal, and they all suffered damage. Giant tombs that collapsed, from age or surge, not clear. Ted?s father?s home is abandoned and the street is lined with parked cars that have turned white from the mold and toxic whatever. Piles of stuff on all the streets as people try to clear out sheet rock and carpet and furniture. We sold the house in 93, and will check to see if we can reclaim it for back taxes. Probably a lost cause, but this was a working class neighborhood, a block from Canal and we are not able to wrap our minds around what we saw.
We stayed at a B&B at Constance and Constantinople. The couple have run it since 1983. he is the maitre di at Arnauld?s, which plans to re-open this week, with a staff or five waiters instead of its usual 50. Uptown from the River to St. Charles looks great. House are damaged from the wind and torn roofs but did not suffer rising water. Once you cross Canal it is devastation once more. The French quarter looks clean and as usual, Sunday afternoon crowds, but as one vendor told me at the French Market which doesn?t even have food at this point, just a few of the vendors, ?New Orleans is putting on a show, but it is going to be years to come back if even then.? Magazine Street was open for business but for who. The hotels are still not open for the most part, windows still out. Maybe when the schools reopen, in January some people will return, but only the rich. It is a slippery slope still.
I have never felt safer, even with the lack of street lights for much of the drive home last night. No one out on the streets, cops every where, and it is a white city except for a few black families who are obviously well healed. The pollution problems seem under control for now, no smells or muck in the streets. Or no more than usual.
The other guests at breakfast were very interesting. The news service Rueters, sic, has made it their home since September 12. this was the most incredible guest house we could have possibly found. So many stories.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thoughts on Roe v. Wade that don't really fit here, but I'm disinclined to set up another post for---
Toobin on Roe v. Wade
I'm a reluctant commentator on this case, irked by the ephemisms, mis-characterization and failure to address the legitimacy of the state regulating medical procedures to begin with.
The premature ejection of fetal tissues is an unpleasant, malodorous and often painful event. Extraction very likely does not make it much better, but having medical assistance is probably better than not. Also, when you come right down to it, the ejection or extaction of the mature fetus is not a pleasant experience, but it's better than the alternative (which I will leave the reader to imagine). In any event, the reproductive process, wether it aborts (most implantations do not stick) or results in a "normal" live birth, is a burdensome and sometimes deadly process. Being forced to undergo it by the laws of man is inherently unfair--a potential sentence of death that cannot be justified.
Unless, that is, one assumes that the state is empowered to determine who lives and who dies, at all times.
It is obviously this assumption which underlies the conservative determination that medical procedures of all kinds are properly interfered with by the state. (Roe v. Wade isn't just important because of its effect on women).
Whence comes this assumption that the state is entitled to make life and death decisions? Well, from another assumption. To wit, that humans are naturally evil and governments are set up to make them better, whence it naturally follows that, when this expectation is satisfied, humans are to be rewarded with certain rights, beginning with the right to life. In other words, humans aren't entitled to exist; they have to "earn" that right by demonstrating their obedience and subservience to the state.
The assumption is the basis of a social construct (not a compact) where there are no social obligations or responsibilities (or governmental ones, naturally), only individual ones. And the individual's choice is a simple one--do as you're told, or die.
Which is not what most Americans have been taught. Most have been taught and accept that government is the result of a social contract (not a one-time event like losing one's virginity), one which exists in a state of constant change and renewal to adjust communal needs to the environmental change that government is supposed to address. In other words, a free people assume that government is supposed to enhance their freedoms, not curtail them. Moreover, other social systems, created to address particular problems, such as illness and disease, should be able to count on government support, not interference in the pursuit of their profession to make things better.
Which leads me to the question: Where in the Constitution is government granted the right to interfere in medical matters, as long as they are handled according to the standards of the profession?