Sean Kinsell makes some interesting observations about disaster relief in paternalistic Japan...
Well, I will tell you as someone who has lived here for a decade: what you hear about disaster preparedness ALWAYS involves local intiatives. Sometimes, municipal governments are involved; other times, it's smaller public institutions. 1 September, the anniversary of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, was Disaster Prevention Day here. Apparently, over a million people participated in demonstrations and drills and things. Our apartment building's management company distributed leaflets to our mailboxes, outlining what would happen if a quake hit and our building were declared unsafe until inspection. New survival gadgets are always cropping up in human interest features on NHK.
Not quite the monument to ministerial, er, ministration that some might expect. You should read the whole thing. I was too lazy to reproduce his links. Here's some more...
In Japan, what we're told is this: A disaster may render you unreachable. It may cut you off from communication networks and utilities. The appropriate government agencies (starting at the neighborhood level and moving upward depending on the magnitude of the damage) will respond as quickly as they can, but you may be on your own for days until they do. Prepare supplies. Learn escape routes. Then learn alternate escape routes. Know what your region's points of vulnerability are. Get to know your neighbors (especially the elderly or infirm) so you can help each other out and account for each other. Follow directions if you're told to evacuate. Stay put if you aren't. Participate in the earthquake preparation drills in your neighborhood.
If that's the attitude of people in collectivist, obedient, welfare-state Japan, it is beyond the wit of man why any American should be sitting around entertaining the idea that Washington should be the first (or second or fifteenth) entity to step in and keep the nasty wind and rain and shaky-shaky from hurting you. Sheesh.
As well as providing a forum for common sense, Sean links to this amusing post from Andrea Harris. She articulates some feelings I've been having lately...
The background music (or whatever it’s called — that stuff they play on the introduction to segments and over those video collages of suffering victims and roofs under water and so on) on all the news channels is all of the same kind: sentimental, lugubrious, lachrymose crud that they drag out for every disaster aftermath. It has one purpose: to make us tear up and feel “empathy.” Why it is so important for CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/the Weather Channel/et al to make us cry I have no idea...
I'd been feeling so alone. The internet's a wonderful thing.
...because I don’t have the faith in Bush’s and FEMA’s godlike power to make everything all right that they have apparently betrayed I am unable to sympathize never mind empathize with this hyperbole. I wouldn’t be president in this unstable, infant-brained country for anything; sitting in the Oval Office must be like sitting in the middle of a giant nursery, and every baby has a full diaper.)
And that's not even the good stuff.
posted by Justin on 09.12.05 at 11:33 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2770
Comments
Andrea Harris:
Excellent. I wonder if she's related to Arnold Harris (man and a half) of Mount Horeb, WI.?
I, too, have had it with the media. I'm so glad I don't watch TV.
Well in this country we have done a lot to break local unity and citizenship. It comes from all sides and while the many in the "right" may emphasize responsibility they don't really hold to it in many ways. They have denigrated not just government but the value of the commons. Many have emphasized the value of selfishness.
In fact to regard Japan as "socialist" is a bit silly, the role of the central government is less, there is a different sort of collective focus. The nderstanding is in the details and a vague throwing of terms doesn't help. The simple fact of the matter is that under conservative Republicans such as Reagon and Bush we see large increases in GNP devoted to government and under all administrations the allegedly parasitical Democratic states give far more to the federal tax system they get back and allegedly slef sufficiency loving Republican states reap a nice surplus.
I could go on and on about the right and then make equal claims about the rest of the spectrum and the apolitical.
However to argue that we should not have activated military copters and forces within hours of knowing the tragedies extent, that a hospital ship which mved on it's own iniative should not be used because of alleged protocal and redtape (Blanco did in fact plead for everything) is silly. Those forces could have started to deploy rapidly and could have done a lot.
To argue that the federal role is to pump in tens of billions upon tens of billions upon tens of billions much of which will prove to be pork is questionable. Quick and forceful reaction was possible and it was not chosen. We had a director of Fema unaware of the catastrophe at the convention center and a president who tought no one could prdict the levies might break.
When faced with a major threat one of the original purposes of this government was to rapidly respond with the resouces of this nation. Localities can be overwhelmed. Now you argue against this and say the purpose is big contracts to KBR.
Rapid and effective response is wat "Homeland Security" promised. The claim won election.
One also expected a selection of priorities and based on reports the work on new Orleans should have been increased not cut. Yes Democrats and others played a part in a system where 200 million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska took priority, but it was the president's watch.
The right is confusing responsibility with listing the faults of and blaming the other guy, it's a five year old's ply and soon corrected by responsible parents. Yes local authoritis have a lot of responsibility to bear, but the guilt of others does not make one innocent.
observer · September 13, 2005 01:51 PM
Observer, you make a few good points, a few bad ones, and a few that are at right angles to the argument. Clearly, the response on all levels could have been better coordinated. Clearly, a faster more effective response would have saved lives. I believe such points are called truisms.
It would be an interesting exercise for you to compare the current crisis with some disasters of days gone by. How quickly did the feds move back then? Have they made progress? Backslid? Held steady? When the hysteria dies down, perhaps we can get a better grasp of what "really" happened. Or not. I expect the retrospective analysis will be long and agonizing.
I am not the one comparing Japan with a socialist polity. That would be Mr. Kinsell. Seeing as how he actually lives there, and has done so for ten years, I'm inclined to credit his insights over those of an anonymous commenter of unknown provenance. One thing's for sure. Sean knows a lot more about Japan than I do. Do you?
"to argue that we should not have activated military copters and forces within hours of knowing the tragedies extent..."
Funny, I can't find the part where I argue that.
What I hear from Sean, and totally agree with, is that you CANNOT COUNT on help from above in certain kinds of crisis. "They" can't be counted on to be timely. I don't much like it, but it's the reality of such situations. Do you disagree?
Probably not. I think you just wish things were different. Hey, take a number and get comfortable, it's a long line.
"When faced with a major threat one of the original purposes of this government was to rapidly respond with the resouces of this nation. Localities can be overwhelmed. Now you argue against this and say the purpose is big contracts to KBR."
This is simply wrong, as in historically inaccurate. Remember Davy Crockett? The Federal disaster aid speech? "Originally", the Federal government was a stunted, starveling pygmy, particularly when compared with today's robust leviathan. And again, where is it that I have actually SAID any of this stuff? KBR? Are you cutting and pasting from a mass mailing? How very presumptuous.
"Rapid and effective response is wat "Homeland Security" promised. The claim won election."
It was? And you believed them? Sheesh! And please, from where do you derive your assertion that "The claim won election."?
"One also expected a selection of priorities and based on reports the work on new Orleans should have been increased not cut."
Look, if you want to find fault, feel free. But don't put words in my mouth or assume that you know my inmost thoughts. I'm not a politician. I don't have a platform. If I haven't written the blog post that you think I should, go write one of your own.
The Great State of Louisiana had ample funds to do what was needful. Will they now complain that they weren't FORCED to spend those funds responsibly? Will they demand a federal takeover, based on their own incompetence? Will you?
What I'm gathering from your remarks is that Sean and I are guilty (in your eyes) of gross misperception. Neither of us is taking this situation seriously enough to suit you. Fine.
In the following statement, what do you disagree with?
In times of natural disaster, citizens may be cut off from organized relief agencies for long periods of time. They should make plans accordingly.
Do you reckon that might be another of those truisms?
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Andrea Harris:
Excellent. I wonder if she's related to Arnold Harris (man and a half) of Mount Horeb, WI.?
I, too, have had it with the media. I'm so glad I don't watch TV.