Mike and Irene
Seldom do I disagree with the New York Post, whose wisdom about Gotham is unrivalled. I do, however, find myself mildly dissenting from its editorial on Irene, in which it criticized people who were second-guessing all the decisions by Mayor Bloomberg: to order people in parts of the city to leave their homes, to close down the subway, etc. When the damage from Irene is toted up, I should think that in addition to the cost of replacing the homes, infrastructure, cars and other property that was lost or damaged we should add to that calculation the costs inflicted on those who had to go stay in a hotel, lost days of work because there was no public transport or lost sales from their businesses because employees could not come in and so forth.
I don't know the answer. I was glad to see the New York Sun, as usual, asking all the right questions, and offering a take no one else had. In an editorial called "Heroes of the Storm," The Sun expressed some sympathy for those who refused to evacuate their homes, and put it in the context of the nanny state.
What they understood, we speculate, is that the mayor made the same mistake in both storms. During the blizzard, his mistake was in failing to keep the streets plowed and the business, subways, and taxis moving. In respect of Irene, his mistake was the same. He failed to keep buses and subways moving so that people could get to work, to hospitals, and stores. In the first case, the mayor made an error of omission; he was asleep at the switch. In the case of Irene, it was an error of commission. The Incredible Hulk of Nanny Bloomberg took over and forced the buses off the road and shut down the government on the theory that he knows better than New Yorkers what is good for them.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Mike and Irene
We are all frightened women now. We give up in adversity. Bloomberg and the media turn a significant, but hardly catastrophic storm into Armageddon to hide their incompetence--because no one can expect things to keep running during Armageddon. Except it wasn't Armageddon.
Apr '11
Re: Mike and Irene
The one thing never mentioned in this situation is how irresponsible the authorities were. This is a "cry wolf" situation. It was pretty obvious 24 hours prior to landfall that Irene wasn't going to hit New York as a hurricane, but as a tropical storm. Next time, people won't listen and won't take any warnings seriously. This is a hard lesson we had to learn in Tornado Alley.
Jun '10
Re: Mike and Irene
Weather emergencies and the resulting responsibilities of emergency services to rescue or assist those impacted are quite real. By leaving huge numbers of citizens in the path of a hurricaine, Bloomberg would have been putting both their lives and the lives of the rescue workers at risk. That doesn't fall into the category of nanny state stuff, like insisting we must have calorie counts posted on the menu at a fast food joint because we are too dumb to know a Big Mac is fattening. It's the very essence of what government should be doing. Safety & infrastructure.
Jan '11
Re: Mike and Irene
Our country has officially lost its freedom.
Why? Because it is abundantly clear that public policy is no longer driven by any assessment of the public welfare. It is now entirely driven by the determination of politicians to cover their behinds at any cost. Wait - amend that to 'any cost to the politicians.'
We already endure the disaster of politicians throwing money at the poor, trying to sooth their conscience and improve their image as ... caring ... and compassionate ... leaders. We don't have any more money? Don't worry - spend it anyway!
Now, every politician remembers Katrina and has decided that there's no way they're going to get tagged with that. Every pundit on the Sunday shows assured us that no politician can afford to look like Bush.
There was once a dynamic tension between individual freedom and collective security. Not anymore. When it comes to security, you are no longer allowed to make decisions. The government has taken over that responsibility for you.
Bend over, grab your ankles ...
Jan '11
Re: Mike and Irene
"Leaving?" "Putting lives at risk?"
With respect, StickerShock, Bloomberg doesn't leave anyone anywhere. He has no authority over people, and he's not responsible for their lives. He's a public official who only has authority over those who work under him.
The fact that his public image will suffer does not give him authority over others.
Re: Mike and Irene
Member Michael Horn has a great conversation over on the Member Feed revolving around the question, "Does the state have the right to force citizens to evacuate?"
Jun '10
Re: Mike and Irene
KC Mulville
"Leaving?" "Putting lives at risk?"
With respect, StickerShock, Bloomberg doesn't leave anyone anywhere. He has no authority over people, and he's not responsible for their lives. He's a public official who only has authority over those who work under him.
The fact that his public image will suffer does not give him authority over others. · Aug 30 at 4:38pm
The fire department, police, EMS, public health/hospital system employees all work under Bloomberg. If he were not responsible for the lives of NYC's citizens, none of those departments would exist. He is responsible for the safety of millions.
If citizens ignore the call to clear out, lives are put at risk when emergency workers must work to rescue them. Being stuck in a high rise elevator or flooded subway tunnel is a dangerous situation. As has been posted here on other threads, a complicated, enormous city like NY takes many hours to power down and prepare for the onslaught of major storms.
Jan '11
Re: Mike and Irene
That's a logical fallacy; you assume what you're trying to prove. You're assuming that emergency workers must rescue them, even if the citizens refuse to be rescued. But that's precisely what we're debating - does government have that responsibility, and therefore the authority? I say no.
We all assume that sane people want to be rescued, so we take cooperation for granted. But here's a case where it shouldn't be taken for granted. Government has no prior right to dictate your decisions and is not responsible -more than you are- for your own safety.
Jan '11
Re: Mike and Irene
Consider your logic. Let's compare it to teachers. They work under Bloomberg. Does that mean teachers have a right to "override" what you teach your children?
If a citizen obstructs emergency workers, that's different. But we're talking about people who decided to stay in their own homes.
The flip side is whether you think that individuals bear any responsibility (or wield any authority) for their own safety? If so, who bears more, government or individual?
May '10
Re: Mike and Irene
Anyone who thumbs his nose at Mayor Nanny McFussypants is a hero in my book. I've never evacuated from a hurricane. And never needed help. Because they're just storms, for the love of Pete.
NYC was never in any danger. Irene did exactly what it was predicted to do, which to anyone paying attention, was nothing. Thankfully, more people were paying attention to facts than to Bloomberg.
Jun '10
Re: Mike and Irene
"Consider your logic. Let's compare it to teachers. They work under Bloomberg. Does that mean teachers have a right to "override" what you teach your children?"
The role of teachers is to present a set curriculum. Much of that may indeed conflict with what a family believes, so teachers are often overrriding what is taught at home. It frequently happend to my kids in both public & Catholic schools. School boards, administrators, and parents tangle all the time.
"You're assuming that emergency workers must rescue them, even if the citizens refuse to be rescued."
That's reality. I would love to see rescue workers operate under the certainty that they won't be fired, or worse, sued because they failed to save the life of an uncooperative citizen who would not comply with the worker's request. But that's not how it works and we all know it. You have to change the mission/charter of EMS, fire, and police departments, and back it up with firm legal protections, in order to shift responsibility for an individual's safety back onto the individual (where it absolutely belongs.)
Jan '11
Re: Mike and Irene
As I say, that's true, but the local school board can't stop you from teaching your children whatever you want. They can teach different things, but their authority to teach your children doesn't override yours, to the point that they can prevent you from teaching your children.
In the same way, if you don't want to be rescued (or you refuse to evacuate), a local official doesn't have the right to override your decision and take you out anyway.
Otherwise, what do individuals rights mean?
Jun '10
Re: Mike and Irene
KC -- We surrender individual rights all the time. Laws requiring mandatory vaccinations, compliance with zoning and property maintenence rules and standards, controlled substance prohibitions, and thousands of others. As George Castanza said, "We live in a society!" It's a delicate dance with individual autonomy often having to bend to community needs.