« Shifting Sees | Main | One more time on Houston »
September 01, 2005
Peggy Noonan takes stock
President Bush. The political subtext: Does he understand that what has happened in our gulf is as important as what is happening in the other gulf? Does he know in his gut that the existence of looting, chaos and disease in a great American city, or cities, is a terrible blow that may have deep implications? It was bad luck that on the day it became clear a bad storm was a catastrophe he was giving a major Iraq speech, and bad planning that he arrived back at the White House cradling a yippy puppy. But his Rose Garden statement was solid. Yes, it was a laundry list, but the kind that that gives an impression of comprehensive government action. Having the cabinet there was good. His concern was obvious. But more was needed in terms of sending a U.S. military presence into New Orleans.
It's a wonder to me that some at the Corner (okay, I'm picking on them today) have had it with the 5-week Crawford vacation idea. Never again, please, they're saying.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3100546
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Peggy Noonan takes stock:
Comments
Ms. Noonan says:
As for the tragic piggism that is taking place on the streets of New Orleans, it is not unbelievable but it is unforgivable, and I hope the looters are shot.
I wish for law and order in NO as vigorously as anyone. But I find Noonan's, and others, zeal for shooting looters wrongheaded, both morally and logistically.
Posted by: David at Sep 1, 2005 7:32:41 AM
Not one of her best essays. Runs out of gas after she evaluates President Bush's C-minus performance in the period from Sunday through Tuesday. Worthwhile praise for the teevee types-haven't been a CNN fan for a while, but its wall-to-wall coverage of this disaster has been magnificent. She's too muddled about the looters- as in waive them off it they're carrying Lucky Charms, baby food, and bottles of Aquafina, but pop them when caught with the remaining Nikes, guns, or RocaWear sweatshirts. Glad I'm not a National Guardsman who has to make that decision today- too shaky for marching orders.
Posted by: Gerard E. at Sep 1, 2005 7:55:34 AM
On one of the major networks yesterday evening, one of the supervisors at an area that was receiving rescued rooftop refugees said that they did not even have water to give to the partially-dehydrated refugees. In a nation of iPods and space shuttles, it's an abomination that bottled water cannot be airlifted into these areas. Bush should send one of the Air Force One choppers down there if it's needed!
Posted by: walter at Sep 1, 2005 8:42:40 AM
If Katrina had happened last year, with this same level of spotty response, John Kerry would have been elected President.
Posted by: Larry at Sep 1, 2005 9:23:08 AM
If "ifs" and "buts" were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.
-Dandy Don Meredith
There'll be plenty of time for "what ifs" and playing the blame game later. It'd be nice if the Nation would come together in support of the victims at this time, and could give politics a rest for a few days.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Sep 1, 2005 9:36:13 AM
Thank you, K-Lo:
LOOTERS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
It's wrong and has to be cracked down on--probably by the National Guard or someone else military--no tolerance has to be the message. But I don't think the "looters should be shot on sight" instinct is a good one.
Posted at 10:18 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Posted by: David at Sep 1, 2005 9:38:54 AM
K-Lo's post is, in part, a reply to this an earlier Corner post:
"POST-KATRINA QUARTERBACKING [Warren Bell]
I didn't have any of the complaints about the Bush speech that I am reading from some. Perhaps it is a matter of context -- complainers seem to have been looking for an inspirational, uplifting statement of leadership. Nice as that might have been, I just wasn't expecting it. I remember seeing Gov. Jeb Bush on TV a hundred times last summer, in glasses and shirtsleeves, ready to work. He was running an operation, doing the job. That was what I expected from W, and I think I got it. He wasn't in shirtsleeves, though then again that might have been a little too Dilbert-y for the POTUS.
Meanwhile I think that those who complain that the federal government hasn't handled this effectively are missing the scope of the disaster. No organization on Earth could ever possibly have planned for this or be prepared for it. I am no Pollyanna -- obviously mistakes have been made, but perspective is needed for many of those quick to criticize and condemn.
And looters should be shot on sight.
Posted at 10:16 AM"
Posted by: David at Sep 1, 2005 9:43:05 AM
Peggy’s gone off the deep end. Blinded by Bush-worship and in love with all things military. Because in her mind only the military embodies all that is good and noble. I can imagine a certain post-hurricane fantasy of hers. The military is brought into New Orleans to restore order. A squad of M-16 wielding soldiers on patrol comes across a dozen knucklehead looters (“unforgivably”) scrounging through a flood damaged Wahlgreens and lays them all to waste, (“…and I hope the looters are shot.”) She watches a report of the incident on Fox news and nods approvingly. (“Kill them all and let God sort them out.”) And then changes the channel to CSPAN to listen to the President’s latest speech extolling American values (stealing a vacuum cleaner is a capital crime, looters have it coming) at Camp Someplace. The military audience applauds supportively. Seriously, I am a conservative and had really respected Peggy Noonan and her insights. But that shoot-the-miscreant opinion was just so primitive. For the last four years she has been drinking the self-reinforcing bathwater of the Bush philosophy. There is just something oddly missing and askew and ungenerous and insular in their way of thinking. One can’t help but be disaffected. Many conservatives that I know are quickly wobbling out of that orbit.
Posted by: SteveM at Sep 1, 2005 10:22:00 AM
From NBC news:
"New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin on Wednesday night ordered the city's 1,500 police officers to leave their search-and-rescue mission and focus on stopping the looting.
Looters and armed gangs “are starting to get closer to heavily populated areas — hotels, hospitals and we’re going to stop it right now,” Nagin said."
And that's only part of it. Rescue helicopters are afraid to land after one got shot at.
When a city's entire police officer has to be deployed to stop armed thugs the situation is very serious. It is really shooting yourself in the foot when you are firing on the very people trying to help you.
Posted by: Christine at Sep 1, 2005 11:49:28 AM
A squad of M-16 wielding soldiers on patrol comes across a dozen knucklehead looters...
Are people reading the same news reports I have been over the past few days? To be sure, we should not have soldiers laying looters to waste, as this poster puts it, but "knucklehead" sounds a bit too quaint given how violent the "scrounging through a flood damaged Wahlgreens" has become.
The assumption that the looters are just amicably grabbing food, flashlights, radios, batteries and other items to survive is as naive as the assumption that they are all thugs deserving to be killed is simplistic. Fact is, some of these looters are just trying to survive, and others are killing or shooting at each other or law enforcement in order to keep the booty they have taken.
Posted by: Ronny at Sep 1, 2005 11:50:22 AM
Meant to say "when a city's entire police force has to be deployed"
Posted by: Christine at Sep 1, 2005 11:50:42 AM
"But that shoot-the-miscreant opinion was just so primitive."
I'm not out there cheering to see people shot, but honestly, in primative situations you sometimes have to get back to basics.
The stripe of looters who are shooting at rescue helecopters and attacking police stations with AK-47s are (intentionally or not) impeding rescue and aid to tens of thousands of people. And this isn't exactly a situation where they can be politely escorted to a prison resort.
Should people scrounging for food and water be shot, of course not. (And I don't think that's what she's suggesting.) But should the people who are looting and then torching buildings and shooting at rescue workers be shot -- most definately.
Posted by: DarwinCatholic at Sep 1, 2005 12:50:27 PM
Here's more of what Peggy Noonan said:
"As for the tragic piggism that is taking place on the streets of New Orleans, it is not unbelievable but it is unforgivable, and I hope the looters are shot. A hurricane cannot rob a great city of its spirit, but a vicious citizenry can. A bad time with Mother Nature can leave you digging out for a long time, but a bad turn in human behavior frays and tears all the ties that truly bind human being--trust, confidence, mutual regard, belief in the essential goodness of one's fellow citizens.
There seems to be some confusion in terms of terminology on TV. People with no food and water who are walking into supermarkets and taking food and water off the shelves are not criminal, they are sane. They are not looters, they are people who are attempting to survive; they are taking the basics of survival off shelves in stores where there isn't even anyone at the cash register.
Looters are not looking to survive; they're looking to take advantage of the weakness of others. They are predators. They're taking not what they need but what they want. They are breaking into stores in New Orleans and elsewhere and stealing flat screen TVs and jewelry, guns and CD players. They are breaking into homes and taking what those who have fled trustingly left behind. In Biloxi, Miss., looters went from shop to shop. "People are just casually walking in and filling up garbage bags and walking off like they're Santa Claus," the owner of a Super 8 Motel told the London Times. On CNN, producer Kim Siegel reported in the middle of the afternoon from Canal Street in New Orleans that looters were taking "everything they can.""
Again, she's not restricting "looters" to those stealing guns, brandishing them, and firing at civilians and police.
She's including Joe Schmuck who's stealing a TV in her "hope the looters are shot" wish.
I think that's both wrong AND foolish.
Posted by: David at Sep 1, 2005 1:22:15 PM
David,
Exactly. And she typed that well ensconced in her comfortable apartment in New York. Shoot the guy because he clipped a TV! And the NR crowd applauds. I think of Dorothy Day and that whole mindset seems so alien to a reflective, holistic Christian sensibility.
Steve
Posted by: SteveM at Sep 1, 2005 1:40:41 PM
Well, to her credit, Kathryn Lopez of NRO isn't applauding this sort of thing. And she's taking some heat for it.
Posted by: David at Sep 1, 2005 1:42:42 PM
David,
Allowing people to steal TV's will only encourage more to break into people's houses. I'm getting reports about people I KNOW who are having to scare off looters. I'm praying for the Marines to go in there. It is wrong and foolish and unforgivable for this nation to allow the looters to interfere with rescue efforts and finish off whatever property wasn't destroyed by the wind, floods and fire.
Posted by: Catherine L at Sep 1, 2005 1:47:19 PM
Catherine L,
I think what David and I are saying is that there is a big difference between “stopping” someone from stealing a TV and consciously executing them for stealing a TV. This is a real question, at what point is summary execution for theft morally permissible? (I interpret Noonan’s article as advocating that.)
Steve
Posted by: SteveM at Sep 1, 2005 2:05:51 PM
I think, also, you've got to think about the right priorities in what is playing out as a vast humanitarian tragedy. Saving the lives of the many at risk is vastly more important than making sure televisions and jewelry aren't stolen.
Maintaining law and order is a part of this humanitarian mission. But it can be done without the sort of draconian measures that some are thoughtlessly wishing for.
Posted by: David at Sep 1, 2005 2:31:10 PM
Peggy Noonan's not the only one who too casually throws out this "shoot them" line.
So did Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame:
"I agree with Jonah Goldberg that it's one thing for desperate people to help themselves to bottled water, food, or diapers from abandoned stores, and another to just sack those places for valuables. People doing the latter should be shot."
http://instapundit.com/archives/025258.php
Glenn's done, and is, doing good work coordinating blog suggestions on helping out in the aftermath of Katrina. But, IMO, he's wrong to make such a suggestion.
Posted by: David at Sep 1, 2005 2:45:39 PM
"I think, also, you've got to think about the right priorities in what is playing out as a vast humanitarian tragedy. Saving the lives of the many at risk is vastly more important than making sure televisions and jewelry aren't stolen."
David, you are correct in the abstract. The reality is that these are extremely violent individuals roaming the streets with weapons. This situation is more akin to fighting the insurgency in Baghdad than having the NO police apprehend an armed robber. These people are PREVENTING the rescue of lives. The recent reports of sniping at patient evacuees from Charity hosptial bear this out.
I know the neighborhood Charity hospital is in. Believe me, gunshots occur daily in that are, even before the storm.
Posted by: Catherine L at Sep 1, 2005 3:46:00 PM
"Looting" formula and pampers or bottled water and batteries is one thing but "looting" a pair of jeans and the latest Coach hand bag is uncalled for. With the stores closed the former is acceptable the latter not. The former worthy of understanding,, the latter worthy of Messrs. Smith and Wesson!!!
Posted by: Donie at Sep 1, 2005 4:01:10 PM
How about we take the middle way?
Armed looters who do not immediately disarm when called upon to do so should be shot?
Posted by: Boniface McInnes at Sep 1, 2005 6:01:48 PM
Here's a link to a discussion of these matters at Prof. Bainbridge's blog:
http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/09/shooting_looter.html#trackback
Please note that nowhere in my comments have I claimed or relied on the idea that no looters should be shot in any circumstances.
I think an armed looter, shooting at innocents and police, can be licitly shot either by a member of the armed forces (police, National Guard) or by a civilian defending those innocents. I think double effect reasoning here would justify shooting with the intent to protect innocent lives, even if the injury or death of the assaliant would be a foreseeable (unintended) side-effect.
What I was objecting to in Noonan's remarks was conflating the cases of the armed looter menacing others with the unarmed looter who was stealing non-necessary items AND her hope that guns would start blazing. That "hope" of hers too directly links one's intention to the killing itself.
Posted by: David at Sep 2, 2005 8:22:09 AM
"or by a civilian defending those innocents."
After further thought, I'll withdraw (or qualify) that part.
Even if double effect reasoning applies here, you'd have to determine that the use of private force won't make the entire situation worse.
That's why it's so important for National Guard troops to get into these areas and establish order as soon as possible.
Posted by: David at Sep 2, 2005 9:28:01 AM
It is also important to consider the legal context within which we're asking the moral question.
According to Eugene Volokh of UCLA, it is illegal, in the state of Lousiana, for a private citizen to shoot looters.
"it might be worth remembering that, under Louisiana law — which generally (with some exceptions not applicable here) doesn't allow the use of deadly force to defend property — the shooting of looters by private citizens is a crime: the crime of murder."
http://volokh.com/
Posted by: David at Sep 2, 2005 11:34:57 AM
