Unfortunately, in this democratic country, the effort of the Bush
administration to radically reduce government, coupled with his "take
personal responsibility" (aka: you are on your own) attitude is moving
government itself out of the field of all-hazard disaster preparedness
and response. The results are obvious, and beg the question - if
government is not there to protect our lives and property, especially
for those who cannot take care of themselves, what is it there for? The
cynical answer seems to be that President Bush thinks it should not be
there at all. The non-cynical answer I have yet to see well articulated.
Kevin W. Geiger
-----Original Message-----
From: Natural hazards and disasters
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peiser,
Benny
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 10:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: nation state
I very much doubt that there is an existential crisis of the nation
state, particularly not in democratic countries that tend to address
societal or economic problems or those
caused by natural disasters by way of throwing incompetent governemts
out of power. Obviously, every large-scale disaster triggeres a sever
crisis, but in most cases
these are short-term and, if handled effetively, overcome fairly
quickly. I suggest
that people interested in the welfare of disaster victims should focus
on the real
failures that have occurred during the Katrina tragedy so that emergency
managers and relief organisations are better prepared for all the future
disasters that are inevitable. I fail to see how a philosphical debate
about the nation state can benefit anyone affected by recent or future
disasters.
Benny Peiser
|