Civil Society

Cowardice is Eternal

by

Glenn posts about an interesting case.

Two subway workers in New York called the police when they witnessed a rape in progress, but didn’t do anything to physically stop the crime. A case brought against them was thrown out of court, the judge saying that calling the cops is all that is required of witnesses.

Glenn isn’t any too happy about the ruling. He says….

“In a previous day, in a different culture, such men would have been afraid of being called cowards for failing to help a woman under such circumstances.”

I don’t think Glenn remembers Kitty Genovese. That particular incident might not have occurred in another culture, but it certainly happened in a previous day.

Look at it this way. At least the New York residents who saw the crime called police this time around. That is certainly an improvement over past performance. Maybe, after another four or five decades, people who live in New York will even become as brave as those of us who hail from flyover country.

Those who follow the links above will no doubt note that two of the three examples are where people who were legally carrying concealed weapons confronted a crazed killer. Since New York effectively bans that sort of thing, we really can’t expect them to have the same level of civic concern. This is, I think, one of the points that Glenn was trying to make.

But also note that the last link leads to the story of two unarmed vacationers who tackled a rifle wielding gunman who was shooting at the White House. Neither of them were from New York.

Sound Wisdom

by

Interesting quote from this op-ed concerning North Korea.

For years, Kim Jong Il was rated (by using various rankings of national problems and achievement) the worst ruler on the planet. But this year, Kim Jong Il came in third place, behind Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe) and Sudan (Omar al Bashir). Things haven’t gotten any better in North Korea, they’ve just gotten much worse in Zimbabwe and Sudan.

Rush to Judgement

by

Some of the best read bloggers have been outraged by this news item. The headline reads…

“Fire kills child, 3, and parents as police prevent neighbours from trying to rescue them”

If anything is going to produce outrage, it would be an account of how young and innocent lives were lost when they could have been saved. And all through a pig-headed application of the rules, to boot.

But my buddy knirirr has pointed out one or two things that have been missed.

Firstly, the report says that the neighbours were “beaten back by flames” which suggests to me that the fire was so intense that they would not have been able to get in and save anyone anyway. If this was a fire at night and there were no alarms installed then it could well have been burning for some time before anyone noticed.

Secondly, if the police really did quote H&S then they might not necessarily have meant it in the bureaucratic jobsworth sense that the Samizdata article seems to imply. I wonder if they meant “it’s too late, you can’t save them, you’ll only get killed if you try” but stated that the rules said so out of some misplaced belief that people will be impressed by being told that It’s The Law and are more likely to obey. We cannot know, but if so it clearly failed to make an impression in this case.

I find it very difficult to believe that five British police officers would stand by and let young children burn if they thought there was a chance for unequipped and untrained hands to help. Oh, there might be one or two here or there who would not care to make an attempt if it might mean their job. But five??? It seems likely that at least one, and probably more, of the officers were a parent themselves. For some reason, I don’t think sociopaths alone choose the police as a career.

It seems to me that there are a fair number of areas where Great Britain might improve. It also seems fair to me when someone points them out. But I don’t think this news article is fair.

(Hat tip to Glenn.)

The Worlds of Benjamin Franklin & Franklin Raines

by

At some point we are likely to go back to looking at the world as we did a few generations back – the virtues of the 1950’s or the renunciatory sense of duty of the nineteenth century. If the Romantics & the French Revolution saw a response in the stiff upper lip, perhaps the disasters of today will bring back that same resolute look – perhaps instead of Sean Penn we will admire laconic heroes like Gary Cooper and self-deprecating ones like Jimmy Stewart. And if we do, perhaps we will value Benjamin Franklin’s advice and have little longing for Franklin Raines’ raincoat – value more what’s in our chests than covers our backs.

Perhaps the current economic crisis will force a re-examination of the assumptions Shannon describes so well. Each semester I ask my students to briefly discuss a variety of passages from early writers. One of my favorites is Benjamin Franklin’s argument against debt, that it tempts man to lie, that it undermines his freedom. Indeed, as he says, it is hard for an empty bag to stand upright. I like it because it counters D. H. Lawrence’s attack in an understated way. Franklin’s is not a romantic sense of self but a belief that protecting our essence, who we are, is important. His sense that the practical, the worldly & mundane, is an important factor seems much more interesting than the sex & melodrama of Lawrence’s dark passions.

Read more