Jabbor Gibson, American Hero

Hooray, a sign that somebody understood the importance of getting the hell out of New Orleans, even if it meant liberating some of the publically-owned rolling stock city officials inexplicably opted to leave idle. Eighteen-year-old Jabbor Gibson claimed an abandoned school bus and drove about 100 people nonstop, for seven hours, to Houston.

Ninety-nine more clear thinkers do that and 10,000 people are out of the worst of conditions, not a bad tally. Governmental efforts to get people out of the city simply were not effective and ended far, far too soon. Single-direction traffic out of New Orleans was halted at 4:00pm on Sunday, hours before the storm's Monday morning landfall.

Katrina's Lesson: It is always easier and safer to move people away from a bad place than it is to get good things to people in a bad place.

Comments

* | September 2, 2005, 7:43pm | #

There's a photo out there somewhere of a flooded New Orleans parking lot full of big yellow school buses. I counted, and there are at least 205 of them. At 80 people each, that's 16,400 poor people evacuated.

Dynamist | September 2, 2005, 8:19pm | #

It is always easier and safer to move people away from a bad place

Which was, in fact, the plan. But since so many didn't heed the warning, it doesn't matter how many buses were where.

matt | September 2, 2005, 8:29pm | #

A link to the flooded lot full of buses:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

matt | September 2, 2005, 8:31pm | #

Heh...I just realized that Jeff already linked to that in the original post. Oh well.

ChicagoTom | September 2, 2005, 8:32pm | #

From the News Channel 5 article:
Authorities eventually allowed the renegade passengers inside the dome. But the 18-year-old who ensured their safety could find himself in a world of trouble for stealing the school bus.

EVENTUALLY allowed them in? Is the situation under such great control that some people are debating if only "rescuer approved" refugees are allowed in the Dome?

And who in their right mind would try and arrest this kid for evacuating 100 people by "stealing" and abandoned bus and driving it to the AstroDome. I mean I know he violated property rights but....

Mike | September 2, 2005, 8:34pm | #

The Mayor sure has some 'splaining to do. Inexcusable. Also, from the Powerline blog, an emergency worker said that local emergency vehicles should have been evacuated for later use but this didn't happen. Now, police cars and ambulances are under water.

Flyover Country | September 2, 2005, 8:34pm | #

Why the hell didn't Bush get his vacationing ass down there to drive those people out on those buses. There's no way the mayor or governor could have done that. It's a job for the federal government. If all the bus drivers weren't in Iraq, they could have driven everybody out.

Sorry.

I was channeling joe for a minute.

Flyover Country | September 2, 2005, 8:39pm | #

Mike,

You don't understand, the mayor needed FEMA to provide drivers for those buses.

How do you expect the mayor and governor to hava any idea what to do in a hurrican? Louisiana has never been hit by a hurricane before.

/sarcasm off

Ammonium | September 2, 2005, 8:53pm | #

I'm sure they couldn't take those buses because there are some local/state/federal laws that only certain people can drive busses at certain times and only certain people can drive in them.

It's true that only a small fraction of people would take buses if offered (only a small fraction bothered to go to shelters). But at least it would have allowed those responsible people to have a more livable place than they had in the Superdome, laying in their own waste. Plus it would have allowed the 250 national guard troops to do the necessary preparations to insert the rest of the guard into the city.

ChicagoTom: That bus showed up at the Astrodome three hours before any buses were expected. They had been turning everybody away up to that point.

jf | September 2, 2005, 9:02pm | #

I think the only right thing is for Bush to give this kid the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I actually cried watching that news video. "American Hero" indeed.

Not David | September 2, 2005, 9:10pm | #

If this kid does "find himself in a world of trouble" I'll gladly donate to his legal defense fund.

joe | September 2, 2005, 9:13pm | #

Flyover's sounding desperate.

I'd want to make up arguments to refute, too.

Ha ha.

jf | September 2, 2005, 9:16pm | #

For what it's worth, I've started a Wikipedia page on Mr. Gibson.

Phil | September 2, 2005, 9:33pm | #

Which was, in fact, the plan. But since so many didn't heed the warning, it doesn't matter how many buses were where.

Since none of the people who sat there and happily collected tax money from these people for decades bothered to actually send any buses, I guess we'll never know, huh? Some plan. If you don't conduct it, blame the people who didn't follow it. It's win-win!

Ruthless | September 2, 2005, 9:49pm | #

The secret of deposing bad leaders has never been to "take them out."
The secret is to expedite the extraction of their so-called followers.
Hopefully most of you understand that providing generously for refugees is the key.

Years ago, I learned of the U N's High Commissioner of Refugees. Never had any respect for the twit. (Twits, over the years.)

Continuing my train, perhaps the time has come for a "boat lift" of refugees to Kuber?

What say, Fidel?

jf | September 2, 2005, 9:51pm | #

Ruthless, you are deliciously confusing, as always. Love the post, don't understand the meaning of the series of consonants and vowels within it. Can you link to more information?

Ruthless | September 2, 2005, 10:38pm | #

jf,
Haf you got a purdy mouf?

panurge | September 2, 2005, 10:59pm | #

This is a great story of heroism. With all the physical and emotional hell raging around him, one individual cut through all the fear, confusion, and violence and saved lives with a simple act of common sense.

If the government prosecutes him, I think we should start up an online legal defense fund and get the word out. I would be the first to contribute a Ben Franklin or two.

Ira Weatheral | September 2, 2005, 11:03pm | #

If that kid wasn't 18 I'd say run him as the libertarian candidate in 08!

thoreau | September 2, 2005, 11:23pm | #

I will also contribute to his defense fund if he gets into legal trouble.

independent worm | September 3, 2005, 12:24am | #

He won't need a defense fund. If any jurisdiction really is stupid enough to fuck themselves by actually putting Mr. Gibson on trial, they'll find themselves matched up against an army of the finest lawyers in America, working pro bono.

The Lonewacko Blog | September 3, 2005, 12:54am | #

The un-PC question is why more people didn't do something like this, and whether liberal-driven government policies have anything to do with it.

BTW, "Randall the Cannibal" Robinson is being chided by a loony cohort. Apparently the Weekly Standard is oddly similar to the Turner Diaries.

mediageek | September 3, 2005, 1:22am | #

Greta van Susteren (sp) is interviewing Jabbor.

Kid took the initiative.

JDM | September 3, 2005, 1:32am | #

I'm going to donate something to this kid whether he needs it for a defense fund or not.

The Reason Foundation ought to set up a Jabbor Gibson Honorary Scholarship Fund. Give it to someone who shows the kind of spontaneous beneficial organization in the absence of coercive authority that libertarians love. The first recipient should be Jabbor Gibson. I promise to send in a fat check.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 3, 2005, 1:58am | #

So was Jabbor Gibson a looter or did he just find that bus?

Viderelux | September 3, 2005, 2:05am | #

Mike's right, the mayor of NO is the big loser. An 18 year old kid out-thought him.

Windypundit | September 3, 2005, 2:18am | #

Forget the scholarship. I say we make him the next Mayor of New Orleans.

andy_d | September 3, 2005, 4:15am | #

Windy, that's hardly a way to honor someone... putting them up as mayor of a dead city.

noise | September 3, 2005, 7:18am | #

JDM that was my first thought as well after reading this story. I also would send a fat check for this kids education.

sidereal | September 3, 2005, 7:28am | #

Wait.. property rights violated. . good?

Shortly after another thread which celebrated a man stealing another man's bolt cutters at gunpoint as being an exemplar of the utility of the 2nd amendment?

Clearly the Randian macho survivalist dickwaving aspect of modern libertarianism is ascendant these days, while the Rothbardians flee to Lew's blog.

Or maybe Rothbard would have stolen the bus, too. Surely Snake Plissken would have, and who could gainsay him? It's all so confusing these days.

Ruthless | September 3, 2005, 9:03am | #

sidereal,
In cases like NOLA, Newtonian Libertarianism is set aside for quantum Libertarianism.

Explain it to him thoreau (physicist).

thoreau | September 3, 2005, 9:15am | #

sidereal-

First, as much as I like this forum, I don't know that the sentiments here are "ascendant." Which is too bad, because I'd like it if they were.

Second, the city bought those buses for the "public good" ("public use"?). But they were left unused in an emergency where they were direly needed ("blighted"?) so he took initiative ("exercised eminent domain"?) and put those buses to a more productive use.

See, he's basically the disaster relief version of joe! Except that if one wants to be uber-libertarian here, the government never had a legitimate claim on those buses in the first place (they were bought with tax $).

Third, if the stolen bolt cutters that you refer to are the story of the looters who were relieved of their bolt cutters after they tried to rob the guy, I see nothing wrong with disarming a looter and then sending him on his way.

thoreau | September 3, 2005, 9:20am | #

BTW, as much as I admire this kid, I hope nobody here will be too disappointed if it turns out that he isn't a libertarian. I mean, I admire him and all, but my fear is that the people putting him on a pedestal will get disappointed if he voted for Kerry in the fall (assuming he was already 18 in November).

Now, I think his example is worthy of an award or scholarship regardless of who he voted for (actions speak louder than votes, especially if you believe that the greatest change comes from voluntary endeavors). But if somebody starts an award or scholarship or whatever and it turns out that he isn't a real libertarian, I'm sure that somebody will cancel a subscription over it.

Larry A | September 3, 2005, 11:07am | #

The Reason Foundation ought to set up a Jabbor Gibson Honorary Scholarship Fund. Give it to someone who shows the kind of spontaneous beneficial organization in the absence of coercive authority that libertarians love. The first recipient should be Jabbor Gibson. I promise to send in a fat check.

Right on! If a kid takes the initiative and saves lives, send him to college. That'll teach him not to color outside the lines.

Jesse Walker | September 3, 2005, 11:29am | #

Wait.. property rights violated. . good?

I'm remind of that character in Dr. Strangelove. "I can't shoot that ... it's the property of the Coca-Cola company."

At any rate, it's already been established that the bus had been abandoned, not "stolen."

Devin McCullen | September 3, 2005, 11:30am | #

This is way off-discussion, but I'm a little confused by one of the accusations in the introduction. Did stopping the contraflow at 4 PM Sunday actually make a difference in the evacuation? Bash Nagin all you want for not using the city's resources to get more people out of town, but I haven't heard about people who had the means to escape and didn't because of traffic.

wsdave | September 3, 2005, 11:37am | #

Threadjack:

Here's an idea: The state should use eminent domain to claim the whole of NO and sell it to Disney, who would then turn it into "Little Venice" (after all, the whole place is now Canal Street), complete with it's own island of French Quarter.

When the floods come ach year, it would just be saving Disney money (water they wouldn't have to pump in).

Akira MacKenzie | September 3, 2005, 12:10pm | #

Here's an idea: The state should use eminent domain to claim the whole of NO and sell it to Disney, who would then turn it into "Little Venice" (after all, the whole place is now Canal Street), complete with it's own island of French Quarter.

Yeah, then let's watch Maudi Gras turn into a family-values-snooze-fest that Mom, the kids, and GM can enjoy.

Shannon Love | September 3, 2005, 12:27pm | #

Its really startling that it appears that the city and state did nothing at all to help people evacuate. It appears that anybody who did make it out did so on their own initiative. I find it incredible for example that after issuing an evacuation order that resulted in 80% of the population leaving the city, nothing was done to evacuate the residents of nursing homes.

I can't help but wonder whether the local and state governments had become so dependent on the idea that the Feds would rescue them that they lost all local initiative.

Tim Higgins | September 3, 2005, 1:28pm | #

Shannon Love,

"I can't help but wonder whether the local and state governments had become so dependent on the idea that the Feds would rescue them that they lost all local initiative."

That would certainly fit with the "Uncle Sam won't pay for new levees, so I guess we can't fix them ourselves" that seems to have gone on.

The Wine Commonsewer | September 3, 2005, 1:40pm | #

Did stopping the contraflow at 4 PM Sunday actually make a difference in the evacuation?

I'm sure it did and the early evacuation was 12 hours of stalled traffic going out of town with the incoming lanes empty. It took them a LONG time to figure out that they really ought to open both sides to outbound traffic and then, like the effen idiots they are, they closed the incoming side at 4:00 on Sunday. It never occurred to the bureacrats who brainstormed this that they weren't letting people come into the city anyway so why bother.

GCuz | September 3, 2005, 1:40pm | #

Is there some source for calling these school buses "publicly owned"? Its a sticking point in a debate I'm having with someone right now. I know some bus drivers who own their buses and either drive them or rent them out to other drivers. I am told in some places that all buses are publicly owned. So I dont think one can assume either way. I am finding even non-libertarians bringing up the "private property- no right to use" argument. I would like to disagree with them, but nothing tells me they are wrong.

GCuz | September 3, 2005, 1:43pm | #

Doesnt Disney have stuff like "gay Days"? So their ownership of NO would be just as sinful and likely to be struck down by God.

Phil | September 3, 2005, 1:47pm | #

I find it incredible for example that after issuing an evacuation order that resulted in 80% of the population leaving the city, nothing was done to evacuate the residents of nursing homes.

Haven't you gotten the official talking points yet? They Chose To Stay Behind. Beat that drum! I'll make sure you get the fax.

jf | September 3, 2005, 2:24pm | #

That would certainly fit with the "Uncle Sam won't pay for new levees, so I guess we can't fix them ourselves" that seems to have gone on.

Excellent point, and one that I would have made had I the right words (I isn't good with words).

Uncle Sam | September 3, 2005, 2:31pm | #

Hundreds of buses in a lot are publically owned; count on it.

Captain Awesome | September 3, 2005, 2:41pm | #

wsdave: Here's an idea: The state should use eminent domain to claim the whole of NO and sell it to Disney, who would then turn it into "Little Venice" (after all, the whole place is now Canal Street), complete with it's own island of French Quarter.

Akira MacKenzie: Yeah, then let's watch Maudi Gras turn into a family-values-snooze-fest that Mom, the kids, and GM can enjoy.

How about Vivid?

sidereal | September 3, 2005, 2:41pm | #

thoreau-

"Second,.. he took initiative ("exercised eminent domain"?) and put those buses to a more productive use."

So. . eminent domain is a libertarian rallying point now? You're not reducing my confusion. I'm assuming it's some kind of backatcha "aha! he's using your principles against you, left-winger!", which would presume both that I support eminent domain and that bringing it up is somehow a defense of non-libertarian behavior in a crisis, rather than a deflection.

"Except that if one wants to be uber-libertarian here, the government never had a legitimate claim on those buses in the first place (they were bought with tax $)."

This is the absurd argument by which what's-his-industrialist starts appropriating gold from US ships at sea in Rand's what's-its-diatribe. This is what I mean by the Randian dick-waving version of libertarian, where might makes right as long as the protagonist uses the right platitudes while appropriating. Presuming you actually believe in the claim, can you lay out the conditions under which a private citizen can reclaim their criminally taxed goods? Are they allowed to steal things used for activities that even non-archist libertarians support a state role in? Tanks, or something? Is it a free-for-all? Can I take whatever public goods I want, or no more than I've been taxed? Is there some system where we take turns, or is it first come first serve? Is the principle that ill-gotten gains are free game generally applied? For instance, can the Canarsee Delaware tribe take back Manhattan island whenever they feel like it?

"Third, if the stolen bolt cutters that you refer to are the story of the looters who were relieved of their bolt cutters after they tried to rob the guy, I see nothing wrong with disarming a looter and then sending him on his way."

Is that the story? I read it again and it seemed ambiguous. Certainly looting was occuring, and the three young men were in the area with bolt-cutters, but there's no explicit indicator that those men were looting. Surely, disarming someone forcibly because they're in the wrong area and look seedy is just the sort of thing the state would love to do, so celebrating it is hardly a resounding defense of the 2nd amendment.

My point is that the betrayal of libertarian principles of property rights in a crisis is a pretty strong indicator that you believe that libertarianism is a sort of fair-weather philosophy that works when everyone is already basically getting along, but when the shit hits the fan, it's best to revert to some other unspecified, more intuitive morality. I mean, it's easy to be libertarian when you have a nice car and a TV and you want everyone else to keep their hands off them. If you abandon the idea when people are dying and you're the guy that wants the bus, you never believed it in the first place.

js | September 3, 2005, 2:45pm | #

Does it matter if they were publicly owned? If the dude had stole a uhaul truck to get the hell out of there would it have significantly changed anything? What if only an unused uhaul truck had been available?

Biff | September 3, 2005, 3:09pm | #

libertarianism is a sort of fair-weather philosophy that works when everyone is already basically getting along, but when the shit hits the fan, it's best to revert to some other unspecified, more intuitive morality.

I'm not sure what's wrong with this, exactly. Advocates of any political philosophy will probably have to concede that in times of crisis, you need to take special measures that may involve violating principles that hold during normal times.

As a (very-)left-libertarian myself, I probably define "crisis" more broadly than most around here, but I can still endorse the idea that under normal circumstances, consistent respect for property rights is essential to a civil, moral society.

db | September 3, 2005, 3:11pm | #

I sure wouldn't want to be caught in Texas with a load of people in the back of a U-Haul.

Seriously, If he had taken an U-Haul he would have been arrested and charged with carrying passengers in an inappropriate vehicle. That's after they figured out he wasn't smuggling wetbacks (at least in the conventional sense) into the country.

js | September 3, 2005, 3:21pm | #

Actually, I think the situation may perfectly map to a "Tragedy of the Commons" model.

The problem when it comes to an "anything goes" (including stealing busses) philosophy in times of emergencies, is the social breakdown it can lead to if widely practiced. And the problem with this social breakdown, is that it can actually result in more people dying than would have if everyone just followed "the rules", even though the rules may also lead to some people dying NEEDLESSLY. In a truely chaotic situation it is harder to get aid to people that it would be otherwise (witness Iraq or any other preferable war torn hellhole on earth).

So from a social perspective everyone stealing busses or looting food or whatever in times of emergency, might not be a good idea.

However, from an individualistic perspective, survival is primary, and what harm does stealing one bus do anyway? And who can blame anyone for doing so? Frankly I can only hope and pray that if I was in a similar situation I'd have the guts and presence of mind to do the same - to save my own life and perchance that of others too.

Yes I hold my surival in high regard, and you can call that Randianism, but it's a red herring. A lot of beliefs place some premium on physical survival, and they don't necessarily believe in objectivism, greed, or heck even capitalism! Hint: why else, afterall is it said that people have a "right to self defense"?

If this situation is a true "tragedy of the commons" situation, it present no easy answer. The main focus should probably be placed elsewhere. The whole crisis was horribly, horrendously, mismanaged from first to last. The government officials are the ones who should be sent to prison, instead of a dude just trying to save his life and that of others.

GCuz | September 3, 2005, 3:28pm | #

But if "The Rules" are made by "Rulers" without a fucking clue or who tell you to go strand yourself in a shelter of shit, then what?

db | September 3, 2005, 3:34pm | #

Here's an interesting one:

About 15 years ago, before I moved to the area where I live now, there was a tornado that caused a very large amount of damage throughout the area. Tornadoes are quite rare here and the area is mixed suburban/rural, and so the emergency services were not prepared to deal with that sort of problem.

I have a friend who's a retired policeman who said that after the tornado, he and other officers from one of the area police departments broke into a local store and took all the batteries and flashlights they could find. I asked if they inventoried what they took and later compensated the store owner and he said no.

Now, I can understand that under the circumstances, the police might think they were justified in this sort of action, but they had absolutely no right (a) to break into a private business and (b) to not compensate the owner afterward.

You would think that the police would at least know the store manager or owner, and be able to at least get a key to the store. But they chose to do what they did.

What do you guys think about this?

dhex | September 3, 2005, 3:45pm | #

"My point is that the betrayal of libertarian principles of property rights in a crisis is a pretty strong indicator that you believe that libertarianism is a sort of fair-weather philosophy that works when everyone is already basically getting along, but when the shit hits the fan, it's best to revert to some other unspecified, more intuitive morality"

count me in the fair weather camp. this kid did good, period. he didn't run off by himself.

being a decent human is far more important than any set of political theories or principles.

Syd | September 3, 2005, 4:02pm | #

db" If they couldn't contact the owner in a reasonable time, they should have taken the batteries and compensated the owner.

thoreau | September 3, 2005, 4:41pm | #

sidereal-

My comments were mostly tongue-in-cheek. I don't really support ED, nor do I have any reason to believe that you do. And I'm not actually an uber-Randian (or any other kind of Randian). But you were so outraged at this violation of property rights, so I figured I'd play the Randian version of Devil's Advocate.

Look, when there's a massive tragedy, people are dying, and property is abandoned, I say any abandoned gear that's necessary for survival or evacuation is fair game as long as you make a good faith effort to settle the bill later. I don't know if that's what's written in the law, and I don't know if any libertarian philosopher has rigorously justified that notion, but it makes good common sense.

sidereal | September 3, 2005, 5:02pm | #

" But you were so outraged at this violation of property rights"

Not really. The kid may have been right. I just think it's weird that he's being held up as some kind of paragon of libertarianism. . that's truly up-is-down. Courageous individualism, yes. Libertarianism, no.

Also, he or a benefactor needs to make sure the gas tank is re-filled before it's returned.

thoreau | September 3, 2005, 5:13pm | #

I just think it's weird that he's being held up as some kind of paragon of libertarianism. . that's truly up-is-down. Courageous individualism, yes. Libertarianism, no.

I like the distinction you make. There is a difference, and I admire him because, well, he's awesome. That's good enough for me.

Laura | September 3, 2005, 7:55pm | #

PLEASE set up a fund for Jabbor Gibson. I have not a webspace for such a thing, but if you do I'll donate. As will, I'm sure, a lot of people at metafilter. Email me if you do, thank you.

Ruthless | September 3, 2005, 9:43pm | #

I may or not be an ueber-librarian. I may just be Schroedinger's pussy. But I may also be a quantum Librarian... long devil's tail; nervous amongst a plethora of rocking cyber-chairs.

Ruthless | September 3, 2005, 9:55pm | #

jf,
Can you imagine the good that could come from a Marial Boat-lift in reverse?
I can.

Cedwyn | September 4, 2005, 2:12am | #

flyover country:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/last-saturday-bush-gave-fema-authority.html

And just as importantly, why are the White House and FEMA now claiming that they had no idea Katrina was going to be this bad when the president declared an emergency in Louisiana last Saturday, two days before the storm even hit?

Note the specific language from the White House Web site:

Specifically, FEMA is authorized to identify, mobilize, and provide at its discretion, equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency. Debris removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent Federal funding.


and


http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/09/oops-dept-of-homeland-security-web.html

Again, oops.

The Dept of Homeland Security Web site says the agency will assume "primary responsibility" for any "natural disaster or large-scale emergency."

Preparing America

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. *This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort*.

jw | September 4, 2005, 6:26am | #

Do you-all have something against "Randians" or devotees of Ms. Rand's philosophy, Objectivism? Funny thing! I always thought it counted as a libertarian philosophy [libertarian with a small L, that is. (see guys, upper and lower cases do have a purpose!)]

123 | September 4, 2005, 6:43pm | #

Which was, in fact, the plan. But since so many didn't heed the warning, it doesn't matter how many buses were where.

Will you stop with the "heed the warning" crap? These people DID NOT HAVE THE MEANS to leave the city. You can go about blaming the gov't for 50 years of social welfare policy that creates dependency some other time. The fact of the matter is that when last weekend rolled around, they could not leave the city. And then the gov't failed to evacuate them in the next 7 days. It's a brutal lesson in the failure of government, but to blame their immediate situation on them is kind of beside the f-ing point.

When Middle Class Americans face hardship and rely upon others (government?) we don't claim that, well, if they hadn't bought so many dvds, or partied it up in college, they would've been rich Americans who could've avoided that catastrophe.

Stevo Darkly | September 5, 2005, 6:16pm | #

I just want to point out that if you say "Ragnar Danneskjold" really, really fast, it sort of sounds like "Jabbor Gibson."

Coincidence? I think not.