The Real Reason for the Tragedy of the Titanic
On this weekend’s radio program, Glen talks about Hilary Rosen and Ann Romney, North Korea’s failed missile launch, President Obama’s reelection campaign strategy, and Washington D.C.’s growing spending problem. Glen also talks about the recent Wall Street Journal article, “The Real Reason for the Tragedy of the Titanic”.
Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals, our states, and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc – which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2006, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the radio program, “Glen Meakem on the Weekend” in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about the Glen Meakem on the Weekend Radio Program, or to read Glen’s blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.
Proudly sponsored by 
Posted: April 14th, 2012 under News, Radio, Show.
Comments: (5) | Print This Post
Nothing in the article suggests that anyone other than the shipbuilder and cruise line owner were responsible for the inadequate lifeboat capacity. The idea that these great “titans of industry,” so morally upright, rational, and civic-minded, wouldn’t understand the possible consequences of their cost-cutting, and could simply assign blame elsewhere once they’d killed 1,500 customers would be ridiculous, if it weren’t coming from the usual BS vendors who cater to the cowardly, selfish “personal responsibility” crowd.
One wonders which is more contemptible: these irresponsible tycoons
of the early 20th century, or their apologists in the right-wing media today? I suppose the former, although the latter really should know better.
Public acceptance of a more grounded-in-reality interpretation of this tale (“the capitalists care more about their money than your life”) is one reason why the effort to crown a private equity “job creator” (read: “equity stripper”) President is just as doomed as the Titanic. The only question is, will the Republicans throw Captain Mitt overboard in a vain attempt to get a seat on the last lifeboat?
Also, it’s hilarious that the author of the Titanic article is named Chris Berg.
Finally, you’re a coward if you censor this.
Frank,
Thanks for your comment. I think the Titanic historic fact pattern actually refutes your points. It turns out that EVERYONE at the time (ship builders and government regulators) felt that the role of life boats was not to rescue all passengers and crew at once, but rather to ferry passengers and crew from a damaged ship to a rescue ship. The north Atlantic shipping lanes were so busy at the time that this was reasonable.
Anyway, I won’t repeat the well-researched article. Either you choose to accept facts or you don’t.
One fact you should be comfortable with is that I am no coward. Your comment will definitely appear on my web site.
Thanks for caring!
Glen
Hi Glen,
Thanks for the response. I don’t think EVERYONE thought that the lifeboats were there to ferry passengers to another ship. The number of lifeboats in the original design was 68, which would have been enough to accommodate all of the Titanic’s passengers.But that number was eventually reduced to 16. Interestingly, the lifeboats removed were ones that would’ve obscured the view from the 1st class promenade. Just a coincidence?
With respect to the busy shipping lanes, it is true that the ships Carpathia and Californian were nearby, but apparently they weren’t quite close enough… From what I’ve read, there was no effort for these ships to keep in contact or otherwise coordinate for their mutual safety. So if the Californian had responded to the distress signals and managed to save some passengers, you’d have to call it “a lucky break” rather than a “validation of the safety plan.”
I still think Berg’s effort to pin the whole disaster on outmoded British trade laws is kind of silly. The ship was designed with 68 lifeboats; it sailed with 16. Why? I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any government law or body prevented White Star from outfitting the ship with the full complement of boats. Should the laws have been updated? Absolutely. But that doesn’t absolve the ship’s owner from doing the right thing, which was to anticipate worst-case scenarios that could endanger the lives of the passengers and crew. The existence of (imperfect) laws that attempt to regulate something doesn’t mean surrendering judgment or conscience.
Here’s a question for you: do you honestly believe that if there hadn’t been ANY laws governing lifeboats, that White Star would have put MORE lifeboats on the Titanic? I know there are libertarians who excel at the mental gymnastics required to “prove” such absurdities (they’re very imaginative folks). It eludes me.
In the end, I think that neither a bread-dead bureaucracy nor a cruel calculus that consciously weighed the costs of lifeboats against views from the 1st class promenade provides a very satisfying answer to the tragedy. The real fatal flaw was hubris: these guys believed their own press releases, and convinced themselves that the Titanic really was “unsinkable.”
http://www.theonion.com/articles/april-16-1912,10645/
-Frank
Classic 100 year old case of “…a distressingly common problem. Governments find it easy to implement regulations but tedious to maintain existing ones…politicians gain little political benefit from updating old laws, only from introducing new laws.”
Frank, if you knew Glen, you would know he is no coward…he hides behind nothing and embraces challenges with intelligent facts, knowledge and zeal.
Truth be told Frank, it’s your witness and admiration of said characteristics that keeps you coming back as a long-time listener. It’s inspiring and ok to admit.
“Truth be told Frank, it’s your witness and admiration of said characteristics that keeps you coming back as a long-time listener. It’s inspiring and ok to admit.”
Haha, you’re ON to me! Actually, Glen strikes me as a nice guy, but also as a quintessential True Believer. That’s what I find interesting. There’s simply no Republican policy or adventure he won’t support. He’s an establishment-libertarian-ayn rand-tea party-neocon kinda guy!
Likewise, there’s no bad thing about President Obama that he won’t believe! He’s indulged in the worst birth certificate/madrassa scaremongering possible.
As a former True Believer myself, I can only shake my head ruefully. GW Bush was the end of the Republican Party for me — there was just no way I was having any part of that. And of course, he was a total disaster, as any Republican would’ve told you in 2008-9. But the rehabilitation has begun! (Of course!)
I was kidding about the coward thing (one or two previous posts somehow wound up in moderation hell), but you know what a true act of media bravery would be? To invite a worthy adversary onto the show for some honest debate. I don’t expect to see that. Glen is paying for airtime and there’s lots of advocacy to do. (LOTS!) So why waste airtime with real debate? After all, he’s already got all the “facts.”