New Orleans, lost cause
Ok, I was gonna write a post mentioning how different the process of getting a haircut in New Orleans is compared to getting one in Chicago, but on my way home from said haircut I stopped at Rite Aid to get toilet paper. In the Rite Aid I saw the latest issue of National Geographic magazine, titled "New Orleans, should it rebuild?" with the subtitle: "Levees failing, storms increasing, ground sinking, seas rising."
Now, I fully admit that I have not yet read the article, (which will probably be very informative,) but something about the cover alone pisses me off. When is the last time you saw a NGM with a cover featuring cute polar bears and the title "Polar Bears, should we even bother trying to save them?" As we all know, polar bears are increasingly threatened by global warming, the very same force which threatens New Orleans. But I don't see scientists saying that we should not do everything in our power to try and save animals like the polar bear. They may be doomed anyway, but people are still trying to help them. Why should New Orleans be treated any differently? It is unique, a United States treasure with enormous amounts of history and culture. This city is every bit as valuable to protect and save as an endangered species. If people are working to try and save animals as funky and cool as Lumpsuckers, they should darn well work to save New Orleans.
Now, I fully admit that I have not yet read the article, (which will probably be very informative,) but something about the cover alone pisses me off. When is the last time you saw a NGM with a cover featuring cute polar bears and the title "Polar Bears, should we even bother trying to save them?" As we all know, polar bears are increasingly threatened by global warming, the very same force which threatens New Orleans. But I don't see scientists saying that we should not do everything in our power to try and save animals like the polar bear. They may be doomed anyway, but people are still trying to help them. Why should New Orleans be treated any differently? It is unique, a United States treasure with enormous amounts of history and culture. This city is every bit as valuable to protect and save as an endangered species. If people are working to try and save animals as funky and cool as Lumpsuckers, they should darn well work to save New Orleans.
posted by Nora at
3:37 PM
5 Comments:
It's because polar bears are cute and fuzzy and helpless (or so people think), but people are intelligent and capable of living wherever they want and therefore should know better than to live in New Orleans. Or so I'm guessing. Otherwise it's probably the usual "vice city" thing. If some natural disaster hit Detroit there might have been a similar headline.
"Motor city, should we try to save it now that the American auto industry is tanking?" Take that National Geographic.
"Washington, DC, should we just forget it? Constitution failing, scandals increasing, ethics sinking, bureaucracy rising."
"Chicago, should it have elected a new mayor?"
I could have fun with this all day.
I want a lumpsucker.
I should add that I read the article. As Nora suggested, it is much more interesting and informative than the inflammatory cover suggests. There's a brief history of the levee system, and a depressing discussion of coastal erosion (both natural and levee-induced).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home