Post by Soulfyre on Aug 31, 2005 23:35:53 GMT -5
The horror of devastation wreaked by the hurricane Katrina on the gulf coast residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida (especially the people of New Orleans and Biloxi) is only exceeded by our failure to anticipate and take necessary action to avert such a disaster. Inevitably, it is the poor and people of "moderate" income who bear the brunt of such inaction. It is they who are often trapped by circumstance, and are neither able to defend themselves when such disasters occur or rebuild their meager lives in the wake of such disasters. But that is because we are not a society of prevention, but of reaction. Because of the expense of prevention, we do not nothing until sufficient human life has been lost to make reaction "financially expedient". We are all familiar with the dangerous intersection that never gets so much as a "stop" sign until sufficient accidents and/or loss of life makes it "worthwhile".
This latest disaster in only the most horrific incident that we have seen thus far. We are annually apprised of people whose houses are affected by mudslides in California, having built (or bought) multi-million dollar houses, or moved into developments, which are set on terrain susceptible to rapid erosion by rain. But this does not seem to stop developers, or the people who buy their houses for their "sea-view" locations. Casinos and tourist destinations love to develop seaside resorts, restaurants, and entertainment on "barrier" islands, which are subject to erosion and are the first areas struck by hurricanes. People develop farther and farther into wilderness areas, and profess surprise when they (or their children) are subject to the attacks of wild animals like mountain lions, bears, coyotes, or wolves. Or they wring their hands in despair when forest fires decimate their property. And people still persistently live near--or even on the slopes of--volcanoes, where destruction of life, or at the very least, property, is assured in the case of eruption (I never cease to be amazed by the people who live near Mauna Loa in Hawaii, whose grief over their burning property is only exceeded by their heedless naivety in building so near one of the world's most active volcanoes).
When such fey behavior is combined with the policies of rabid environmentalists, we truly have the "perfect storm". When controlled logging and re-planting is not allowed in wilderness areas, the "old growth" which environmentalists are so anxious to protect not only becomes a net carbon-dioxide (rather than oxygen) producer, but also becomes far more susceptible to massive forest fires. The result is, of course, loss of life (human and non-human), destruction of surrounding property which might otherwise be prevented, and the loss of a comparatively renewable source of building material and fuel. People who once lived in relative safety near wilderness areas find themselves unable to protect themselves or their property from "protected" species.
Due to our "not in my backyard" philosophy, we have become a nation that lives on the knife-edge of energy dependency. Regardless of demand, we haven't sufficient refineries to produce sufficient petrochemicals, nor do we have a consistent formulary for petroleum fuels across the United States, but a patchwork of various "environmental-friendly" fuel formulations the further tax the refineries that we have. Nearly all transportation (not only personal, but public) depends on fossil fuels, as does shipping. When the cost of fossil fuels rises precipitously, everything is affected--the ability of families to get to and from work, the ability of children to get to and from school (welcome to busing and the loss of the neighborhood school), the ability of retailers to get product at a reasonable price (including such things as food and pharmaceuticals), the ability to provide sewage treatment and potable water--essentially, most of modern life depends on energy. Nevertheless, the development of alternative energy sources has been decidedly anemic. The irrational fear of nuclear energy, rather than simply encouraging the more careful design of nuclear energy installations, essentially halted their development. Now, unlike Europe (which has a strong reliance upon nuclear energy), we are a society almost completely dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of electricity (or for directly heating our homes). Thus the foreseeable destruction wreaked upon us by hurricane Katrina threatens to impact our entire economy--but especially, as before, those who are poor, or of "moderate" means.
But has this predictable set of circumstances motivated us to take action? No. And this recent disaster is merely the "poster child" of our inactivity. That New Orleans was a city that, like all of the Netherlands, was below sea-level was not not unknown to us. That the levees built to protect New Orleans were only constructed to withstand at most a Category 3 hurricane was known at the time of the reinforcement of the levees. But the "return on investment" was not determined to be enough to build stronger levees. That our primary oil production and refineries were near the gulf coast and were extremely susceptible to such inclement weather was no secret. Now the "unthinkable" (but hardly unforeseeable) has happened and the response of the community leaders in New Orleans has been akin to the Keystone cops. Serious warnings to evacuate were not given until the Friday before Kristina struck. Resources were not amassed to accomplish the evacuation, especially of the poor, the elderly, or the unhealthy. Now the people unable to leave are subject to horrors of armed anarchy (martial law has yet to be declared), disease (and the absence of timely health care), famine and dehydration--things almost unknown in our modern existence--with the prospect of help arriving too late. True, some people were unwilling to leave, but the lateness of the urgency expressed by the leadership contributed to this. Massive unemployment, and the inability to collect taxes, threaten to impoverish not only the populace, but the state.
As Christians, who profess to be "pro-life", such inaction is even less excusable. It is important that faced with a loss of life and ripple effect that can scarcely be imagined, Christians band together in giving in a manner which exceeds our response to the tsunami relief. But far, far more will be needed. We face a refugee crisis that will be difficult for our nation to absorb (in spite of the daily reassurances that we have received extolling the "health" of our economy, which is now seriously threatened by our own lack of foresight and preparation). And whatever one thinks of the overall performance of George Bush, Jr., he is simply not the kind of galvanizing leader that Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagen were. We cannot depend on our oligarchic "democracy" (in which both political parties are far more likely to determine by polls the direction of their financial contributors and rush to get in front of them, rather than to actually engage in thoughtful leadership) to lead or respond courageously. Rather, we must engage ourselves, and lead by example with the moral courage and foresight that only one redeemed by the grace of God, truly obedient to Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, can accomplish. Remember...even a small light, shining in the darkness, can still be followed.
Pray without ceasing, my friends...but don't put down the oars!
God bless and keep you,
Matthew (soulfyre) Brown
This latest disaster in only the most horrific incident that we have seen thus far. We are annually apprised of people whose houses are affected by mudslides in California, having built (or bought) multi-million dollar houses, or moved into developments, which are set on terrain susceptible to rapid erosion by rain. But this does not seem to stop developers, or the people who buy their houses for their "sea-view" locations. Casinos and tourist destinations love to develop seaside resorts, restaurants, and entertainment on "barrier" islands, which are subject to erosion and are the first areas struck by hurricanes. People develop farther and farther into wilderness areas, and profess surprise when they (or their children) are subject to the attacks of wild animals like mountain lions, bears, coyotes, or wolves. Or they wring their hands in despair when forest fires decimate their property. And people still persistently live near--or even on the slopes of--volcanoes, where destruction of life, or at the very least, property, is assured in the case of eruption (I never cease to be amazed by the people who live near Mauna Loa in Hawaii, whose grief over their burning property is only exceeded by their heedless naivety in building so near one of the world's most active volcanoes).
When such fey behavior is combined with the policies of rabid environmentalists, we truly have the "perfect storm". When controlled logging and re-planting is not allowed in wilderness areas, the "old growth" which environmentalists are so anxious to protect not only becomes a net carbon-dioxide (rather than oxygen) producer, but also becomes far more susceptible to massive forest fires. The result is, of course, loss of life (human and non-human), destruction of surrounding property which might otherwise be prevented, and the loss of a comparatively renewable source of building material and fuel. People who once lived in relative safety near wilderness areas find themselves unable to protect themselves or their property from "protected" species.
Due to our "not in my backyard" philosophy, we have become a nation that lives on the knife-edge of energy dependency. Regardless of demand, we haven't sufficient refineries to produce sufficient petrochemicals, nor do we have a consistent formulary for petroleum fuels across the United States, but a patchwork of various "environmental-friendly" fuel formulations the further tax the refineries that we have. Nearly all transportation (not only personal, but public) depends on fossil fuels, as does shipping. When the cost of fossil fuels rises precipitously, everything is affected--the ability of families to get to and from work, the ability of children to get to and from school (welcome to busing and the loss of the neighborhood school), the ability of retailers to get product at a reasonable price (including such things as food and pharmaceuticals), the ability to provide sewage treatment and potable water--essentially, most of modern life depends on energy. Nevertheless, the development of alternative energy sources has been decidedly anemic. The irrational fear of nuclear energy, rather than simply encouraging the more careful design of nuclear energy installations, essentially halted their development. Now, unlike Europe (which has a strong reliance upon nuclear energy), we are a society almost completely dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of electricity (or for directly heating our homes). Thus the foreseeable destruction wreaked upon us by hurricane Katrina threatens to impact our entire economy--but especially, as before, those who are poor, or of "moderate" means.
But has this predictable set of circumstances motivated us to take action? No. And this recent disaster is merely the "poster child" of our inactivity. That New Orleans was a city that, like all of the Netherlands, was below sea-level was not not unknown to us. That the levees built to protect New Orleans were only constructed to withstand at most a Category 3 hurricane was known at the time of the reinforcement of the levees. But the "return on investment" was not determined to be enough to build stronger levees. That our primary oil production and refineries were near the gulf coast and were extremely susceptible to such inclement weather was no secret. Now the "unthinkable" (but hardly unforeseeable) has happened and the response of the community leaders in New Orleans has been akin to the Keystone cops. Serious warnings to evacuate were not given until the Friday before Kristina struck. Resources were not amassed to accomplish the evacuation, especially of the poor, the elderly, or the unhealthy. Now the people unable to leave are subject to horrors of armed anarchy (martial law has yet to be declared), disease (and the absence of timely health care), famine and dehydration--things almost unknown in our modern existence--with the prospect of help arriving too late. True, some people were unwilling to leave, but the lateness of the urgency expressed by the leadership contributed to this. Massive unemployment, and the inability to collect taxes, threaten to impoverish not only the populace, but the state.
As Christians, who profess to be "pro-life", such inaction is even less excusable. It is important that faced with a loss of life and ripple effect that can scarcely be imagined, Christians band together in giving in a manner which exceeds our response to the tsunami relief. But far, far more will be needed. We face a refugee crisis that will be difficult for our nation to absorb (in spite of the daily reassurances that we have received extolling the "health" of our economy, which is now seriously threatened by our own lack of foresight and preparation). And whatever one thinks of the overall performance of George Bush, Jr., he is simply not the kind of galvanizing leader that Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagen were. We cannot depend on our oligarchic "democracy" (in which both political parties are far more likely to determine by polls the direction of their financial contributors and rush to get in front of them, rather than to actually engage in thoughtful leadership) to lead or respond courageously. Rather, we must engage ourselves, and lead by example with the moral courage and foresight that only one redeemed by the grace of God, truly obedient to Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit, can accomplish. Remember...even a small light, shining in the darkness, can still be followed.
Pray without ceasing, my friends...but don't put down the oars!
God bless and keep you,
Matthew (soulfyre) Brown
