Cities vs. Nature
Nothing like a good act of God to start off the morning.
Like everyone else, I am riveted by the coverage of hurricane Katrina's assault on New Orleans. One of these days, New Orleans is going to end up on the bottom of the Mississippi, it being below sea level and nice path of least resistance if the levees ever break.
This morning I was telling myself that it is stupid to live in a city that is at such odds with nature. But come to think of it, there are quite a few cities that persist despite nature's warnings. I always have this vague notion that parts of Manhattan will eventually find itself below sea level, not because it sank but because the sea level is supposed to keep rising with all that ice melting around the world. (Please consult your local global warming professional to learn if this will actually will happen.) Perhaps more practically, hurricanes do make their way up here about once every hundred years. That sure would scuttle things.
But as far as natural disaster prone areas go, I must say that L.A. is still on the top of my list. Here is a city that sits in a desert, and it has earthquakes to boot. I know it's nice there, but let's hope they never run out of water.
I'm off to check the radar.
Comments
True, true on your disaster prone comments on LA. I finally got back east yesterday after spending three weeks in Seattle. There are earthquakes there also, though. Seattle is my favorite west coast city. I parked the VW and did not run it the entire time. The bus system is good, though I walked most of the time. Heck, I must now say that Seattle is currently my favorite city anywhere. I must revise what I have told some people where I might go if I "dissapear". I used to tell people that if I dissapeared, look for me in New York City. I must now say this: if I dissappear in the near to medium future, look for me in Seattle.
Posted by: James Bakner | September 13, 2005 12:31 PM