August 31st, 2005

Illustmaker me

Am annoyed

Two cities are destroyed, another is sinking, and people are trying to score political points off of it. "Bush didn't give money for the levees!" "Bush didn't give money for California fire prevention!"

Well, that's true. And, though a Republican, I'm no Bushie, and would be more than happy to have seen both President Gore and President Kerry. But you know what? That's just a general symptom of bureaucracy, and I give you an iron clad guaran-fucking-tee that neither President Gore nor President Kerry would have done it either. After a disaster, it's easy to say, "We should have done this." And yes--there are disasters waiting to happen still. But it's a little quirk of bureaucracy that things that "might" happen get a low priority in comparison to things that have already happened or are presently happening. That logic should dictate that it would make more sense to do some preventative work doesn't seem to have much of an impact on this. What's Seattle going to do if Mt. Ranier blows? The east coast if part of that African island breaks off and we have to deal with a tsunami? California, when the Big One hits? The central north if Yellowstone becomes a supervolcano? Anywhere on earth if a large meteor hits? These are all possible--even probable--scenarios, and most could have some contingency plans or even prevention plans in place. But somehow, everyday life takes precedence over future disaster all the time.

And if it didn't, people would get frustrated and lash at the government also--"We need help with homeless shelters/farm aid/school improvement/pet cause... and you're spending it to build some weird Maginot line against nature that we don't need right now and probably won't work anyway?"

What's going on is bad. Using natural disasters to score points against political opponents horrifies me.