BLOGGER’S NOTE: I’m going to try to use larger type for these posts in the future — but for now, maybe just up the type size on your own screen.
Say it’s God or say it is Mother Nature, but natural forces have shown who’s boss in the Southern U.S.
As I look out at the beautiful view from my apartment, the greenery of the riparian jungle, with a full stomach, and in quiet tranquility, I think about the images of devastation and the anguish on the faces of some of those in Alabama and elsewhere in the South who were (are) victims of one of the worst onslaughts of multiple and incredibly strong tornadoes in history, with 300 or more dead and whole towns virtually destroyed. These images I saw on my computer thanks to the NBC Nightly News. I’ve been on the road all week and barely saw any of it until now. NBC did a good job of reporting, I thought.
The landscape looked like an atomic bomb had blown through.
Certainly the federal government can and should do everything in its power to help in the rescue effort and restore life as best it can down there. From all reports, the people, as a whole, are survivors, quite capable of doing for themselves with what they have. But they are follow citizens who deserve all the help possible.
This is where the National Guard and even the Army and other services need to be, and to an extent are, as far as I know. Just tried to glean more about that off the web. All I found is that National Guard troops were backing up overwhelmed local police chasing down looters. Looters should be shot on sight, I would say (but of course then there could be mistakes — but how low can one get?).
But it is far more important to look inward and help ourselves than it is to try to remake the rest of the world.
Already there has been speculation that global warming or man-induced climate change may have contributed to the unusual number and size of the tornadoes. This is something we need to know about, but I am afraid that it all will just get caught up in the political fight over what should be a scientific question.
While I have always realized that so-called conservatives balk at environmental concerns because they don’t want to be bothered by what they see as hindrances to their profits and that they prefer to worship at the altar in the shape of the almighty dollar, rather than protect what God gave them, I now have heard another explanation:
A caller to a talk show said that socialists want to use so-called environmental concerns as leverage to get government to force people into socialistic practices.
But I would prefer to judge things by real science, not political science.
Real science may or may not go against capitalistic practices, but it will weed out environmental extremism, if you can divorce science from politics.
I’ve noticed that the need to make money — and the need is real of course — always seems to put people at a conflict with nature. An example: after the Gulf oil gusher disaster, people whose livelihoods depend upon the oil industry could not wait to get back to drilling in the deep water, while those whose livelihoods depend upon the natural fishery of the Gulf needed things to be cleaned up and possibly tighter regulations on drilling. And you cannot eat or drink oil. But then again, many can’t buy eats or drink without oil money.
We humans have a natural habit of concentrating more on short-term gain than long-term sustainability (killing the goose that laid the golden egg and all).
Meanwhile, no matter what we do, we are at the mercy of God or Mother Nature, if you will.
Also caught up on the Royal wedding. I had thought I was not interested. But it is nice to see tradition lives. And while the very next in line seems kind of a dud — sorry Charlie — his son Prince William would look good, kingly, on the throne, with his fine new wife, commoner, turn royal Kate Middleton at his side. Hopefully she will not be the wild distraction the royal family has recently suffered from on the female side — no real offense meant to these women. They just apparently were not cut out to go along with the often stodgy royal program.
I think many in the U.S. are a little jealous that the British have something to look up to. Our own so-called elite have let us down.
It is increasingly difficult to be a statesman in the atmosphere of modern American politics that seems more like a tawdry, vulgar circus than a sober discussion or debate on governmental policies.
Although the British royals have little to no political power, they give that nation a sense of dignity as representatives of the state, Great Britain, and its dominions.
I now understand why in the United States we have gone through periods of what has been called the Imperial Presidency — I think Ronald Reagan being the last actor (literally and figuratively at the same time) in that show.
I do recall that when Britain went to take back the Falklands from Argentina, many years ago now, then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went to the Queen to announce her intentions and get the monarch’s blessing.
And give it to the Brits: they had a successful little war down there. I say, good show!