Would the best apocalypse for the New York metropolitan area be one of fire or ice, ocean or drought. In any case one would want Godspeed You Black Emperor flown in to provide the soundtrack; they could play what was left of the New Meadowlands, only halfway through a hundred Swoops would parachute in to start punching out any Giants fans in the audience. I was going to say to strafe the place, but even in an apocalyptic setting that seems a bit much. We need a gentler, more bipartisan discourse, an NFC East fan base united against more consistent talents.
The ideal, the gentle apocalypse would be slow building, so people would have a good chance to evacuate, so that only the landscape itself were laid to waste. It could be seen as a starting over, a rejuvenation, to open Manhattan and its new-found canals or lakes of fire to colonization by a new generation of artists and musicians, lured by cheap or nonexistent rent, excellent parking, and a reasonably empty environment for drug use. Brooklyn might survive intact and ascend to primacy, with Bedford as the new Wall Street, although development of the Atlantic Yards project should be halted indefinitely out of respect for the displaced.
Which scares you more, severe weather or faulty social institutions, a press with no moral authority or a government with no financial accountability, nuclear proliferation or bad, bad education.
Advantages to bunker: more reading time. Questions re>: wireless internet access, the culinary limits inherent to canned food, and how I'd ever beat these two at Scrabble consistently over the long-term.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
