It seems that Time magazine is currently in discussions on who will be Person of the Year for 2005. While I realize it can't be an easy choice each year, and sometimes they take a lot of heat for their decisions, the fact that they are even considering Hurricane Katrina, under the guise of "Mother Nature", as Person of the Year is, well, stupid.
"Katrina gets you to Iraq. It gets you to petroleum. It gets you to presidential politics," Williams said. "It has laid bare so many cracks and fissures in our system."
Yes, I accept the impact Katrina had on the U.S., and how that impact spilled over worldwide. I understand that "Mother Nature" also hit hard with the earthquake in Pakistan. But to assume that these natural disasters are a topical thing that only affects 2005 is a bit shortsighted. What happens if (or when) the world sees even greater natural disasters next year? What if there is a harsher hurricane, a more devastating earthquake, a fatal tsunami, a huge volcanic eruption?
Now, I would totally stand behind nominating a person (or people) involved in the rescue efforts of Katrina, or the earthquake in Pakistan, or whatever, for Person of the Year. But let's not assume Katrina will be the one big storm we encounter in the years to come.