Comments on: Tsunami in the Indian Ocean

By: steve hedger

steve hedger — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 15:51:30 +0000

Thank you Thomas. I too believe that those suffering deserve all the compassion and humanity we can give. I pray that governments across the world will do everything in their power to bring relief to the suffering.

By: DaVID hUME

DaVID hUME — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 10:37:36 +0000

Thoughts after pondering the meaning of the Great Asian Tsunami of 2004 by The Zenman (with a bow and a nod to Voltaire in 1775) In 20 minutes, immense tidal waves, or ‘’tsunami’‘, as the Japanese call them, wiped out over 500,000 people living or vacationing along the seashores of the vast Indian Ocean. The Great Tsunami of 2004 will go down in history as one of the greatest natural disasters ever witnessed by the postmodern world, where digital cameras, videos, websites, blogs, TV camera crews and newspapers told the tragic story. What does it all mean? Is there a God who caused all this human suffering? Was the Earth angry at us for the way we have treated her the last 100 years, producing vast clouds of pollution everywhere, cutting down her forests and depleting her coal, oil and gas reserves for our homes, our cars, oun airplanes and our vacations in exotic locales? Was all this predicted by Nostradamus long ago, or within the mysterious pages of that book titled The Bible Code? The answers to all the above questions are no, no, no and no. There is no God, and it’s time to get over it. Earth is not a concious living thing that gets angry or smiles or lauhgs or coughs. Nostradamus was a French poet and a quack doctor, forget about him. And as for The Bible Code, what a bunch of crock! This tragic event, seen worldwide this time via TV and video, the Internet and blog websites, was just the way things happen. From time to time, there are powerful earthquakes on Earth that do immense damagge. From time to time, there are floods, typhoons, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, ice storms, draughts. We can prepare for them, and we can use technology to be prepared for them. But one thing we must keep in mind, as the events of the Great Tsunami of 2004 are replayed in our minds over and over again, is that we humans are mere evolutionary guests here on Planet Earth. We evolved from the earliest forms of organic life, and now we have arrived at the point in cosmic history where we are. But we did not create Earth, and there is no God or gods who created the Earth either. The Earth was here long before we were ever here, and it will remain here long after we are gone, and even after all forms of human life are gone in the future. I think the Buddhist teachings have it right: there is suffering in the world, in life, and we must lean to accept it, and then get on with our lives as best we can, working together to lessen the suffering and the pain. That is one lesson we can all take from the footprints left on the beaches of South Asia by the Great 2004 Tsunami in the Indian Ocean. I was reading the story of a young 16 year old Sri Lankan girl who miraculously survived the tsunami in her village, but lost many members of her own family. She said: “It’s hard to bear this tragedy,” she said softly to a CNN camera crew, “but I have to.” One of the greatest natural catastrophes in generations was just another milestone on the trail of this shy girl’s ill fortune. It’s hard for all of us to bear this tragic event, that killed nearly 500,000 people—innocent people, young and old, black and white and brown and yellow, from over 40 nationalities—but we have to. We must go on, we will go on, supporting one another in the best ways we can, and as human history evolves, seesawing from tragedy to tragedy, we are slowly understanding our place in the vast scheme of things. It is our place to be born, to live, to dream, to suffer, to experience joy and bliss, to write and to dance and to paint and to make music and to hold hands, watching sunsets and sunrises, and while there is no supernatural God of the Bible or the Koran, and no Hindu or Shinto or Taoist gods, we do have each other to rely on, and there is where our real strength and power lie. Use it. Let us hug one another and rise up from this indescribable natural calamity and become one with the world we are part of. Let us endure, let us persevere, let us move forward.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 05:33:40 +0000

Thanks, Steve. I was going to type something scathing and scolding for Nat, but I figured…what the hell, I guess he has his reasons for feeling the way he does. As for me, I still feel for those who have lost so much in so short a period of time.

By: laetitia

laetitia — Sat, 01 Jan 2005 01:30:40 +0000

Nat, in my humble opinion the US media, in line with that of other countries with a ‘free’ press should be obliged to inform people of what is really going on in the world. The US media is notorious around the globe (but not apparently where you live) for failing to do this. Their failure to pick up on the significance of this huge disaster earlier being a case in point. The very valid point has been made that had they done so, people in the US would have started to contribute more earlier. You appear to disagree. News channels outside the US appear to agree with me, and who every said it on here initially, and not with you. You seem to be twisting a comment that was made to you, which in fact was later clarified, but you still seem to be hell bent on twisting. British people and those in other countries gave more earlier because they were made more aware of the situation through their media. There is nothing more to it than that. It irritates me that you keep pulling this back to how much you can give, do give, or will give. You are only one person. Clearly the US would have given more by now, if they had been made aware of the suffering by the media. Those of us looking in from the outside, find it odd that there were some many other things going on in the US that warranted one of the largest natural disaster in centuries being relegated to a minor item on the news. No one has mentioned anyone being sub-human. There has however been enormous criticism internationally of the US government’s failure to contribute more, more quickly than it has. I am not aware of anyone here or elsewhere criticising the America people for failing to contribute more, so again maybe you could drop the feigned indignation on this one too. As Steve has just pointed out, international headlines are that the US has been shamed into increasing its aid. Would I care to …. no, in short I wouldn’t. The head of crisis operations at WHO, David Nabarro, stated, “Unless the necessary funds are urgently mobilised and co-ordinated in the field we could see as many fatalities from diseases as from the actual disaster itself …. The tsunami was not preventable, but preventing unnecessary deaths and suffering is.” The Detriot News argued that Bush “blew an opportunity in his relatively slow response to the disaster,” to “to improve America’s ugly, arrogant image abroad.” I really don’t understand your position or your arguments. Your country has handled this all very badly. That can’t be changed now. Don’t waste your time arguing the unarguable. Learn from it and try to do what you can to make sure that it doesn’t happen again in the future. Perhaps that way you can help your country win back some of the respect it has lost across the globe.

By: steve hedger

steve hedger — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 23:14:39 +0000

Firstly, Peter: Could I just point out (not that you’re going to be around anymore apperently), that in fact I didn’t suggest Nat was stupid, in fact what I said was “… I am inclined to think that you are NOT stupid.” Quite the opposite I think. Secondly, again Peter: ‘pontificating’ – try catching a bit of international (preferrably not CNN) news that is currently running headlines about the US being SHAMED into giving more aid. If that makes you proud to be a US citizen, then I’m afraid we are very different people. You may chose to bury your head in the ground, but I choose not to.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:18:58 +0000

This has really, really become a sad, sad excuse for an intelligent discussion. Laetitia, Nat was simply responding quite reasonably to a challenge to his intelligence. It was Steve that made it an issue. I cannot believe how this has degenerated. Steve: your pontificating is just disgusting. You have single handedly driven me away from CT. Good bye.

By: steve hedger

steve hedger — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 20:28:42 +0000

George: Yep – that’s about it. Patriot missiles cost about $2 million a throw. Its a big secret how many have been fired in Iraq this time, but last time we were there 158 were used (although the old ones were about half the price). We’re not supposed to mention the war though, George, as we’ll get accused of being political. Although, surely governments giving aid to other countries is political. No doubt enemies of the US will make great capital of the fact that we gave relatively nothing to ease the suffering of other MUSLIM nations. Instead we’ll save the hundreds of millions we could have sent and spent it instead on defending ourselves from some of the people in aforementioned MUSLIM nations, who don’t seem to want to be our friends anymore. It may be a bit of a simplistic approach, but I would have thought that were we a little more helpful to other countries around the world, particularly in their darkest hours, then maybe they would all stop trying to blow us up or shoot us. Sweden, with a population a little over that of New Jersey, has managed to find $80 million. If the US chose to give the same amount per head of population we’d have given $2500 million, which would go a long way to helping those affected. Aid has now been increased to $350 million, which obviously won’t go quite so far. You can bet when everything has dried out a bit though, we’ll be over there to help with the rebuilding …. of the Starbucks and MacDonalds. Just can’t get my head round why the world thinks we are bad people.

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:15:05 +0000

Laetitia, who previously had said that she had no time for the likes of me, somehow found time to write: “You have translated comments that the US media has not done enough into YOU have not done enough.” Wrong. I’ve critiqued comments about the US media by asking why the media should feel obligated to give more time to tsunami victims than to other sufferers (since there doesn’t appear to be a way to give that much time to them all). My comments about whether I have given enough were not responses to comments about the media but responses to statements about (a) the wonderful generosity of the British people and the embarrassment of being an American and (b) the subhumanness of failing to donate to tsunami relief. Both arguments do, however, deal with the concept of opportunity cost. Would you care to make a substantive comment about the role opportunity cost has to play in the context of (i) tsunami publicity or (ii) tsunami relief?

By: George

George — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:06:17 +0000

According to my British Daily Telegraph 31/12/04, [yes I am a Brit and I take an interest] the tsunami has attracted donations from National Governments of; Britain £50 million, Sweden £40 million, Japan £ 21 million, America £18 million. [$34 million] The US of A, the worlds richest nation, spent $420 000 million dollars on war in 2004. As far as one can discover, one B-2 Stealth Bomber costs approx $1000 million. So the American charitable donation would appear to be one thirtieth of the cost of one bomber. Can this really be true? Please check my figures, fellas. Four more years!

By: laetitia

laetitia — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:51:55 +0000

Many people have commented as part of this blog. Some comments I agree with, some I do not. All have been worth reading. All that is with the exception of yours. You have consistently shown yourself to be blinkered, small minded and mean spirited. You comments are almost exclusively self-centred, self-orientated and just plan selfish. You have translated comments that the US media has not done enough into YOU have not done enough. You have translated the US government has not done enough into YOU have not done enough. Its all YOU, YOU, YOU. Stop bringing every single comment made on here back to you. No one is focussing on you. No one wants to focus on you. People are trying to focus on other more important issues at the moment. I understand that this is you way of dealing with your problems, but can you not find another way that does not involve all of us?

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 16:33:18 +0000

Laetitia wrote: “Nat – reading back you have tried to out do everything and every one on here. “Look! I’m better qualified!”” The abbreviated CV I posted was in response to Steve’s paraliptic pondering of the depth of my stupidity. ““Look! I give more money to charity!”” Hmm. Is $10 thousand per annum a lot to give to charity? I would have thought that was fairly typical. Do you give less? If so, why? ““Look! My family is suffering more!”” I don’t think my family is suffering more than the average family. I think suffering is a part of just about everyone’s life (with the possible exception of those whose lives have apparently been so untouched by tragedy that the suffering of a tsunami victim strikes them as sui generis). “I’m inclined to believe that nothing you have written is true.” Fair enough. I post under a pseudonym swiped from C.S. Lewis because I’ve been the victim of stalking in the past, and “decloaking” in order to refute some stranger’s skepticism just isn’t worth it. “You are probably a very lonely person sitting at home all alone, craving attention.” I’m rubber, you’re glue, etc., etc. “At the moment though, my thoughts are with the tsunami victims and I have no time for the likes of you.” Aha! So you admit that turning your attention to X usually means turning your attention away from Y. Every action has an opportunity cost. That applies to an individual deciding how much money to give to what charity. And it applies to a television network deciding what to do with its airtime. That’s been my point all along.

By: laetitia

laetitia — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:52:47 +0000

Nat – reading back you have tried to out do everything and every one on here. “Look! I’m better qualified!”, “Look! I give more money to charity!”, “Look! My family is suffering more!” I’m inclined to believe that nothing you have written is true. You are probably a very lonely person sitting at home all alone, craving attention. At then end of the day, no one he is remotely interested in you. People have joined the debate because they have an interest in what is happening to the victims of the tsunami. It has been suggested already that you are bitter and guilty. To me quite clearly you are lonely. A very lonely person. A positive way of trying to get out of this frame of mind, might be to consider other people a bit more, rather than revelling in your own self pity. Rather than making up stories on the internet, why not try to do something to help the suffering of those affected. It might help you feel a little better about yourself. It is terribly sad how the victims of the tsunami must be feeling now, but in a different way, its terribly sad the way you are feeling too. At the moment though, my thoughts are with the tsunami victims and I have no time for the likes of you. Laetitia

By: Nat Whilk

Nat Whilk — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:30:45 +0000

Laetitia wrote: “Nat wrote “me me me me me me me”” Right. And Laetitia wrote: “Shoobie, doobie, doobie.” “No doubt there a few more people hating the US after reading your little diatribe.” Thanks for your thoughtful critique. “The suffering caused by the tsunami is something we can all do something about.” If by “we”, you mean the readers of Crooked Timber (and not, say, every person on earth), then I agree. It is also true that we can all do something about Z, where Z= battered spouses or war orphans or AIDS or hunger or cancer or MS or Muscular Dystrophy or birth defects or diabetes or heart disease or drunk driving or earthquake victims or hurricane victims or drought victims or crime victims or homelessness or illiteracy or sickle cell anemia or malaria or drug abuse. But is it true that each of us can do something about all of these, neglecting to make a substantial contribution to the solution of none of them? I don’t think so. If you do think so, Laetitia, perhaps you could explain how that can be achieved. If, on the other hand, you agree that a person has to choose a proper subset of these (and other) problems to work on, perhaps you could explain why it is essential that tsunami relief be in that subset (but not essential that Z be in that subset, for some other Z).

By: Laetitia

Laetitia — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:08:18 +0000

Nat wrote “me me me me me me me” No doubt there a few more people hating the US after reading your little diatribe. The suffering caused by the tsunami is something we can all do something about. I hope that we all are trying to do so in all ways possible.

By: steve hedger

steve hedger — Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:53:36 +0000

yep – got that then Nat – bitterness and guilt. No point in any further discussion. Thomas Phuket hospital list of injured: http://www.phuket-inter-hospital.co.th/siriroj.html If you have a electonic photo there is a website that will try to provide you with possible photo matches: http://peoplematch.rc.tv/peoplematch/ Good luck – I hope your friend is safe. Steve