Tsunami

[QUOTE=karbunkle]if i ever saw a wave of water come over the top of the rocky mountains my head would implode as my heart exploded
all of this taking place after i shit my pants[/QUOTE]
and it would be safe to say that your soggy bottoms would be the least of your worries.

[QUOTE=Akiama]oky, I thought about this.. and after having a discussion with my dad, I concluded that both eating animals and these human deaths are tragic.[/QUOTE]

Eating animals is awesome, and you need to get down with that fact.

[QUOTE=Akiama]oh, yes, it's quite wonderful.

I'm not pretending anything, asshole. I don't know what goes around everywhere in the entire fucking world, and I didn't even say that I did.

I realize that there are beautiful things in the world that have been created by humanity, and I also realize that throughout history and modern days, we humans have fucked over the world. There are so many extinct animals, unwelcome climate changes and diseases all caused from us. Don't fucking assume what I know and do not know. You're making an entire fucking assumption, creating a whole profile on a comment. I'm not some dumb twit who just says shit without actually contemplating the issue. OMG! This girl is just some 17 yr old! She doesn't know shit, she thinks that humans don't deserve to live! Why does she think this? How COULD she possibly say such a thing? We humans are so FUCKING important! She's just stupid and doesn't realize how great we people really fucking are!

"Just being" doesn't mean cutting down rainforests, littering, and slaughtering animals, does it? 'Cause, you know, we build a society on that.

Why the fuck would I think everyone should die because I apparently have a low self-esteem? That's the dumbest fucking assumption I've ever heard. Yeah, maybe if I was some cutter who had nothing better to do than listen to Slipknot all day, muttering "people equal shit".

I'm not all that close-minded you make me out to be, nor am I self-destructive. Do you actually have any proof of this? Or are you just pulling insults out of your ass?

You know what? I CARE about littering. And there you go again, assuming that all I do is sit here on my ass, bitching about the inhumanity of humanity. I'm a vegetarian, which means I'm not contributing to the death of animals. I try to have people see my point of views on vegetarians, the betterment of animal life and yes, the importance of reducing waste and actaully throwing away your garbage properly. But, unfortunately, I get the "you have your ideas, I have mine". Do you know where I live? I live in Alberta, Canada. Alberta is the largest cattle producer in the country and accounts for nearly 40% of Canada's meat. I live in Hicksville, oky? Where cowboys roam and where people consider Wal-Mart a mall. I have discussions with people on all of these things, but do you know what I get for my trying? I get laughed at and the most arrogant comment "I can't live without meat.. you're crazy for not eating cow". Honestly, what kind of bullshit is that?

I don't write poetry at all, smartass. I try all that I can to enforce my ideas. I donate money monthly to Greenpeace, and I know that that doesn't seem like much, but it's better than nothing. The best I can do at this stage in my life is hope that my conversations with people and that my measely donations to organizations such as Greenpeace make a difference.

And I realize that being a vegetarian is kind of hopeless, but I'm sticking to it.

And as a vegetarian, and my ideas, I do have problems. I'm always re-evaluating myself and what I believe. Being a vegetarian, I know I'm not actually doing anything about the betterment of animal rights. Yes, I'm not killing animals, but what does that matter? I mean, just because most Germans during World War Two weren't killing the Jews/Homosexuals/etc, those certain peoples were still being killed, and they weren't doing anything to free them. In my History class last semester, our class watched a clip from "Band of Brothers" that featured these Allied soldiers discovering a KZ camp. Outside of that camp was a small German town (obviously), and the smell of the cremated bodies was quite noticable. The soldiers freaked out on this German baker, asking him if he couldn't smell the stench of death.
The clip was so overwhelming; it really made you see what the Holocaust was like. The uncovering of the concentration camp was surreal. Dead bodies lay everywhere, and the Jews were unbelievably anorexic and were so happy to be freed. Most of them didn't even believe that they were being rescued.
It was apparent that the Germans didn't do anything about this KZ camp because they knew that if they did, the Gestapo would kill them. My History teacher asked the class if we would have done something about it. Would have we tried to free these people? Most people said they wouldn't. They would have liked to, but they didn't want to. I was one of the very few people who said that I would do something about it. I told him that I would rather die trying to free these people than do nothing about it. I said I couldn't be that cowardly. But yet, here I am, a vegetarian doing nothing. And what's even worse, other than the fact that I'm not doing anything about the butchering of animals, is that small animals like mice and gophers are killed by farmers during the growth of these very plants that I eat. So no matter what, I'm still allowing and contributing to the death of innocent animals. I really don't know what I am to do. I feel like a hopeless German during the War… like everyone else in my class…

I'm not a fucking angsty teen who thinks my family hates me, you dipshit. I know love, I know emotion, and I love my family. But you know what? I would give up everything if I knew that I COULD actually make a difference in the world. I don't cry when I see dead people, or floods, or anything of that nature. I feel like shit when I see animals being abused, when there's a fucking turkey on my table with its legs tied together. I feel like shit knowing that my family, who I love, doesn't think twice when they bite into a steak. When they love my cats, but don't care about the piece of baby cow in the freezer. THAT is mindless. I don't really want them to die, but I think as humans, we have a choice to do what's right and what's wrong. And killing an animal, or rather, buying packaged cow in the grocery store, isn't needed. How could someone own a pet and consider it OK to kill another animal?

The struggle for improvement is hard, and I guess I just meant that us dying would be the easiest solution. I mean, we humans do it all the time. Just like in Toronto where those dogs were banned and a lot of them were put down. Easiest solution, right?

I will compare humans to whatever creature I very well fucking please.[/QUOTE]

Saying "fuck" doesnt make your arguement sound any better.

"I'm not pretending anything, asshole. I don't know what goes around everywhere in the entire fucking world, and I didn't even say that I did."

Yes. Yes you are. How can you pass judgement on humanity as a race?
How can you pass jdugement on anyone? I failed here to, passing judgement on you. WHich wasnt right. But your ignorance and total disregard for anything but your own mindless reasoning set me off, as i have obviously set you off. But look in the mirror. Look how pompous you seem. "We should all die". We are digusting and gross and evil"

No. Why belittle yourself like that? That is where the self-esteem thing comes from. I dont know how you can have self-esteem, if you see humans as ugly, or evil. How can you feel any sort of goodness in your self if this is what you believe we as a race and a people are? I dont understand it. Do you judge yourself on some total other level, abstract from the rest of this race you belong to whether you like it or not?

"I'm not some dumb twit who just says shit without actually contemplating the issue. OMG! This girl is just some 17 yr old! She doesn't know shit, she thinks that humans don't deserve to live! Why does she think this? How COULD she possibly say such a thing? We humans are so FUCKING important! She's just stupid and doesn't realize how great we people really fucking are!

"Just being" doesn't mean cutting down rainforests, littering, and slaughtering animals, does it? 'Cause, you know, we build a society on that."

I am 17 too, so I am not juding you on your age. And why shouldnt we exist.

I never said we were important. Read what I say instead of making your own assumptions. I never said we were special or any different. I just said we are here. Accept it. Animals cause destruction too. They kill and eat one another. They victimize other species. Yet we are to be the criminals? All and everyone of us? And try to make something better of yourself and humanity by DOING something instead of decalring that the only way is that we be murdered.

"You know what? I CARE about littering. And there you go again, assuming that all I do is sit here on my ass, bitching about the inhumanity of humanity. [B][U]I'm a vegetarian, which means I'm not contributing to the death of animals[/U].[/B] I try to have people see my point of views on vegetarians, the betterment of animal life and yes, the importance of reducing waste and actaully throwing away your garbage properly. But, unfortunately, I get the "you have your ideas, I have mine". Do you know where I live? I live in Alberta, Canada. Alberta is the largest cattle producer in the country and accounts for nearly 40% of Canada's meat. I live in Hicksville, oky? Where cowboys roam and where people consider Wal-Mart a mall. I have discussions with people on all of these things, but do you know what I get for my trying? I get laughed at and the most arrogant comment "I can't live without meat.. you're crazy for not eating cow". Honestly, what kind of bullshit is that?"

I agree their arguments are bullshit.

But look at this:
[URL=http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html]Questions On True Vegan Morals[/URL]

and this

[URL=http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm]More[/URL]

These are real arguments.
And Im glad you realize them. Its really hard to be a vegan, and to make a difference, and I dont agreee with the idea overall, but we can save that for another debate.

"The struggle for improvement is hard, and I guess I just meant that us dying would be the easiest solution. I mean, we humans do it all the time. Just like in Toronto where those dogs were banned and a lot of them were put down. Easiest solution, right?"

So why not be a hypocrite right?

This is why your argument doesnt make sense. You are becoming what you despise. You are using the easiest solution, and it makes you just as bad as the FUCKING IDOITS (yeah I used fuck too, the dog legislation pissed me off" who started this whole banning pitbull business in the Toronto area. And look at all the companies, especially in Northern Ontario. "Hey lets dump mecrury into te water from our paper mill because its an easier way to solve our problem. Not to mention it destroying the native peoples livelihood off of fish and other aquatic life, and destroying their health overtime, as they were not warned of the pollution. And the fact that they have nowhere else to go."

Your solution is a cope out. O its the easiest way. The mantra of the corporation and the politcian, the meat packing business that sees its easier to kill the pigs and cut off their meat at the same time. The comapnies destroying our world. "Well its easier" "It takes less effort"

You are turning into your enemy.

And how and why should respect the opinion of one who belives that "more tsnumais is a good idea"? Its ridiculous and stupid, and it really pissed me off, how you could trivilize this devastation while steadfast in your support of saving animals? How?

Your comments seemed immature, and idoitic. Sure, I didnt cry over this either, but I realized something needed to be done. I also realized that "more tsnuamis" is not the answer.

Its a cope out.

I just want to point out that these long posts could have been avaided by eating sweet delicious meat.

[IMG]http://www.vancourier.com/gallery/Raw%20meat.jpg[/IMG]

Mmmmmmmmmeat!

[QUOTE=mungkay]I just want to point out that these long posts could have been avaided by eating sweet delicious meat.

[IMG]http://www.vancourier.com/gallery/Raw%20meat.jpg[/IMG]

Mmmmmmmmmeat![/QUOTE]

Dont forget MILKSHAKES!

[QUOTE=MockyMockins]Saying "fuck" doesnt make your arguement sound any better.

I learnt that in English already

I'm not even saying that the entire human race should die anymore. I thought I explained that already, briefly. But, I could be wrong, and am too lazy to look up whatever I said in all my other posts 'cause this is getting rather tedious; arguing about what I said that doesn't matter in the first place.

I already said that I see the beauty in human life. And how could I not? If you've seen my art pieces, you'd see that I see humans as beautiful, for they're mostly what I draw (especially ladies).

I'm glad you're not discriminating against me for my age, thank you. I hate that, really. You know, how people think because someone's 14, or whatever, he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about, and that his/her opinion doesn't matter? But that's something entirely different.

I never actually said that you said that humans are important. It was more of a mockery of what everyone was saying collectively, and how humans feel in general. See also: the inability to adapt to one's environment.

Plus, I think I was just getting to the ideal that Earth would be better off without us 'cause we pollute so much. I mean, here in my Greenpeace letter, "bottom trawling" kills many ocean floor creatures. And then there's oil spills; I felt horrid seeing those little otters covered in oil, dying 'cause of human stupidity and greed and lack of adaptation. But I also have to take into account that all of this unwillingness to live in harmony with Mother Nature is a part of "civilized society", and that not all cultures live evily like the rest of the modern world.

Also, I did say that I AM trying to do something with the Greenpeace and the discussions and being a vegetarian and things of that nature.

If I could join Greenpeace right now, I would. Mostly 'cause I'd love to help, and partly I'm lazy on the portfolio.

I couldn't be vegan because I don't see how I'm hurting/killing a cow from it.

And thank you.

I thought I explained myself on this, already. And you're getting my point of what I said wrong. Probably because I worded it wrong. I meant that I wasn't being so horrible 'cause everyone else does it, but more in a tone of .. sarcasm? That's not the word, but it's the first word that comes to mind.

[i]why am I quoting Choke?[/i]

The whole "more tsunamis" was a joke. It was just there to exemplify my distate for human destruction. Plus, I've always loved animals more than humans.

I like how Albertans have comepletly dominated this thread. Suck on that everywhere else!

Did anyone catch Fox News trying to make the US contribution sound ginormous by comparing it to France's paltry sum? Small potatoes may make the steak look larger but Britain's still giving twice as much in relief money, and doing it in a way that doesn't undermine the UN.

by August, I should be living in Calgary.

I'm impressed with Canada's contribution.. but only 'cause I keep thinking that we're poor.

little bitty of information:

(my dad's K-Car weighs about a ton)
Canadian inventories of beef

Domestic inventories of frozen and chilled beef and veal rose as one might expect, reaching an all-time high of 43,000 tonnes in October.

are the prices of tomatoes still high?

is there more news on this tsunami?

on Yahoo! I saw the headline: "deaths toll over 100,000"

and then I thought back to Choke and Victor talking to those kids at his workplace about the plagues and such.

I need comparisons for me to understand fully. So, how much would 100,000 people be, in something relative to my life?

Here's a comparison. City of Edmonton has a population of almost 1 million people. Now imagina that every tenth person in that city died in one day. Imagine walking along the streets, inside malls, inside school, hospitals, residential buildings, kindergardens, universities and counting: 1,2,3,4... ten. 1,2,3,4... ten. Every tenth person killed.

Or enough people to fill the Saddledome six times.

U.S upped their contribution to $ 350 million
Japan - $500 million
toll at around 150,000

happy new year. site looks sick.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]oh get off it. Jesus. This thread is about natural disaster. Only a fucking liberal could politicize mother nature. People are dying, and we are sending aid.

And hello, it's the holidays, of course he was on vacation. I was too, does that make me bad. Vacation is what you do over holidays. Maybe you should remind him [I]not [/I] to go on vacation [i]before[/i] the next huge devastating natural disaster happens so he can be in the White House waiting. (sarcasm... cause that obviously doesn't even make a shread of sense.) And what the Hell difference does it make if he even made a statement [I]right away [/I] or not? First you're trashing the guy and what he does, and then you're saying that, what, you're hanging on his every word? It's not like you give a shit what he said in his statement anyways. And it's not his statement lessens the death toll of a natural disaster.

so fuck you. You wanna help the effort for the victims of the tsunami, then help. Send them money, join the red cross, but don't confuse the issue. Natural disasters are not politcal moves, dip shit.

I apologize if this comes across a bit strong, but seriously, This isn't about Bush, it's a tidal wave caused by an earthquake. That's all.[/QUOTE]

You have to be a really smart person to understand George Bush and what he is doing. ireLocus you must be the smartest of them all. Your reply to my post was such shit that my lesser mind can't comprehend it. First off where the fuck do you get off saying that this is some kind of political move fucko. Last time I checked I wasn't running for office. So your problem must be with my educated choice to hate Bush because of what he does. Now I live in and have fought for a country that gives me the freedom to have that opinion. To say only a liberal can "politicize" a natural disaster is a crock of shit. The politics are about the way the counrty's leader handled a tragity, not because a big wave washed away people.Turn off the porn and put on the news. How about some Bill O'Reilly. Then you can see a man who obviously is not a liberal "politicizing" a tragity. The fact that you have a opinion that differs from my own doesnt bother me. What pissed me off was :
1. You talked a bunch of shit from behind a fucking computer screen to a person who you have never met or had an intelligent conversation with.
2. Your response was so close minded, one sided and hypocritical that to anyone who gave a shit about what you wrote it probebly backed my point more that you probebly don't understand why its a shitty thing that a President that put us in over 400 billion dollars in debt as a country can not give more to save peoples lives.

It sometimes amazes me to see how close minded people can be about a political party. I am an American who has fought and been injured while doing so for America. I wants the best for our country because I believe this country has the ability to help the people of this world that need help. It seems like you were just angry that someone had a differing opinion about your beloved President Bush and is your rage you decided to waste my time by writing whatever shit popped into your head at the time, and if thats the case I forgive your ignorance. I would have never been such a vulger asshole in my response if you had not done it first. Good luck with everything and happy fucking new year.

[QUOTE=Proton]U.S upped their contribution to $ 350 million
Japan - $500 million
toll at around 150,000

happy new year. site looks sick.[/QUOTE]

Good to here we are giving more. Must have forgotten a zero on the first estimate. Thanks for keeping us updated. Happy New year

No mistake, Bush just found someone who could count higher than 35.

taken from my AIM profile

[QUOTE=Brad Foster]You have to be a really smart person to understand George Bush and what he is doing. ireLocus you must be the smartest of them all. Your reply to my post was such shit that my lesser mind can't comprehend it. First off where the fuck do you get off saying that this is some kind of political move fucko. Last time I checked I wasn't running for office. So your problem must be with my educated choice to hate Bush because of what he does. Now I live in and have fought for a country that gives me the freedom to have that opinion. To say only a liberal can "politicize" a natural disaster is a crock of shit. The politics are about the way the counrty's leader handled a tragity, not because a big wave washed away people.Turn off the porn and put on the news. How about some Bill O'Reilly. Then you can see a man who obviously is not a liberal "politicizing" a tragity. The fact that you have a opinion that differs from my own doesnt bother me. What pissed me off was :
1. You talked a bunch of shit from behind a fucking computer screen to a person who you have never met or had an intelligent conversation with.
2. Your response was so close minded, one sided and hypocritical that to anyone who gave a shit about what you wrote it probebly backed my point more that you probebly don't understand why its a shitty thing that a President that put us in over 400 billion dollars in debt as a country can not give more to save peoples lives.

It sometimes amazes me to see how close minded people can be about a political party. I am an American who has fought and been injured while doing so for America. I wants the best for our country because I believe this country has the ability to help the people of this world that need help. It seems like you were just angry that someone had a differing opinion about your beloved President Bush and is your rage you decided to waste my time by writing whatever shit popped into your head at the time, and if thats the case I forgive your ignorance. I would have never been such a vulger asshole in my response if you had not done it first. Good luck with everything and happy fucking new year.[/QUOTE]

Earth to dipshit: This was a Tsunami. Bush did not cause, nor did Bush vote for said Tsunami. So, how can we trash Bush because of a Tsunami? Personally, I have no idea.

And honestly, I wasn't saying [I]you [/I] were making a political move, genius. (I am aslo glad to hear you're not running for office.) If you want to debate Bush, that's fine... but that's actually not the reason I posted what I did. The issue of this thread is a natural disaster.

Fuck Bush, if you don't like him, cool. I'm not telling you to like him. I'm calling you out based on your poorly formed arguments based on your even weaker logic. Do you want to trash Bush? Fine. Go trash him somewhere else, because it really has nothing to do with this.

And I must add that my response is probably the most open minded post about Bush this thread has seen. I pointed out that although he had nothing to do with the cause of this natural disaster, that he has pledged money to help the relief efforts, and that pledge has since been exponentially increased. I'm not supporting Bush by saying this, I'm merely pointing out the obvious and giving him credit for what he's doing. I'm not telling you to vote for him.

I'm defending him the same way I'd defend [I]you [/I] if someone decided to trash you for things that were hardly in your control. You had nothing to do with the tsunami, so it makes no sense to shit on you because of it any more than it does to shit on Bush. But you made some very biased remarks that had little or no basis whatsoever. So I called your bluff, and now you seem pissed that I stated my opinion. You trashed someone in a way that they cant possibly defend themselves. That's pretty spineless. I trashed you because of this, and mainly pointed out the flaws in your logic. All of the sudden I'm the bad guy? I did the same thing you did (ie trashing someone), and you didn't even have the decency respond to my reasoning. You misunderstood most of what I wrote, responded to even less of it, and cocked off in reply mainly about my probable political affiliaitons. What makes us different is that I wasn't rattling politcal biases and witty quips in an effort to hide my ignorance, I was stating facts.

I really think that since the aid money has gone up to 350 million, you no longer have anything to say about my "beloved president." (your words, not mine.) But in case you come up with something, how about you stick it in your own thread and leave this one to the issue at hand: the tsunami.

[QUOTE=mungkay]Eating animals is awesome, and you need to get down with that fact.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I must agree with this.

Jeeze... according to CNN.com, the death toll is expected to crest 155,000. I thought they expected it to cap somewhere around 160,00 as the result of disease in the aftermath... like maybe a month from now.

[center]**************************************************************************************************[/center]
And why do they keep such careful track of Americans lost? Hear me out, please. I'm wondering if it's to make it seem more personal to us Americans who may otherwise find it easy to say "It doesn't affect me, why should I care?" I heard someone comment that it pissed them off that we keep seeing the American death toll listed seperatley, and I thought he was over reacting because, of course, the US [I]should [/I] worry about it's citizens in the midst of a tragedy. He said that the stating the American death toll minimizes the sense of tragedy on a global scale, but it seems to me that it would personalize it.

What do you guys think? Is it wrong/indecent/selfish to mention how many US citizens have died or are lost b/c of the tsunami and/or is there a better way to do it?

It's a common practice in journalism. It's done to help connect the reader to the story.

[QUOTE=mungkay]It's a common practice in journalism. It's done to help connect the reader to the story.[/QUOTE]

See, that's kinda what I thought. Thanks.

[QUOTE=mungkay]It's a common practice in journalism. It's done to help connect the reader to the story.[/QUOTE]

we need that to take it more seriously - especially when you think about all the places you have been on vacation or want to go. So to all those who say a tsunami can never hit them... well, we still need to thank God every day for life. It could have been your next vacation.
More people die in car accidents every year than plane crashes. When I think about how unexpected death is (most of the time), I have to stop and ask myself, why do I get mad at stupid things, why did I argue with that person, what if that's the last time I see them? I know that's pretty dreary, but it actually has twice in my life so far where someone very close to me died suddenly and I don't want to take anyone for granted anymore.
This tsunami has to be brought down to a level where we can relate because in a way the numbers of deaths are so high you can't even get your mind around it. For me personally, its hard to sympathize when i can't comprehend - it has to be made personal.

[QUOTE=dzudzu]we need that to take it more seriously - especially when you think about all the places you have been on vacation or want to go. So to all those who say a tsunami can never hit them... well, we still need to thank God every day for life. It could have been your next vacation.
More people die in car accidents every year than plane crashes. When I think about how unexpected death is (most of the time), I have to stop and ask myself, why do I get mad at stupid things, why did I argue with that person, what if that's the last time I see them? I know that's pretty dreary, but it actually has twice in my life so far where someone very close to me died suddenly and I don't want to take anyone for granted anymore.
This tsunami has to be brought down to a level where we can relate because in a way the numbers of deaths are so high you can't even get your mind around it. For me personally, its hard to sympathize when i can't comprehend - it has to be made personal.[/QUOTE]

This is why I appreciate the images we see. It hits home when you see a little girl who's lost her family. She's real. She's an individual. She's one of thousands left to wander in the wake of this tragic event. Thousands of individuals as real as the guy in the apartment upstairs. She is why we need to help. She is who we need to help.

Here's the long and the short of it: human beings on the whole are very good at finding and exploiting regular, predictable natural cycles and systems. Seasons, annual floods, monsoons, soil nitrogen depletion/replenishment, predator/prey relationships - all these are things we build our civilization upon due to the fact that we largely understand and control them.

The danger is that we get lulled into a false sense that everything in nature is like that, and that we can go about our business as usual. We like to pretend these unpredictable events don't really exist so we can keep looking at the world as a clock whose workings we understand. That's why we get our asses handed to us - it always takes tragedy to get people to make changes - it has to be perceived as a very real threat that fits into their ordered universe.

Part of this whole delusion rests in the fact that people like to use government to do things they would never do. It's easy to spend someone else's money. It's not causing George W. Bush any grief to part with three hundred fifty million dollars of someone else's money. And for us mere mortal citizens, it's easy to say what "this country" should or should not do. It's easy to say that someone else should pay for this or pay for that or die for this cause or experience grief for this or that. If every whiny liberal gave from his own wallet what he expects "other people" to give in the form of taxes, maybe we'd see some genuine change. And if every whiny conservative went out and died for these so-called "righteous causes", maybe they'd do us a favor and make themselves extinct. And it's easy for both sides of the ideological war to say what the president should or shouldn't do with everyone's money. Never mind the fact that nothing in the Constitution authorizes the president to take our money and give it to people in another country. If I even bring that up, I'm branded as some kind of uncaring fuck.

You'd think this kind of argument would stop any ideologue in his tracks. If someone gets in your face about the AIDS situation in Africa, you say, "What the hell have [b]you[/b] done for Africa lately?" And if someone gets in your face about the al-Quada situation, you say, "What the hell have [b]you[/b] done for world peace lately?" Let's see some receipts, kids. You're telling me I should care more about the homeless? How much did you give them this year? How much time did you volunteer this year? And why are you demanding so much more from others than you are willing to give?

That's my take on it, at least. Some people are genuine, some people are rats, and some people can form into both.

[QUOTE=Jeebus]You'd think this kind of argument would stop any ideologue in his tracks. If someone gets in your face about the AIDS situation in Africa, you say, "What the hell have [b]you[/b] done for Africa lately?" And if someone gets in your face about the al-Quada situation, you say, "What the hell have [b]you[/b] done for world peace lately?" Let's see some receipts, kids. You're telling me I should care more about the homeless? How much did you give them this year? How much time did you volunteer this year? And why are you demanding so much more from others than you are willing to give?

That's my take on it, at least. Some people are genuine, some people are rats, and some people can form into both.[/QUOTE]

So you're basically saying, "faith without works is dead." Show people what you believe by what you do.
Well, I agree with you but there seems to be a fine line. Like for instance, I literally barely have enough money to buy groceries this month, and I know there are people over there starving but I do live in America and I still need to eat before I pay for them to eat. I may not be able to send money but I still care, and I can pray for them.

<

[QUOTE=Jeebus]Here's the long and the short of it: human beings on the whole are very good at finding and exploiting regular, predictable natural cycles and systems. Seasons, annual floods, monsoons, soil nitrogen depletion/replenishment, predator/prey relationships - all these are things we build our civilization upon due to the fact that we largely understand and control them.

The danger is that we get lulled into a false sense that everything in nature is like that, and that we can go about our business as usual. We like to pretend these unpredictable events don't really exist so we can keep looking at the world as a clock whose workings we understand. That's why we get our asses handed to us - it always takes tragedy to get people to make changes - it has to be perceived as a very real threat that fits into their ordered universe.

Part of this whole delusion rests in the fact that people like to use government to do things they would never do. It's easy to spend someone else's money. It's not causing George W. Bush any grief to part with three hundred fifty million dollars of someone else's money. And for us mere mortal citizens, it's easy to say what "this country" should or should not do. It's easy to say that someone else should pay for this or pay for that or die for this cause or experience grief for this or that. If every whiny liberal gave from his own wallet what he expects "other people" to give in the form of taxes, maybe we'd see some genuine change. And if every whiny conservative went out and died for these so-called "righteous causes", maybe they'd do us a favor and make themselves extinct. And it's easy for both sides of the ideological war to say what the president should or shouldn't do with everyone's money. Never mind the fact that nothing in the Constitution authorizes the president to take our money and give it to people in another country. If I even bring that up, I'm branded as some kind of uncaring fuck.

You'd think this kind of argument would stop any ideologue in his tracks. If someone gets in your face about the AIDS situation in Africa, you say, "What the hell have [b]you[/b] done for Africa lately?" And if someone gets in your face about the al-Quada situation, you say, "What the hell have [b]you[/b] done for world peace lately?" Let's see some receipts, kids. You're telling me I should care more about the homeless? How much did you give them this year? How much time did you volunteer this year? And why are you demanding so much more from others than you are willing to give?

That's my take on it, at least. Some people are genuine, some people are rats, and some people can form into both.[/QUOTE]

Well written Jeebus, and duely noted.

I guess I should be clear here too, I'm not saying someone is moraly remiss by not personally making an effort to aid the tsunami relief. I, personally, haven't added my portion yet anyways, so it's not my place to say. But there is a difference between caring and giving money, though in some cases, one naturally follows the other. Now we obviously cannot, and definitely should not, give to every cause that someone throws our way. I may feel compelled to financially aid the tsunami, or I may just give money to the homeless here in America, making either choice of my own volition and for my own reasons.

So I do (as I believe, we all should to one extent or another) care that there is a staggering death toll, and I also care that there are people left in the wake of this tragedy, though I may or may not be able to make a "huge" difference monetarily or otherwise.

[QUOTE=vidalia]<

I agree with both of you (dzudzu and ireLocus). Very valid points.

I have a question, though. Remember all the American flags on SUV's after 9/11? Remember all those ridiculous NYPD and FDNY hats people wore? You know what that is? That's an expression of deep-seated hatred and rage, disguised as "patriotism" and respect for "heroism," I think. Engage any of those flag-toters in conversation, and you'll hear someone hollering about bombing all those bastards into the Stone Age. Pathetic, in my opinion.

The end goal of all this "political sympathy", whether the liberals or conservatives realize it or not, is not to actually make the world a better place, but to find ways to boost their public images, I think. This applies to politicians and to the political junkies at home. People love to find a victim to pretend to "fight for". Conservatives parade the soldiers as their beloved pet cause. Liberals parade the downtrodden working class and those poor people in the Third World. They are all just carving out a piece of the fake sympathy pie, hoping to advance their image and that of their political agenda by attaching it to something that is emotionally hot.

Most people like to talk, not do. You agree?

[QUOTE=Jeebus]I agree with both of you (dzudzu and ireLocus). Very valid points.

I have a question, though. Remember all the American flags on SUV's after 9/11? Remember all those ridiculous NYPD and FDNY hats people wore? You know what that is? That's an expression of deep-seated hatred and rage, disguised as "patriotism" and respect for "heroism," I think. Engage any of those flag-toters in conversation, and you'll hear someone hollering about bombing all those bastards into the Stone Age. Pathetic, in my opinion.

The end goal of all this "political sympathy", whether the liberals or conservatives realize it or not, is not to actually make the world a better place, but to find ways to boost their public images, I think. This applies to politicians and to the political junkies at home. People love to find a victim to pretend to "fight for". Conservatives parade the soldiers as their beloved pet cause. Liberals parade the downtrodden working class and those poor people in the Third World. They are all just carving out a piece of the fake sympathy pie, hoping to advance their image and that of their political agenda by attaching it to something that is emotionally hot.

Most people like to talk, not do. You agree?[/QUOTE]

I definitely agree. While I don't think it applies to all people in the situations you mentioned above, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people do that sort of thing. With the flag-waving, it can also be considered a type of defense mechanism. Ever notice how some flag-wavers on interviews or articles or surveys just seem downright convinced that their own president wouldn't betray them, like he's the epitomy of all things good and safe? That's a defense mechanism in my mind.

ok.. I agree that most people like to talk and not to do based on experience. And I agree that concern and moral responsibility have become vices for the politicians and the "political junkies" (I like that term), but at the same time, I have nothing to gain from showing concern, and I have to say a lot of the flag-toters could fall into that category as well. We may like to to talk and not do all the same, but we, the average non political joe, have much less to gain from that talk. Maybe we are just inadvertantly immitating the politcal leaders whose ideas we subscribe to, but speaking for myself, I can say I don't do this as much as some may. We're aren't all of us political junkies.

[QUOTE=Jeebus]I agree with both of you (dzudzu and ireLocus). Very valid points.

I have a question, though. Remember all the American flags on SUV's after 9/11? Remember all those ridiculous NYPD and FDNY hats people wore? You know what that is? That's an expression of deep-seated hatred and rage, disguised as "patriotism" and respect for "heroism," I think. Engage any of those flag-toters in conversation, and you'll hear someone hollering about bombing all those bastards into the Stone Age. Pathetic, in my opinion.

The end goal of all this "political sympathy", whether the liberals or conservatives realize it or not, is not to actually make the world a better place, but to find ways to boost their public images, I think. This applies to politicians and to the political junkies at home. People love to find a victim to pretend to "fight for". Conservatives parade the soldiers as their beloved pet cause. Liberals parade the downtrodden working class and those poor people in the Third World. They are all just carving out a piece of the fake sympathy pie, hoping to advance their image and that of their political agenda by attaching it to something that is emotionally hot.

Most people like to talk, not do. You agree?[/QUOTE]

yes and no

yes - people like to talk not do

but I think you're wrong about making all this somehow political. Why does it have to come from some other motive that people care what's happenning to people over there? And as for 911, I thought it was great that people finally got patriotic. We always take our freedom for granted and forget how many people died for it.

Yeah, a defense mechanism. That makes sense. Do you think some people use this mechanism as a way to seem more patriotic post-9/11? I mean, it's good to be patriotic and all, but why weren't they patriotic to begin with? Why all of a sudden after a tragedy -- do they automatically spew up from the media swamp and pledge their infatuation with America? Do you think that was a defense mechanism? I honestly don't know, but it seems that way to me sometimes.

Thank you. Yeah, that term just kind of popped in my head while venting. I thought it was good, too. Anyway, do you think some Americans fall for this World War II type propaganda by politicians? A lof of these political totem-pole ideas come from bias-[i]ness[/i], not only from protesting but just the media, too. Do you think the average american joe gets entangled in something we don't want to subscribe too often? I mean, right now, most Americans feel a loss for the victims of this tsunami but they aren't willing to exchange their life for 140,000 -- I bet. So, would you consider that a do or a doo doo?

I think when things get under the media microscope, more often that not, things do [i]become[/i] political. Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments.

[QUOTE=Jeebus]Yeah, a defense mechanism. That makes sense. Do you think some people use this mechanism as a way to seem more patriotic post-9/11? I mean, it's good to be patriotic and all, but why weren't they patriotic to begin with? Why all of a sudden after a tragedy -- do they automatically spew up from the media swamp and pledge their infatuation with America? Do you think that was a defense mechanism? I honestly don't know, but it seems that way to me sometimes.
[/QUOTE]

They could do it for various reasons. Peer pressure might be one, or at least the fear of not joining everyone else in being patriotic (cleverly labeled by Bush as "unpatriotic"). It may be a heightened, yet unmerited, sense of vulnerability. Just a couple ideas, I'm sure there are more.

Let me just be honest and say that I don't quite understand the question(s). hehehe... *blush*

[QUOTE=ireLocus]

Let me just be honest and say that I don't quite understand the question(s). hehehe... *blush*[/QUOTE]

What I am saying is: Back in World War II many politicians did propaganda scandals for homeland patriots to suppor their troops out in Germany or wherever. Do you think that this type of tragedy (in Sri Lanka and other Indian Ocean countries) can be implemented as a media circus?

[QUOTE=Jeebus]What I am saying is: Back in World War II many politicians did propaganda scandals for homeland patriots to suppor their troops out in Germany or wherever. Do you think that this type of tragedy (in Sri Lanka and other Indian Ocean countries) can be implemented as a media circus?[/QUOTE]

*the light going on*

Yeah, okay. I think they can and are. That's the thing that stinks. Politicians are saying one thing (using incidents like this as a vice), the media, in quoting the politician, is saying something different (often siding with one party or bias by quoting one in a good light and the oppostie in a poor light), the political junkies bite, and form their alliances based on what politics the networks subscribe to, and me... well I say one thing and somehow I've decided to support a real patriotic president, or say something else and I'm somehow bashing a draft dodging doofus, all the while supproting some TV stations political agenda simply because they are the source ( and very often a biased source) of my informaiton.

[QUOTE=Jeebus]I think when things get under the media microscope, more often that not, things do [i]become[/i] political. Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments.[/QUOTE]

maybe I'm just naive and I [I]really[/I] don't want them to be political. I'd honestly rather think people just truely care.

The surge in "patriotism" is also partially because people take things for granted, almost lose it (or have the sense they almost lost it, although they were no where near the terrorist attacks) and realize how much it means to them?

[QUOTE=PsychoKeety]The surge in "patriotism" is also partially because people take things for granted, almost lose it (or have the sense they almost lost it, although they were no where near the terrorist attacks) and realize how much it means to them?[/QUOTE]

hmm. simple and honest. I like it!. I'd have to say that most of America probably fits into this category simply because they just aren't as crafty (a simple lack of necessity) as some of the aforementioned players in this crazy scenario.

Couldn't find the right article, but the Nicobar and Andaman Islands were on the news, on NBC, said India (?I think) flew a helicopter to one of them and it was being attacked by bows and arrows? I just thought that was cute in a way...anyway. They supposedly aren't as bad off as everyone thought at first (since they're small islands near the epicenter of the earthquake) but NBC mentioned they had an early warning system. Probably just paying attention to nature, seeing the water out really far and alerting everyone. But what struck me is that the way the guy said it on NBC (the new guy who replaced Dan Rather, dunno his name) gave off the impression that these little tribes had earthquake detection equipment or something.

Also. I can't find an article on this either, but how Arab tv stations are blaming Bush (and others) for the tsunami because of nuclear testing. The funny part about it is the clip NBC showed of one station talking about Christmas, basically saying that around this time of year "fornicators and other corrupt individuals" come together around Christmas to "fornicate" and.....on and on. What the heck!? hehe. Talk about miscommunication...they think Christmas is just a big orgy.

Well, at least that's what the subtitles underneath said...whether they're accurate or not, I dunno.

[QUOTE=PsychoKeety] Also. I can't find an article on this either, but how Arab tv stations are blaming Bush (and others) for the tsunami because of nuclear testing. The funny part about it is the clip NBC showed of one station talking about Christmas, basically saying that around this time of year "fornicators and other corrupt individuals" come together around Christmas to "fornicate" and.....on and on. What the heck!? hehe. Talk about miscommunication...they think Christmas is just a big orgy.

Well, at least that's what the subtitles underneath said...whether they're accurate or not, I dunno.[/QUOTE]

Yet more proof that you have to be nuts to somehow find a way to lame blame on a person for a natural disaster. Bush has his faults, I'll not deny that... I'm not happy with many of his characteristics and policies, but give 'em a break. Unless of course, you believe that this tsunami was a act of God, and by association Bush is somehow responsible in that light... but let's be realistic folks.

Now what about this Christmas orgy? I'll admit the smooth sounds of Nat King Cole and other equally good singers with Christmas albums may help us "fornicators" get in the mood, but I thought the orgies were all supposed to happen during Mardi Gras, or maybe Haloween or something, but Christmas? I mean.. maybe at the North Pole. (Now there's a picture, hundreds and hundreds of little elves running around making love to anything that moves including poor little Rudolf... sounds like an episode of South Park)

[QUOTE=ireLocus]Yet more proof that you have to be nuts to somehow find a way to lame blame on a person for a natural disaster. Bush has his faults, I'll not deny that... I'm not happy with many of his characteristics and policies, but give 'em a break. Unless of course, you believe that this tsunami was a act of God, and by association Bush is somehow responsible in that light... but let's be realistic folks.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I can see it like this: Many Third Worlders feel that wealth disparity (they are poor, we are rich) is the result of exploitation, etc.of capitalist countries. This disparity means that the poorer countires have less money for infrastructure, tsunami warning systems, etc. Had the U.S. not been the imperialists that they are, these countries may have had a chance to be more prepared for the natural disaster. As the leader of the United States, George Bush is a powerful symbol of our lifestyle, and the fact that we are rich and they are not. There is much suffering and he is simply the face that gets the blame. While this is not rational, I sympathize with this view. I feel sorry for them.

... or not.

[QUOTE=Thag]Well, I can see it like this: Many Third Worlders feel that wealth disparity (they are poor, we are rich) is the result of exploitation, etc.of capitalist countries. This disparity means that the poorer countires have less money for infrastructure, tsunami warning systems, etc. Had the U.S. not been the imperialists that they are, these countries may have had a chance to be more prepared for the natural disaster. As the leader of the United States, George Bush is a powerful symbol of our lifestyle, and the fact that we are rich and they are not. There is much suffering and he is simply the face that gets the blame. While this is not rational, I sympathize with this view. I feel sorry for them.

... or not.[/QUOTE]

It's a good point to make actually, that Bush is the figure head of the American capitalistic machine and therefore catches a lot of flak when things like this happen. I mean, it's part of the job of being president, so while I may feel it necessary to try and be fair, he did take on that responsibility and put himslef in the line of fire for mountains of crticism, well founded or not.

We really can't blame the US for the "poor-ness" of every country below us on the economic totem pole. I mean, why not blame every other major industrial country? We aren't the center around which the rest of the world revolves here in America (believe it or not).

But again, you make a good point here, and were a resident of one of these countries, while I'd be thankful for the relief efforts, I'd probably have my mind set on how the US is really some big bad country that just floods my homeland with tourists and only offers help when it's politically advantageous to do so.

[QUOTE=ireLocus]We really can't blame the US for the "poor-ness" of every country below us on the economic totem pole. I mean, why not blame every other major industrial country? We aren't the center around which the rest of the world revolves here in America (believe it or not).QUOTE]

Actually, other countries seem to hate us for sticking our noses in and trying to help them because we are richer. Wish they'ld make up their minds.

Indeed, blaming the US for the poorness is silly. BUT, it there is alot of pride AND shame going on ... I can also sympathize with a, "No we're FINE!" response. Also, remember that US assistance, particularly LOGISTICAL(ie military) and economic assistance, is percieved of as just another form of imperialism. That is to say, if we help them, it does not come free; we want them to change governments, we want them to jump on the globalism bandwagon, we want their resources, etc.

And why blame us and not the other industrialized countries? I wish I knew. Maybe we are simply too ostentatious, arrogant ... probably actually, its just because we are at the top right now. Again, it's not rational, but understandable ... bah.

Its a bummer its like this.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

The tribe's name that were shooting at the helicopter was the Sentinelese and they are very tribal. They want to be left alone and isolated from the rest of the world. Some environmentalists say that they have a sixth sense from danger by several methods of: smelling the wind, gauge the depth of the sea with the sound of their oars, movement of wind, and birds behavior. I'm not sure if I buy that but it is interesting.

chicago media is doing a donation drive today
[URL=http://chicagoredcross.org/]chicagoredcross[/URL]

okay...people are trying to politicize a natural disaster. now i've heard fucking everything.

Everything is political.