Websnark

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 9, 2005 1:53 AM

Damn. Damn. Double-damn, even. I have this sinking feeling this is not the last we'll have this year, and I'm hoping it's not one of those .. moments.. I get. I hope I'm wrong, ohboy do I.

Comment from: Zaq posted at October 9, 2005 3:29 AM

I've always slightly prided myself on mostly proving to be the exception to the whole "desensitization" thing. I find horrors like this, well, horrifying. (As a result, I do admittedly try to, well, avoid them in my daily routine, but still. This isn't just "oh, some people died and it was sad."). But in light of all that has happened over the past year, or the past couple years really, what I mostly feel in light of this news is guilt at not feeling worse about it. If I haven't hit my saturation point, I'm damn close to it, and from my perspective, that's sad in and of itself.

Of course, that's an obscenely selfish viewpoint, especially in light of this, which then feeds the cycle of guilt over my other emotions or lack thereof. But if all I have to worry about in my life is not worrying, I've got it pretty damn good, and I've got to try as hard as I can to be thankful for that.

Comment from: miyaa posted at October 9, 2005 6:26 AM

Isn't it humbling how no matter whether you have a superior technological, military, or financial advantage how earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. can make that a moot point even now?

Comment from: Merus posted at October 9, 2005 10:20 AM

What's concerning me, having heard of this from Websnark, is that this is starting to sound like a story I once had planned out.

Then again, the story also had a wallaby terrorist cell as a pivotal influence, so I'm thinking it's no more than a coincidence.

Pakistan did not need this, honestly. After the tsunami, which I believe hit Pakistan on the slant, they really didn't another natural disaster to hit their shores, and instead they got one right in their backyard. What's even scarier is that Pakistan is nuclear, and one bad jolt could cause real problem. Their bestest of friends, India, is nuclear too, and they could easily deal with Pakistan right now if they were real douchebags.

Let's hope that Pakistan can get the aid it needs.

Comment from: William_G posted at October 9, 2005 11:02 AM

WARNING: THIS DOES NOT REFLECT MY OWN VIEWS

I'm going to throw this arguing point out:

Why should we help a people that gave us the 9/11 hijackers, would dance in the streets if it happened to us, and are most likely hiding Osama bin Ladin... as well as probably feeding insurgents into Iraq?

I'm just kind of curious about the views.

Comment from: kirabug posted at October 9, 2005 11:38 AM

William - because not all of them would. So you (and yes, I know we're not talking about YOU you - this is the hypothetical you) can do it because a) why punish those who are friendly to us over there just because they're probably in the minority, b) you want to change their opinion of us, and good deeds are one way to do that and c) we're Americans. That's what we do.

--As for me, well, the Schuylkill river is currently cresting at 13 feet, well above flood stage in Philly, thanks remnants of hurricane T-something (Tammy? Tina? Total pain in the ass?) so I'm thinking locally at the moment, and might get around to globally later.

Comment from: kirabug posted at October 9, 2005 11:50 AM

Oh, and for those who are curious about such things, the USGS keeps a running tally of earthquakes around the world for the last 7 days where you can see that the problem isn't wholly the Magnitude 7, it's the roughly two dozen Magnitude 4 and higher (mostly 5's actually) that have struck since then... it's hard to stabalize buildings and people when the ground's still moving.

(Okay, I lied. I am thinking globally. Too much stuff, too fast. Aaugh.)

Comment from: SeanH posted at October 9, 2005 11:57 AM

Didn't most of the 9/11 hijackers come from Saudi Arabia?

But I see your point - if any terrorists were hurt in the earthquake? No aid for them! Same for Osama bin Laden.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at October 9, 2005 12:29 PM

Why?

Because the people who are bleeding in the dark aren't wealthy, or powerful.

Because the people who are bleeding in the dark didn't attack us, even if some few Pakistanis did.

Because the legacy of terrorism is the loss of one's humanity -- it's a cliche, but if we turn our backs on monumental human suffering now, they really have won.

Because it's possible that one or two -- maybe just one or two -- people over there will figure out that Americans, Europeans and even Indians aren't so bad.

Because they're our brothers and sisters, and when the house is on fire, you help put it out, no matter what they've done in the past.

Because we shouldn't do the right thing only when it's easy, or only for people on the approved list.

Because we shouldn't do the right thing only because we hope to get thanked.

Because I'm not a terrorist, even if some of them are.

Because it's my face I have to look at in the mirror when I get up in the morning.

Because if it happened to me, I'd want them to do the same.

Because it's the right thing to do.

If there is anything in this world I'm certain of, it's that with twenty thousand dead on the ground (they revised upwards this morning), with their government specifically pleading for help from the world, and with thirty to forty percent of the affected areas not even reached yet, this is a time to do what we can.

Because it's the right thing to do. That's all.

Comment from: NthDegree256 posted at October 9, 2005 2:23 PM

I posted this elsewhere. It has a bit more of a snarky tone than I intended... maybe I'm past the desensitization point.

predictions:
- People will blame the US for offering too much support instead of focusing on New Orleans.
- People will blame the US for not offering enough support, and being too self-centric by focusing on New Orleans.
- India's offering of help will amount to "sure, we'll help you, but you gotta ASK for it. c'mon. ask." to which Pakistan will be tempted to respond "screw you."
- conspiracy theories will abound about how this must be a superweapon fired by India/America/terrorists/Microsoft/George Bush personally.
- After labeling Katrina a holy smiting by God visited upon the wicked heathens of New Orleans, the radical Islamist population will quickly set about identifying this as a terrible, random tragedy from God that wouldn't have happened to them if the Western countries weren't so blasphemous.
- And, naturally, there'll be sects of Bible-thumpers that decree this to be an act of God targeted at nonbelievers. In particular, they'll love the bit about how Ramadan might have compounded the death toll.
- The death toll will not rise as catastrophically as it did for Katrina - in Katrina's case, the original low counts were because no one had started counting the dead bodies. In this case, it sounds like they've already gone ahead and made estimates. Hopefully, they were overestimates.
- Someone other than me will notice that the past three major catastrophes have been Water, Wind, and Earth, and have an irrational superstitious fear of an impending Fire-related disaster.
- I will post this list and immediately regret it, because upon rereading it, it sounds like it's making light of what just happened. That is not my intention at all; I just don't know what else to say, and I'm sure that "oh, that's so horrible!" and similar phrases will be plentiful in number.

Comment from: kirabug posted at October 9, 2005 2:44 PM

- Someone other than me will notice that the past three major catastrophes have been Water, Wind, and Earth, and have an irrational superstitious fear of an impending Fire-related disaster.

Not on the same scale, thankfully, but that's already been covered. For those who are in the thick of it, though...

Comment from: vilious posted at October 9, 2005 3:09 PM

My God. 20,000. That is suffering beyond what I can imagine. That is children coming home to find their families buried in the rubble of their homes. That is everyone in several cities missing a friend or relative. And there was nothing they could have done. Earthquake-resistant buildings cost too much for the poor.

Comment from: Darth Paradox posted at October 9, 2005 4:58 PM

Isn't it humbling how no matter whether you have a superior technological, military, or financial advantage how earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. can make that a moot point even now?

That's the thing, those advantages do make a difference. Magnitude-7 earthquakes don't kill twenty thousand people in California. The buildings there are built more strongly, and are better able to weather a major earthquake due to financial and technological advantages.

Even within this country, that applies - look at the disparity between how those above and below the poverty line were affected by Katrina.

Comment from: Grumblin posted at October 9, 2005 9:18 PM

a)shyte happens

b)quite a lot of the deaths outside of the epicenter were caused by collapsing buildings built under spec inside a known earthquake zone.
(notably the one collapse in Islamabad.)

c)the actual tally isn't certain yet. Like in New Orleans , all we have is conjecture by news agencies.

d) even if the number of deaths are "worst case scenario" that number will be replenished with new births withing a couple of days in that particular area of the world.

e)yes, Malthus is that close to being right.

f) yes, I'm a cynic. prove me wrong.

Comment from: Dave Van Domelen posted at October 9, 2005 10:24 PM

Don't forget, Hurricane Stan hit Mexico, resulting in mudslides that have wiped out entire villages.

Comment from: William_G posted at October 10, 2005 1:27 AM

Okay, now here's where I think the left has been failing in America, and to extent, I Canada as well.

We have all of these ideals, that we should do things because it's the right thing to do. Which is all good and moral, but not aways practical. And say what you will about the right, they are quite practical about going about their evil. Someone threatens you? Kick the crap out of them! Not moral, but understandable as well as cathartic. That's why the right holds control of the most powerful nation on earth.

I think that we as the left should start doing and explaining why things need to be done in a practical maner... time to be pragmatic.

We should be saving the people in Pakistan, not just because it's the right thing to do, but also as a way to show the people in that region that we are good. That we are heroes. That we are friends.

And dare I say it? That we are saviors.

These practical considerations turned our two deadliest enemies (Japan and Germany) into two of our greatest allies. And it's something that the Bush junta is faiing very badly at.

I know this sort of attitude would be a hard sell to the hardcore supporters of whoever runs for the Dems in 2008, but I'm fairly certain it would draw in the very important swing voters. And where America leads, the world does follow. And maybe we can reverse this trend of neo-imperialism.

Comment from: miyaa posted at October 10, 2005 2:10 AM

1. If we have a natural disaster involving the element of Heart, I am so going to kick Captain Planet's ass.

2. Isn't there a Wizards of the Coast RPG writer who goes by the name of Stan!? (I ask you, who names a Hurricane Stan? It sounds just about as menacing as Hurricane Eric. Hurricane Wednesday would be a whole other story.)

3. Seriously, though, I would agree that an a major 6.0 earthquake or a typical Catagory 1 Hurricane should be easily able to overcome through technology. But if we're talking about Katrina, Andrew or the Big One (Earthquake measuring 8 or greater), all the innovations aren't going to save buildings falling over. And really, aren't we all focused on preventing the next extreme violent swing from Mother Nature, huh? (Maybe Mom Nature would calm down after a couple glasses of burbon.)

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at October 10, 2005 2:15 AM

Aaaaand yep. The needle on my Appall-O-Meter just broke.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at October 10, 2005 4:27 AM

Perhaps someone better-versed than I in geology and meterology can tell me: Is it just me, or does the number or frequency of severe natural disasters worldwide seem to be increasing? Is the earth (whether through natural or human factors) becoming less hospitable to its inhabitants, or is all this just par for the course when viewed over time?

Comment from: TeleriB posted at October 10, 2005 7:55 AM

And say what you will about the right, they are quite practical about going about their evil.

I dunno... I'm working on Killer Death Robots and there are days when I wonder if it's really practical at all...

Comment from: Jin Wicked posted at October 10, 2005 8:29 AM

"Perhaps someone better-versed than I in geology and meterology can tell me: Is it just me, or does the number or frequency of severe natural disasters worldwide seem to be increasing? Is the earth (whether through natural or human factors) becoming less hospitable to its inhabitants, or is all this just par for the course when viewed over time?"

Lots of people have noticed it; it's a favourite topic of the doomsday crowd, psychics, and certain flavours of conspiracy theorists. It was the subject of Art Bell and Whitley Streiber's (sp) book, IIRC, The Coming Global Superstorm which was the basis for the mediocre movie The Day After Tomorrow. I'm not endorsing their viewpoints, but I make a habit of keeping up with all sorts of current ideas out of my own idle curiosity.

C2CAM in particular can be valuable if you learn to separate their legitimate guests from the crazies. Frex they frequently have on guests that debunk their other guests, and have on legitimate scientists like the "Bad Astronomer". So if you are interested in the subject, you may watch their guest listing and see if you can catch a show centred on the theme. Most of the discussion usually revolves around superstorms (debatably like the recent Katrina, and less so, Rita) but there has been discussion of earthquakes as well as part of "major earth changes".

While I do think that perhaps storms as we have seen recently will become more common, I think some of the increased frequency of disasters is more to do with our awareness — the internet has enabled us to find out about disasters large and small, some of which we may never have known about at one point in time.

Comment from: miyaa posted at October 10, 2005 8:42 AM

Perhaps someone better-versed than I in geology and meterology can tell me: Is it just me, or does the number or frequency of severe natural disasters worldwide seem to be increasing? Is the earth (whether through natural or human factors) becoming less hospitable to its inhabitants, or is all this just par for the course when viewed over time?

Michael, the answer to your question is "kind of."

On the surface, yes are correct, there is an increase in the number of natural disasters worldwide. And before I or someone else submits a Global Warming theory to try to cover all of this, I'd like to make a point about it. And it's about technology.

See, scientists and journalist have gotten much better in measuring, monitoring and reporting natural disasters since weather and communication satellites were essentially perfected in the 1960. A good example is the weather satellite that allows Al Roker to seem to appear from outer space and show you where the clouds are moving. When they first developed, satellites were very blurry and you could only take a picture about once every twenty minutes or so. Now, we've gotten to the point where a digital block of cloud represents anywhere from 1 to 5 meter of actual clouds that we get updates on every five minutes or so. I've seen experimental satellites technology may upgrade that clarity to that of a spy satellite, and updates on cloud movement every minute.

The problem is, since we've only started to really notice a lot of things that may have happened perhaps five hundred years or so, it is going to look like there is a dramatic uptick in bad weather events, and I'm sure it's true in other areas as well like earthquakes, fires, or French television shows that jump the shark. I do think that this increase in hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like isn't just a coincedence. But the fact we've only been really observing such events since 1960 with accuracy makes it hard to compare it to past years data.

The other bad thing about is hypothetically, the last time there was such a persistant rise in global warming events was probably in the 1500's. And no one was really keeping a weather diary until 1600, or at least one that survives. (Dear Diary, It was hot. I'm not sure how hot, but it was hot. I know it was hot because five horses and a mule died from heat exhaustion today.) And the best way we know about these kind of things are through tree rings and drilling samples of ice at the poles like you'd sample a potentially good wheel of cheddar. And we scientists are too finicky to merely accept evidence without some kind of a number to go with that.

So, in a sense, it's kind of hard to say because we've just only noticed it in full detail now. Having said that, I do believe this isn't just a statistical coincedence because the data hasn't gone down, and it's not quite an exponential rise that you could speculate if there would be a limit that will be met in the near future. And despite charges and countercharges debating whether or not there is a global warming problem or if how guilty is our pollution, the data does say that there has been an increase.

Comment from: miyaa posted at October 10, 2005 8:52 AM

As to whether the Earth is becoming more or less inhabitable for its inhabitance, that's starting to creep less into the scientific realm and into a religious realm. I could be crass and state that it's has always been like this, we've just noticed this before.

But we don't know. Using our fancy computer models scientists suggest that global warming would manifest itself into melting ice caps, massive flooding or erosion of the coastal shore line, and more storms, and more violent storms. And earthquakes are Earth's way of telling you that Los Angeles will eventually break off into the Ocean in say 20,000 years from now. (Magma makes a lousy movers.) But these speculations into what is the result of an increase in the atmosphere's temperature won't be felt until fifty or sixty years from now, at least, and we're not sure what are very minute signs we can see now that indicates the result of global warming.

Comment from: Merus posted at October 10, 2005 10:19 AM

I just like to say that this is the sort of thing you expect towards the end of the Mayan calendar. Throws people right off, especially when the end of the Mayan calendar will roll around in another seven years or so and the Mayan calendar stuff's a big load of hooey anyway.

This technique tends to backfire. That's when I mention the hooey.

Comment from: Merus posted at October 10, 2005 10:41 AM

"I know this sort of attitude would be a hard sell to the hardcore supporters of whoever runs for the Dems in 2008..."

Especially because if it's Clinton, it'll be a Republican in Democrat clothing.

Then again, I'm a gamer, so perhaps I'm biased against her.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 10, 2005 1:50 PM

I'm an Independent, if I'm anything political at all, and I think Bush is a big fat bully. But something about Hilary just creeps me out.

Of course, if you're able to remove yourself somewhat from all their games... both "sides" seem to be just about as rotten, to me. They all seem to say whatever they have to to get the job, and then do very different things once they have it. In a day job, that shit gets you fired.

Comment from: kirabug posted at October 10, 2005 9:17 PM

William G said:

Okay, now here's where I think the left has been failing in America, and to extent, I Canada as well.

[snip]

We should be saving the people in Pakistan, not just because it's the right thing to do, but also as a way to show the people in that region that we are good. That we are heroes. That we are friends.

And dare I say it? That we are saviors.

Yeah, William, that might be a hard sell, because it's the kind of thing someone on the right might say. How do I know? 'Cause it's essentially the same thing I said, and I'm on the right. Not waaaay to the right, more of a middle-ish right, but right nonetheless.

And if the Democratic Party could express the majority of their thoughts and ideas in even partially-pragmatic terms, maybe I'd be more middle-ish left. Good job - keep it up - we need more of that.

Comment from: kirabug posted at October 10, 2005 9:18 PM

Well I screwed up the quotes on that... William's quote ends at "that we are saviors." if it isn't obvious.

Comment from: larksilver posted at October 11, 2005 1:32 AM

It's obvious, kira. and besides.. if it's not, even the laziest can probably manage to scroll back up there and see the original.

I don't know about it being a thing only the Right would say.. well, maybe the bit about bein' saviors. I'm neither Right nor Left, but sort of Trunk, if that makes any sense. I sort of think that we should help them because it IS the right thing to do... and if they happen to think "hey! These guys aren't jerks after all?" all the better.

I'm realist enough to know not to hold my breath, however. For I've recently had run-ins with some of those people who have spent their lives sitting in New Orleans, drawing some form of assistance, living in a rent-assisted apartment, and have seen that those who were already inclined to bitch and moan about how the government was keeping them down... still are. I have seen people who were full of gratitude, on the train on the way to work or home; almost invariably, when I would talk to them or listen to them as they had conversations with others, they were the ones who had.. y 'know.. jobs BEFORE the mess.

If the people within our own country who decided somewhere a long time ago that "The Man" was out to stick it to them can't have their eyes opened by having their entire nation band together to get them back on their feet, I have little hope that the folks over there in the Middle East will stop hating us, even as they're eating the food we bring and letting our doctors heal their sick babies. Oh, sure, they'll probably stop hating the individuals, but Americans as a whole? hate will go on, I fear, because frankly, they've accepted our help before, and kept right on hating us. In fact, some of them hate us BECAUSE we've helped them before, whether because a) we stopped helping them due to a change in our Administration and national policy, or b) we meddled where we weren't wanted (in their view).

ah, well, it's a good thought, anyway. And hey, they could surprise me. Goodness knows people surprise and shock me on a daily basis.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: