Ah, I'm sorry, but I'll have to threadjack again. I too disliked the whole chest-beating 'look-how-much-money-we're-pledging' spectacle the governments put up (especially since you never know how much of the pledged aid will actually be delivered, based on past records). And I wish other humanitarian issues don't go unnoticed in the press, because I hate that things have to be sensational to get coverage. However.
and natural (and manmade) disasters are happening everywhere!!! All the time!....and compared to past natural disasters the tsunami was on the smaller side... I don't know how far back into pre-historic times you were going in order to 'bring this into a wider perspective', but in terms of natural disasters in
modern history, the 2004 tsunami is one of the deadliest. In terms of the earthquake, the latest reading for it was 9.3, which means the only bigger one in scale to have happened since 1900 was in Chile in 1960. As for the tsunami: it was the worst in
recorded history; prior to the December one, the deadliest recorded had been the one in Japan that happened in 1700s. In terms of lives lost (which is anywhere between 200,000 - 300,000 people) the only ones recorded since 1900 that
may have been more devastating is the cyclone in Bangladesh or the China earthquake, both in the 1970s. When you look at the damage -- that whole communities are wiped out, that miles and miles (and miles) of agricultural land are now unusable and will stay so for a long time because of the salt deposits brought in by the tsunami waves, that some communities no longer have freshwater supplies because all their wells been infiltrated with salt and waste,
to name a few issues -- I'd say this hardly qualifies as being on the "smaller side" of natural disasters. I mean, this is NOT just about burying bodies, replacing some boats, and rebuilding houses for hundreds of thousands of people, Boots.
I know that's a lot of data and probably not many care, and I realize you're being flippant and not malicious, but the inaccuracy in your comment above was bugging me.
*Edit: And Boots - I
know your original point was to defend John Hill. And as you know I never took offense to
his donation joke. It's just unfortunate that you had to, in all seriousness, go further and keep on making thoughtless comments about the tsunami and efforts associated with it.
Updated On: 4/1/05 at 11:32 PM
