![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I listen to all the wrong news
The Wall Street Journal is the only representaitve of establishment media that I get much regular exposure to, and even that I don't make a point of reading daily. Almost all the other news I'm exposed to (and this is sad, I know) comes from my LJ friends page.
I was looking over the WSJ coverage of the tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia. They had an article on blog opinions of the disaster, and one quote caught my eye:
I've heard of Scott Peterson. That's because Dave Barry refered to the Scott Peterson case several times over the course of his "2004 in review" essay.
What I know about Scott Peterson is:
It's not that I want to know. Neither Mr. Barry nor Ms. Geisler have given me reason to think I'm missing some important information on American society, or that the World is Depending on my having an informed opinion on the Scott Peterson Case. If I wanted to know, I would Google it and find out.
Instead, the feeling I have gotten from these references is that I (a) am living in a cave and (b) have achieved a magical, almost surreal state of ignorance for an American citizen. And having preserved my innocence this long, why not hang onto it a bit longer?
About the tsunami ...
On Monday, I suggested to one person at Toddler Bank that the bank should do some kind of fundraiser for the victims. Toddler bank raises money for a number of different causes throughout the year, and I thought, well, this is a good one.
Part of her response was: "Well, we do a lot of fundraisers already, and I don't want to pressure employees to give more than they already do. Besides, there's always a disaster happening somewhere in the world."
It's that last part that got to me: there's always a disaster happening somewhere in the world. Well, yes. There is. And we hear about them, in dribs and drabs: hundreds dying in this hurricane on a tropical island, thousands from a gas main explosion, millions of dollars in damage from wild fires.
But the death toll from the tsunamis had already reached 22,000 by Monday morning. (As of this writing: 117,000 and still rising.) The UN was already predicting this to be the costliest disaster ever.
And yet her response: "There's always a disaster somewhere". I suspect a lot of people have the same thought. They don't really distinguish between hearing about a hurricane that left thousands homeless in Florida and Grenada, and a series of tsunamis that has claimed over a hundred thousand lives, left millions homeless in nineteen different countries, and threatens countless more lives because the survivors have no potable water, and limited facilities and transportation. We can't wrap our minds around the enormity of it. Hundred or thousands, millions or billions, it's all just numbers to us. The scale of it eludes us. Why should I care about this one?
117,000 and rising.
Another thing that my mind keeps turning over is how simple natural disaster is. There are much worse tragedies in the world today than this one. An estimated 390,000 or more have perished in the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan; 35,000 more are dying every month. And we're doing nothing, really. Just like we did nothing in Rwanda, and nothing -- for almost a decade -- in Iraq. That last is a case in point of why we're doing nothing now. Because when we do act, we are torn to shreds by our own uncertainties. We may agree "We should do something!" But what?
The tsunami, though -- it's so much easier. No one is on the tsunami's side. No one is out there demonstrating for the rights of contaminated water to remain undrinkable. No one argues that we ought to give negotiation a chance to work on famine. No one insists that we need to send in the army to support the cause of disease.
There may be some dispute over the best ways to help, or whether or not environmental policies (or lack thereof) contributed to the scale of the disaster.
When I donate money to a relief organization for use in Southeast Asia, I don't need to wonder if I'm supporting the right side. I don't need to consider that these people I'm feeding and clothing may be terrorists, or that they might start killing the very relief workers trying to help them. When it comes to a natural disaster, I know who that bad guy is, and it's not human.
There's something queerly reassuring about that. Even if we are our own worst enemy, there are still other enemies out there that we can unite, as one species, to oppose.
I was looking over the WSJ coverage of the tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia. They had an article on blog opinions of the disaster, and one quote caught my eye:
On the Web site of the Poynter Institute, a journalism watchdog, Jill Geisler wonders how much time, money and effort the U.S. media will invest in covering a disaster that took place on the other side of the world. "Will this story get as much coverage as the Scott Peterson case?"
I've heard of Scott Peterson. That's because Dave Barry refered to the Scott Peterson case several times over the course of his "2004 in review" essay.
What I know about Scott Peterson is:
- He's some kind of celebrity. I don't actually know what sort. Movie star? Football player? Rap singer? Politician? Beats me. For all I know, what he's famous for it being involved in his namesake case.
- He was or is on trial. No, wait. Maybe someone else is on trial for commiting a crime against him. I guess I don't actually know which, because every reference I've seen to the Scott Peterson case has assumed that I already knew all about it.
- And ... no, wait. That's it. I have exhausted my entire supply of Scott-Peterson knowledge in two points.
It's not that I want to know. Neither Mr. Barry nor Ms. Geisler have given me reason to think I'm missing some important information on American society, or that the World is Depending on my having an informed opinion on the Scott Peterson Case. If I wanted to know, I would Google it and find out.
Instead, the feeling I have gotten from these references is that I (a) am living in a cave and (b) have achieved a magical, almost surreal state of ignorance for an American citizen. And having preserved my innocence this long, why not hang onto it a bit longer?
About the tsunami ...
On Monday, I suggested to one person at Toddler Bank that the bank should do some kind of fundraiser for the victims. Toddler bank raises money for a number of different causes throughout the year, and I thought, well, this is a good one.
Part of her response was: "Well, we do a lot of fundraisers already, and I don't want to pressure employees to give more than they already do. Besides, there's always a disaster happening somewhere in the world."
It's that last part that got to me: there's always a disaster happening somewhere in the world. Well, yes. There is. And we hear about them, in dribs and drabs: hundreds dying in this hurricane on a tropical island, thousands from a gas main explosion, millions of dollars in damage from wild fires.
But the death toll from the tsunamis had already reached 22,000 by Monday morning. (As of this writing: 117,000 and still rising.) The UN was already predicting this to be the costliest disaster ever.
And yet her response: "There's always a disaster somewhere". I suspect a lot of people have the same thought. They don't really distinguish between hearing about a hurricane that left thousands homeless in Florida and Grenada, and a series of tsunamis that has claimed over a hundred thousand lives, left millions homeless in nineteen different countries, and threatens countless more lives because the survivors have no potable water, and limited facilities and transportation. We can't wrap our minds around the enormity of it. Hundred or thousands, millions or billions, it's all just numbers to us. The scale of it eludes us. Why should I care about this one?
117,000 and rising.
Another thing that my mind keeps turning over is how simple natural disaster is. There are much worse tragedies in the world today than this one. An estimated 390,000 or more have perished in the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan; 35,000 more are dying every month. And we're doing nothing, really. Just like we did nothing in Rwanda, and nothing -- for almost a decade -- in Iraq. That last is a case in point of why we're doing nothing now. Because when we do act, we are torn to shreds by our own uncertainties. We may agree "We should do something!" But what?
The tsunami, though -- it's so much easier. No one is on the tsunami's side. No one is out there demonstrating for the rights of contaminated water to remain undrinkable. No one argues that we ought to give negotiation a chance to work on famine. No one insists that we need to send in the army to support the cause of disease.
There may be some dispute over the best ways to help, or whether or not environmental policies (or lack thereof) contributed to the scale of the disaster.
When I donate money to a relief organization for use in Southeast Asia, I don't need to wonder if I'm supporting the right side. I don't need to consider that these people I'm feeding and clothing may be terrorists, or that they might start killing the very relief workers trying to help them. When it comes to a natural disaster, I know who that bad guy is, and it's not human.
There's something queerly reassuring about that. Even if we are our own worst enemy, there are still other enemies out there that we can unite, as one species, to oppose.
no subject
The trial (and the following brief penalty phase) completed just weeks ago.
The fertilizer salesman was previously unknown to the world. And, apparently, almost so to his wife and at least three mistresses.
And... We mobilized a substantial military response to the tsunami immediately -- our troops are delivering food and supplies round the clock and have been since hours after the waves struck.
The US is pledging some $335 million so far, not counting our aid organizations -- and not counting our emergency actions supported by the military airlift going on now.
===|==============/ Level Head
I was right about one thing
Is $335 million a typo? The figure I keep seeing is $35 million from the US gov't (although private American donations are expected to exceed that) with an unspecified "more" as needs are determined.
Re: I was right about one thing
I believe $35 million is for immediate relief. This may go up based on investigation.
$300 million (again, may go up) is for Marshall-Plan style reconstruction. This is a multi-year commitment, for obvious reasons.
Re: I was right about one thing
It's a typo...the latest report for immediate aid is $350 million.
Re: I was right about one thing
===|==============/ Level Head
Re: I was right about one thing
And as you said, this is not isolated, and as I pointed out does not encompass our actual efforts, just cash.
The UN is very disturbed that we aren't giving the money to disburse as they see fit -- but their money handling is notoriously corrupt. We are have a separate group of countries (including Australia and Japan) assisting in the region.
===|==============/ Level Head
Even Tsunamis Provide a Chance to Enter the Camel's Nose into the Political
On the other hand, would it be so absurd for someone to decide that the best way to respond to this disaster was by trying to work harder for free trade with the developing world? Natural disasters regularly have much greater impacts on poor countries than rich ones (which can afford to have more stringent building codes, better medical services, and better communication systems to broadcast warnings). The scope of what trade could do for third world countries is far greater than what is likely from aid (yay to the multi-fiber agreement ending, even if there is some talk of "protecting" US and European clothing manufacturers in other ways). For good measure, it's a free way to help, since it provides us a net benefit as well (even if it does increase the speed of changes which were taking place in the US economy, causing some workers to lose jobs in declining industries and others to gain them in rising industries).
no subject
no subject
As it happens, I am unafraid of the scenario you describe. The US is actually a next exporter of services (like offshored IT), so making trade less free would be more likely to hurt than help (for good measure, less free trade would have indirect effects which would make unrelated US industries less competitive).
no subject
When you're in lousy fiscal shape, that "short term difficulty" is a looming fiscal TEOTWAWKI.
A Interesting Point About the US Political Economy