Community

General discussion

Locked

tsunami

By jardinier ·
I can't think of anything meaningful to say about this topic, but perhaps there are others who have thoughts, feelings or personal experiences which they would like to share.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

No, I can't assure you of that

by maxwell edison In reply to Thank you for the statist ...

.
In the early days of American western expansion, range wars were waged over water rights, water flow, and so on, not only with the Colorado River, but with the smallest streams and tributaries. If water flowed through your ranch, for example, would you consider it yours with which you could water your cattle and irrigate your crops, or do the people "down-stream" have a legitimate right to some, if not all, of the water? It's kinda' one of those moral dilemma type questions. (But I'm sure Australia has similar things in its history.) Fast forward a hundred or more years and insert environmental concerns into the already established equation.

Sure there are some environmental issues. And yes, there are some issues with Mexico. But maintaining an equitable balance between environmental concerns and practical necessity has been, and will probably continue to be, the subject of debate between various interest groups and politicians.

You wondered if I could "reassure you that the land towards the end of its flow is not seriously affected, and that Mexico is not seriously disadvantaged by the amount of water taken from this river on its long journey".

No, I can't do that. Because there are indeed some issues in that regard. But therefore what?

Here's a related article that you may or may not be interested in reviewing. And yes, it does mention the environmental consequences in Mexico.

http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/arroyo/101comm.html

But I don't have the answers you seek.

Collapse -

Shattered

by levannah44@smartchat.net. In reply to tsunami

There's really very little to say. Everyone is saying the same things, many only superficial platitudes because we really can't understand the enormity of this terrible tragedy.

We see the news broadcasts every night, but does it really sink in? I think Oz Media got it right when he said everyone is still just too stunned, too numb to take it all in. I know I am.

Yes, I've contributed, twice so far, but what's money? The help that's needed RIGHT NOW is of a more practical kind -- medicines to stop outbreaks of disease, food and clean water to feed the thousands of survivors, temporary shelter to house them. This is what they need FIRST.

How many people fully realise that this calamity is going to takes years to really come to grips with? Once the above needs are dealt with, then come the secondary ones, such as coming to terms with the loss, with those who will never come back, with the dreadful, terrible task of identifying those thousands of bodies before it's too late.

After that will come the re-building of a shattered province, of all the surrounding areas that shared in this untimely evidence of nature's wrath.

And what of those who no longer have anywhere to go? Those subsistent farmers whose land now lies permanently many feet underwater? What of them?

Not only the terrible trauma of this tragedy will follow them for the rest of their lives, but they will also need to be relocated -- of necessity -- in order to begin again, and this will be just as traumatic, in many ways, as the original disaster.

What else can I say? I too wish I could be there, to do something a little more practical than just giving a donation or two, although I know that eventually my donations will go towards re-establishing those worst effected by this horror.

But too many cooks spoil the broth, as we say, and while the relief teams are no doubt run off their feet, they are also the experts and we must leave them to it. Slow and steady also wins the race, which we must always try to remember even while we are subjected to a nightly reminder of what nature is capable of while this long, long process of starting again goes on.

In the meantime, try reaching out to strangers, to people you wouldn't normally even look at in the street. Say hello, or at least smile at them, but most of all, let them know you care.

It shouldn't take terrible disasters like this to bring the world together, to unite us all. It should be the normal, everyday thing to always be willing to reach out a hand in friendship and say "Hi".

Collapse -

I don't know

by house In reply to tsunami

I know what you mean. I kept checking the new threads to see if someone would post something on the topic. I don't know what to say myself.

Collapse -

A Media effect

by Oz_Media In reply to tsunami

One thing that got me the other day was when I was talking to an old friend and her mother over the New Year. I asked her mom what she thought of this disaster and she was clueless that anything had happened at all.

Now at first you would think DUH!!! How could you not know, it's all over the news. She had actually stopped watching the news and getting the newspaper some time ago, due to all the constant mudslinging and BS over the war and elections.

She is pretty much shut-in at home due to illness so she isn't out and about much. She relies on the TV for current news but also suffers from depression and just couldn't stand watching the news at it just made things worse for her.

Although this case may seem different than most, it most definitely isn't different for many.

How many other people have been so disgusted by the news that they simply aren't aware when such atrocities happen?

What other issues may also be completely missed by increasing numbers of the population just because media money has destroyed a once trusted medium?

Will we actually begin to not trust ANY news one day?

Not to start a segue, just thoughts.

Collapse -

My news media

by house In reply to A Media effect

It might be better to not watch the news. Personally, I don't watch the news, I visit Reuters, Globe and Mail, CNet, Aljazeera, and CounterPunch (awsome alt news site).

I have a bookmark folder that I open in tabs across the board in Firefox every morning. I only scan the headlines, unless something catches my eye, but mostly, it's all the same garbage. Nothing surprises me these days. I don't want to belittle any current issues that are important to others, but I live my life.

Collapse -

I agree - and my apology to Julian

by Oz_Media In reply to My news media

Unfortunately in many people's case they don'thave internet access. I guess my beef is that people like you and I can spend time authenticating news or headlines, people without such luxuries are often left RELIANT on the news being reported accurately.

You know as well as I do just how stories in the news here are far more in depth and detailed than those on the US networks we get, which seem to only present what they want people to know. Now if this happens in US news, and that dominates our TV's, it happens in our newspapers etc. what are we to trust when nothing can be trusted?

I think it's pretty sad when a country's citizens can't rely on getting the real story from all sources. Why must we sift through heaps of junk to find out what is relevant and worthy of our attention? Why must we be subjected to so much BS that you can't see the reality?

As you have said yourself, you just get sick of watching the conflicting stories from everywhere.

YOU have the luxury of having a few sites that YOU trust for accurate news (be careful, I was called a terrorist for reading aljazeerra news)but many do not, they are simply either left in the dark or lied to.

I think it should be the media's responsiblity to provide us with reality, not sugar coated, not brushed upon and mixed with BS, just news.

Did you hear that alJazeera news had accepted the CRTC's guidlines for reporting news in Canada, this includes broadcasting a certain percentage of Canadian targeted content (in order to remove the possibility of middle eastern propaganda), but FOX refused unless they could only show the US viewpoint of the news? Makes you wonder doesn't it? Are they scared of contradicting themselves or something?

Sorry Julian, I don't think this will be a major rant-off, the'house' is pretty cool headed. Just an aside based on recent news reports, which I am sure you can appreciate as a former journalist, perhaps a new thread is in order for this instead though. :)

Collapse -

More on news sources

by house In reply to I agree - and my apology ...

You were deemed a terrorist for reading Aljazeera news? That doesn't make any sense at all. Typical attitude though, from those folks (you know who I mean). Nuff said. There are many different versions of the Aljazeera site. All contains the same basic info, but it is organized in different fashions in order to promote the interest of the targetted audience. This is perhaps the only bias. There is no "propaganda" at all. It is one of my most respected, unbiased, unfiltered, and informative sites regarding the situation in the Middle East, the Gaza Strip, and even international issues in general. The news organization does not judge or persuade... they "report". Period.

I had heard rumours about the CRTC's acceptance of the news station. I'm glad we can separate the facts from the racism. Then again, I may already be brainwashed. LOL.

If you are into alternative news, CounterPunch rules. A large part of the site is comprised of "proper" essay style arguments, but it is not without it's "anti-pop-news" and "anti-cencorship" opinions. The article should be read with a grain of salt. Still a massive amount of information though.

As far as FOX is concerned, well... if you tune into FOX for the news, enjoy your "episodes" and "stories". I'd rather read about bat-boy and the 500 pound newborn baby. :)

Collapse -

Thanks for the courtesy

by jardinier In reply to I agree - and my apology ...

of apologising to me.

Whilst we now know that Fox News is just a propaganda machine for the Bush administration, I really get tired of people at this website always making snide remarks about the media.

Putting aside Fox News (the most watched news service in the USA) everybody gets their day-to-day news from the media, because that is the only place where the most recent news can be found.

If certain people think the media is too biased to be worth watching/listening to/reading, then would they kindly inform me how they know what is going on in the world?

Naturally they know what is going on because they DO follow the media. They should be grateful to the individuals and organisations who do produce the news, otherwise they can remain blissfully ignorant, and good riddance to them.

As the only qualified journalist who participates in these discussions, I KNOW how impossible it is to get precise reporting without the luxury of time to do background research and check sources.

Naturally after being made the scapegoat for certain people's never ending ***** about the media, for two years now, I am just about sick of it.

So I say to these people, either admit that you know what is going on in the world BECAUSE of the media, or go start your own news service and see if you can do better.

Sorry Oz, these remarks were of course not directed at you. I am just sick and tired of certain people's double standards. They get their news from the media, and then proceed to say the media is too biased to be worth taking notice of.

Collapse -

Following the news

by jardinier In reply to tsunami

Over the past 12 months or so, I have encountered quite a number of people who have stopped watching the news because it is mostly bad news.

I check out the online Sydney Morning Herald once or twice a day, mainly in search of stories that might be appropriate for my website.

I also watch a half-hour TV news program late in the evening -- the ABC's Dateline preferably (but it has taken a break). This is a particularly good program because it features live, real-time interviews with the people who are making the news, qualified current affairs analysts, and journalists who are reporting directly from the scene.

I just look at tsunami and I feel nothing. It is just too horrendous to absorb.

I am pleased that so many people from various countries are so keen to donate money, or provide services on site if appropriate.

I am very proud of my country. A few days ago the people of Australia were donating money at the rate of $AU 75,000 an hour. Per capita we are the second highest donators in the world.

3,000 members of the medical profession have offered to go to the scene. They are "straining at the leash" in their keenness to give some of the help that is most needed.

I spoke to some friends this morning who had booked a trip to Thailand prior to tsunami. Although they will not be going anywhere near the disaster area, they were encouraged NOT to cancel their trip as Thailand needs the revenue provided by tourism.

Collapse -

going to Sri Lanka

by smithff In reply to tsunami

Well everyone I wil be Sri Lanka to help with the recover effort starting on Saturday.

Related Discussions

Related Forums