TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Idiots on the Ocean Front
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm I think smokeape is criticizing those who live on the coasts outside the US and inside the US under the premise that when a hurricane hits florida, or a quake hits California, the rest of the country has to pay aid, insurance companies have to pay policies, and that makes life harder on people in "safe" areas. Of course using such logic, that would eliminate people from living in the SouthEast due to hurricanes, it would eliminate people living in California due to the fault lines, it would eliminate much of the western dry states because of forest fires, and it would eliminate much of of the mid-West/South region because of Tornado alley and flooding. So I guess everyone would have to live in the Northeast and along the Canadian border. As a representative of the Northeast I graciously invite the western seaboard to our cold but comfortable waters, and I respectfully direct those from the south/mid-west to seek shelter along the Canadian border.

Kinda, sorta. You hit it in your first sentence, then strayed with your own logic. My logic is that folks that live in these tidal zones and flood plains need to pay exhorbitant insurance rates and be lambasted by the media everytime they lose their possessions by being so stupid to live in such dangerous areas. As it is now, we are supposed to take pity on the ignorant. And yes, the same applies to the tsunami victims. They live in areas prone to historically documented catastrophies. I.E. - I live in Miami on the beach and will never have to worry about a hurricane... WTF are you kidding?


[[[smoke]]]

Interesting thing though, I saw an article that mentioned almost nothing has been given in terms of relief efforts with the civil war in the Congo. Millions of people have died in that struggle, yet little has been mentioned about it in the media and consequently no one knows that there is even a need there. Many people in the Congo have stated they believe the tsunami has brought so much more relief because many Europeans also were killed in that event. Sad to say, but I think they have a point. I went to work after the weekend of the tsunami and there were already people collecting money, just like at my friends' workplaces and schools as well, with some relief groups even saying they've already collected enough, yet we don't even hear about the death of millions in other places? This type of selective reporting is irresponsible, because it creates an environment where we hear about and consequently care about Saddam Hussein being a horrible leader and tsunami disasters, but barely realize about other far more repressive govenments and what is going on in Sudan, the Congo or Colombia. Or maybe it's those people's faults for living in those countries?

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Kinda, sorta. You hit it in your first sentence, then strayed with your own logic. My logic is that folks that live in these tidal zones and flood plains need to pay exhorbitant insurance rates and be lambasted by the media everytime they lose their possessions by being so stupid to live in such dangerous areas. As it is now, we are supposed to take pity on the ignorant. And yes, the same applies to the tsunami victims. They live in areas prone to historically documented catastrophies. I.E. - I live in Miami on the beach and will never have to worry about a hurricane... WTF are you kidding? [[[smoke]]]

These people should pay more in insurance for those types of disasters and I believe they do already, because insurance costs & premiums are always calculated by risk. For example, if I am a 16 year old male driver, I pay way more for car insurance than a 50 year old female driver with no accidents or tickets on their record. The problem with disaster insurance is that that it affects all the people paying the high premiums. When Hurricane Andrew struck Florida, the insurance companies could not pay out enough as they were supposed too, because everyone was affected at once, rather than only some houses being damaged.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Interesting thing though, I saw an article that mentioned almost nothing has been given in terms of relief efforts with the civil war in the Congo. Millions of people have died in that struggle, yet little has been mentioned about it in the media and consequently no one knows that there is even a need there. Many people in the Congo have stated they believe the tsunami has brought so much more relief because many Europeans also were killed in that event. Sad to say, but I think they have a point. I went to work after the weekend of the tsunami and there were already people collecting money, just like at my friends' workplaces and schools as well, with some relief groups even saying they've already collected enough, yet we don't even hear about the death of millions in other places? This type of selective reporting is irresponsible, because it creates an environment where we hear about and consequently care about Saddam Hussein being a horrible leader and tsunami disasters, but barely realize about other far more repressive govenments and what is going on in Sudan, the Congo or Colombia. Or maybe it's those people's faults for living in those countries?

i do agree with you, however i think tranceaholic had a good explaination of this a few days ago... africa does not have the same kind of hope for the future that south east asia has (less wars, more economic development etc), the problems in africa is also to a much bigger extent their own faults, meanwhile a tsunami cannot be effected by any human beeing.

Reading in the sunday papers today the amount of aid agencys that have stopped accepting donations for the disaster in asia..seems kind of odd..ok people give for a certain disaster fund but it would seem illogical to stop people donating money which could be used for projects elsewhere in the world..anyway just a thought

And another thought whilst im on the subject..the american red cross went from being a 10 billion dollar organisation prior to 9/11 and about a month later went to being a 100 billion dollar organisation..what did they do with the money..do they still have most of it? just curious if anybody knows

quote:

Originally posted by zig ..ok people give for a certain disaster fund but it would seem illogical to stop people donating money which could be used for projects elsewhere in the world..anyway just a thought

It would also be kinda 'unethical' to collect money that people think is going to help the Tsunami victims and then funnel it to some other unrelated area.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus It would also be kinda 'unethical' to collect money that people think is going to help the Tsunami victims and then funnel it to some other unrelated area.

i sort of said that in the origional post..but why not just say to people who want to donate money,this project is now funded but we have other projects ongoing around the world if you would still like to contribute..people at the minute are into giving because of the media coverage ..well if i was fundraiser for a relief agency thats how i would explain it to them..and at the same time relieve them of their cash..and the burden of not being able to donate..clear consciences for all

This is a ridiculous argument. Nothing of this magnitude has occurred in the area in recent memory. Natural disasters of different sorts affect ALL areas eventually. Heck one day New York is bound to have a major earthquake. Geological forces are dynamic; over the eons all areas on the planet will be subjected to some sort of cataclysmic change. So where are people supposed to live?
You speak of insurance rates but you fail to realize just how vital coastal communities/provinces/states are to national economies. In the US, California has the largest economy of any state�it�s the 8th largest economy in the world. The Long Beach dock is extremely vital to trade w/ the Pacific. If it were to shut down it would be disastrous for the US (hence the reason unionized dockworkers there are able to make 100K for blue collar work).
In countries like Thailand, the coastal regions drive the tourist industry which is a huge chunk of the economy. Lets us not forget the fishing and ports for trading.
BTW insurance rates maybe low, but the property values on coastal areas are extremely high.

quote:

Originally posted by Mensa This is a ridiculous argument. Nothing of this magnitude has occurred in the area in recent memory. Natural disasters of different sorts affect ALL areas eventually. Heck one day New York is bound to have a major earthquake. Geological forces are dynamic; over the eons all areas on the planet will be subjected to some sort of cataclysmic change. So where are people supposed to live? You speak of insurance rates but you fail to realize just how vital coastal communities/provinces/states are to national economies. In the US, California has the largest economy of any state�it�s the 8th largest economy in the world. The Long Beach dock is extremely vital to trade w/ the Pacific. If it were to shut down it would be disastrous for the US (hence the reason unionized dockworkers there are able to make 100K for blue collar work). In countries like Thailand, the coastal regions drive the tourist industry which is a huge chunk of the economy. Lets us not forget the fishing and ports for trading. BTW insurance rates maybe low, but the property values on coastal areas are extremely high.

These debates generally broaden out and i think most posters here would accept what what you have said.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew the problems in africa is also to a much bigger extent their own faults

Come on man,
really...

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer Come on man, really...

well they are

there are many inocent people yes, but its still the people of the countries that are creating the problems... a tsunami cant be affected by anyone!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew well they are there are many inocent people yes, but its still the people of the countries that are creating the problems... a tsunami cant be affected by anyone!

I was refering more to who started all the problems in Europe, like a couple of centuries ago

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer I was refering more to who started all the problems in Europe, like a couple of centuries ago

you lost me...?

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer I was refering more to who started all the problems in Europe, like a couple of centuries ago

Lost me too...

Are you talking about colonization of Africa by Europe?
Kinda of a dumb argument if you consider that the USA and Canada used to be colonies and Congo's problem is it's own civilians...

Comparing aid to Congo and the Tsunami is a luducrious arguement

sorry, meant to say who started the problems in AFRICA, not europe.
Basically talking about colonization and such which really started all the bullshit that's happening there now

quote:

Originally posted by Dj Tomer sorry, meant to say who started the problems in AFRICA, not europe. Basically talking about colonization and such which really started all the bullshit that's happening there now

yes thats true... i think europe (obviously only the countries that created the mess) have a certain responsiblity when it comes to affrica. What i was trying to say tho was that you can still not compare the two. Africa will always be a problem til they (themself) starts to take care of their problems, but this was only a one time thing that has nothing to do with the people living there.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Interesting thing though, I saw an article that mentioned almost nothing has been given in terms of relief efforts with the civil war in the Congo. Millions of people have died in that struggle, yet little has been mentioned about it in the media and consequently no one knows that there is even a need there. Many people in the Congo have stated they believe the tsunami has brought so much more relief because many Europeans also were killed in that event. Sad to say, but I think they have a point. I went to work after the weekend of the tsunami and there were already people collecting money, just like at my friends' workplaces and schools as well, with some relief groups even saying they've already collected enough, yet we don't even hear about the death of millions in other places? This type of selective reporting is irresponsible, because it creates an environment where we hear about and consequently care about Saddam Hussein being a horrible leader and tsunami disasters, but barely realize about other far more repressive govenments and what is going on in Sudan, the Congo or Colombia. Or maybe it's those people's faults for living in those countries?

Well, you're right there. Folks didn't care about the genocide in Rwanda which killed far more than the tsunami, and they could've prevented the slaughter as well. They couldn't have stopped the tsunami.

There's a danger of thousands dying right now in Sudan as well and no one gives a whit.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Lost me too... Are you talking about colonization of Africa by Europe? Kinda of a dumb argument if you consider that the USA and Canada used to be colonies and Congo's problem is it's own civilians... Comparing aid to Congo and the Tsunami is a luducrious arguement

The point is that like with the tsunami, there are many innocent people who need aid. A civil war is different than a natural disaster and we should be able to prevent such things from occuring, but the reality is they do quite frequently and many people who had nothing to do with the cause of the war are affected in many of the same ways as the tsunami. The point of my previous thread was simply noting that while it's tremendous that all of us and our governments contributed, there are other areas of need that we should at least be aware of. It's obviously your right whether you feel it's a worthy cause and wish to contribute (I know some of us already do).

As far as North American colonization and African colonialization, there are some differences. The people who founded the United States and Canada as independent countries were descendents of Europeans, who had travelled there. The native peoples of North America were nearly wiped out by these colonies. In Africa, the native people now are the citizens of the former colonies. One slight problem though is that the boundaries of the colonies, and now independent countries, were drawn without regard to the cultures, religions and ethnicities that exist in Africa. It's exactly like Iraq, where the Sunni, Sh'ite & Kurdish people were all grouped together and now they're told to become a democracy in which one group essentially will have say over the other groups. In some cases these groups have not gotten along for generations and that's where power struggles are inevitable, such as in Rwanda.

A side bit of info on Congo, if anyone is interested in reading some more. It was a Belgian colony that saw the death of easily well over 15 million, as people were forced to gather natural resources. Entire villges were forced into essentially slave labor at the risk of death if they refused. Because the Belgians themselves did not police much ofthe colony and they did not trust the Africans they entrusted to force their policies, they required their guards to account for every bullet they fired by bringing the hand of the person they had shot, so that they would not stockpile ammunition to revolt against the Belgians. Since the guards often would take several shots to finally kill a fleeing person who refused to work, many living people had their hands cut off to make up the difference.

The first democratically elected leader of Congo was Patrice Lumumba of the National Congolese Movement. The day the country officially became independent, a number of provinces with heavy Belgian interest ceceeded from the country and prevented Lumumba from ever beginning to democratically govern the country. He eventually was captured and killed, with apparent CIA knowledge that he was being held. A number of Western countries,including the United States, feared his policies were too far to the left and that Congo might have turned Communist. Basically even after the colony became independent, it was run into civil war by sacking the eleted government and placing a military leader, Col. Mubutu, in charge. This is basically what led to the civil war that's still playing out.
HEre's some more info

NIce p0st to bring things into perspective. Have noticed many corporate contributors to the tsunami have a general slush fund and UN worried they will shift contributions to the tsunami from Africa where a larger problem exists. Seems to be a problem in that they contribute to a general disaster welfare fund, whether problem is Africa, Indonesia, or wherever, but they're not contributing to any specific occurence. Can hardly blame them. They'll contribute to any problem in the world, but don't ask them to up the ante because anything happened in particular.... The UN can't lambast organizations for doing so because the repercussions are they get no f*cking funding whatsoever. Shit happens everyday and corporations can contribute a percentage, no more and no less. It's basically the UN who decides where the money goes. The money for the tsunami disaster with it's large disaster relief funding needs to be redistributed because other existing problems are now becoming underfunded.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 As far as North American colonization and African colonialization, there are some differences. The people who founded the United States and Canada as independent countries were descendents of Europeans, who had travelled there. The native peoples of North America were nearly wiped out by these colonies. In Africa, the native people now are the citizens of the former colonies. One slight problem though is that the boundaries of the colonies, and now independent countries, were drawn without regard to the cultures, religions and ethnicities that exist in Africa. It's exactly like Iraq, where the Sunni, Sh'ite & Kurdish people were all grouped together and now they're told to become a democracy in which one group essentially will have say over the other groups. In some cases these groups have not gotten along for generations and that's where power struggles are inevitable, such as in Rwanda.

The irony now being that we are today, countries of many nationalities...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r The irony now being that we are today, countries of many nationalities...

Couldnt agree more,in 50 years from now when we are all old people on this board today..the race question will hardly exist as we know it today..the whole human race wil be such a mix of nationalities..that new forms of racism will exist..that we never even thought about..or perhaps the opposite could happen that we get more tolerant as races mix and intermarry...but i suppose thats wishful thinking.

Just a thought..but i agree with you

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.