Saturday, December 25, 2004

In 1994, Los Angeles was hit with a 6.8 Richter earthquake which killed 30 immediately, as many as 90 total when you tabulate indirect deaths. It was the largest quake in recorded California history.

Yesterday, a 8.6 quake hit Sri Lanka. To put this in perspective, a 8.6 quake is just under 100 times more powerful than a 6.8. Local reports say 150 people have been confirmed dead so far.

Here are the last five "Breaking News" alerts that I've gotten from CNN.com:

Attack on U.S. military mess hall kills 22.
Jury recommends that Scott Peterson be put to death.
U.S. House overhauls intelligence.
Tom Ridge resigns.
President Bush nominates Kellogg CEO Carlos Gutierrez to be secretary of Commerce.

Naah. We're not too America-centric.

The asian quake is a sideline on CNN.com. On ABCNews.com, too. CBSNews.com doesn't mention it at all. None of them sent a "Breaking News" email.

These are news outlets that issued "Breaking News" alerts for the Pacers-Detroit basketball brawl, the Fed raising interest rates by a quarter-point and an appeals court deciding that the national the "do-not-call" registry can be implemented while court considers whether it violates telemarketers' free speech.

Naah. The news is more than mere "entertainment."

We know what the world wants. The world wants America to give their countries all this cool stuff too. The terrorists are just player haters.

Oh, and guys? Could have used you a few years ago. I thought you were the fourth branch?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was surfing yet I just stopped at your blog with a flash in my brain revealed suddenly after reading a day in your blog-not necessarily this one. I am really in need of some explanation from an American citizen-who is "political enough"- on what would have changed if the election results were different. Do you have an explanation? And since why confession is a way to be "critical" "political" or "whatever" here?

johnno said...

hi jason

But never forget the rest of the world does not know about "The Boston Red Sox"

JL

johnno said...

hi jason

But never forget the rest of the world does not know about "The Boston Red Sox"

JL

bodhiSoma said...

the anonymous person wrote:
"I was surfing yet I just stopped at your blog with a flash in my brain revealed suddenly after reading a day in your blog-not necessarily this one. I am really in need of some explanation from an American citizen-who is "political enough"- on what would have changed if the election results were different."

You know ...I have no idea. Not with any confidence. But I guess I could make some guesses. Primarily that the first "election" (selection?) of Bush would have been effectively denied. Alternately, his election by both the electoral college and popular vote (though only by a slim 2% over Kerry) did add some legitmacy to his first four years. This, by the way, drives me bonkers.

I think that a Kerry election would have made the Iraq war a whole new ballgame and, I think, would have resulted in an increase in violence. I think the resistance in Iraq would have realized the unpopularity of the war here (in the U.S.) and that an increase in violence coupled with a "political expedience" mentality we have in this country would have helped nudge America out.

Finally, I think that now the Dems are not only playing defense but seriously considering moving to the center when I think they should be returning to their roots. You know, being progressive. Progress.

It doesn't matter. The President of the United States in 100 years is going to make the current Bush Administration look like Che Guevara. Tims change. Predjudices die. There's a reason we don't burn wiches anymore. In 100 years, we will laugh derisively at the notion of denying marriage to gays.

the anonymous person continues:
"Do you have an explanation? And since why confession is a way to be "critical" "political" or "whatever" here?"

I don't understand this question.

Regards,
Jason

Anonymous said...

"And since why confession is a way to be "critical" "political" or "whatever" here?" refers to basic grammar mistake first. It was intended to be like that "why confession is the only way to be "critical" or "political" enough as a stance?" or "why do people feel better by confessing all "evils" they have witnessed in any society-not necessarily in their society-but continue to witness new forms of these "evils"? Just as an example the question is like that "why in Germany past-old-distant Nazisism have been confessed and even over-confessed yet there are still racism in not only Germany but also in nealy everywhere?" I am pretty cynical of naming things events or thoughts into boxes ("nazism" or "selection" or "election")and assuming that everyting is solved settled and finally "let'go through another discussion." This is not my stance against you. Please do not misunderstand. But I am suspicious of the "critical stance" even of myself "in here (in U.S.)."

I also can not stand the naivity-of one of your commentators- of "but they also do not know red smth" as if there is a power symmetry all around the world.

Sorry for taking your time and blocking a certain space in your blog.

Regards.

Jason Nobody said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jason Nobody said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jason Nobody said...

An AC writes:
It was intended to be like that "why confession is the only way to be "critical" or "political" enough as a stance?" or "why do people feel better by confessing all "evils" they have witnessed in any society-not necessarily in their society-but continue to witness new forms of these "evils"?Hm. I'm still a little confused but I think you're asking why the style, the method I'm using is a sort of "look how what I've observed sucks."

I don't really know how else I'd present it. I observe a schism between what seems rational (the news being filled with truly news-worthy events) and reality (the news being filled with the murder of one woman and her unborn child) and so I state it in this way.

I know I come off as an elitist when I bring this up but the longer I go without television the more ideas come to me that would have seen positively bonkers ten years ago. I won't go into them because they simply won't make any sense. You -- meaning anyone reading this -- have ideas that stem from other ideas. When you watch television, your ideas are mostly handed to you. The conclusions you reach, therefore, are not really your own. Your perception of what is right and wrong, your foundations about what is rational and what is irrational are based upon information that already has a point of view.

Put another way, the newscasters and the editors of your local television share, personally, your concerns. They're concerned about American safety. They're not concerned about Indian (*cough, *Bhopal, *cough) safety. To you (again, the average American) people in India are just words, not people. An abstraction. Eleven thousand of them die and it's a headline and nothing more. Three thousand people died on 9/11 and we've spent 1,000 American soldier's lives and 200 billion dollars to avenge it all. We'll send some Red Cross people to India, I'm sure.

And I'm not even saying this is a concept unique to America. I'm just hoping that there comes a time when we can at least realize that we're wearing blinders. Maybe we can be miopic so long as we know we're myopic.

The AC continues:
I am pretty cynical of naming things events or thoughts into boxes...Then you'll have to stop talking and typing. Words are precisely this; imprecise boxes used to come to incorrect conclusions.

This is not my stance against you. Please do not misunderstand.Don't worry, I never take debate personally.

I also can not stand the naivity-of one of your commentators- of "but they also do not know red smth" as if there is a power symmetry all around the world.I'm not sure I understand this statement.

Regards,
Jason

Jason Nobody said...

Sorry. For some reason Blogger seems to be munging up the formatting, ignoring some pages (<p>), so some of my replies appear directly after your quote (which are in italics).

Regards,
Jason