Eyes for teeth waving over me

2 Comments

  1. Sad as it is, I think the countries/locales that are the most media friendly will get the most coverage. In the one case you commented about camcorders being at the ready and I think that does have quite a bit to do with what we saw. Often, the locales that have the most damage done tend to be the ones that were less financially developed to begin with. Perhaps their economy worked for them, perhaps not, but I can tell you that if there were more (for example) US or UK ties financially, there would be more coverage and hopefully more aid as more attention would be directed there. If your country lies on a major fault line, it would be nice to see that there have been monies set aside to help stabilize and recover from something which is almost inevitable. Often, I get the idea that there is a lack of necessity after a disaster. Government spokespersons have made comments that almost elude to the fact 'that they were refugees before the disaster…'. I do not mind donating to causes that I feel are worthwhile, what I do mind is the blatant disregard for it's people by a country. Sorry for going off like this but I'm a bit manic and you know, sometimes the reminder of inequities just plain pisses me off. Yes, it's a part of life, but it gets my knickers in a wad. Hope you had a good holiday. =) (Yes, I'm done now…)

Comments are closed.