And another question for you all- why is this disaster getting so little attention:
Up to 15,000 people were killed and seven million lives left devastated by the cyclone in Bangladesh last week, aid agencies have said as the full extent of the disaster became clear.
The Bangladeshi Red Crescent Society, the country’s main humanitarian group, said that more than 3,000 bodies had already been recovered from villages shattered by Cyclone Sidr’s 150mph winds.
While the official death toll remains low, Save the Children last night said that it feared that 15,000 people could have died while the Red Crescent estimated around 10,000.
An international relief effort, supported by donations from the UN, Britain, US and Europe, was slowly grinding into gear yesterday as the International Red Cross estimated 900,000 families had been affected.
Compared to the Tsunami in 2004, it has received almost zero attention. Why is this? Do we have a “been there, done that” attitude and are just waiting for the next new and exciting disaster that captures our attention? Or is because of what region was struck? Or are we just overwhelmed with other headlines? is it because a tidal wave is much more sensational than a predictable storm? Was it because it did not hit a resort area and there are no personal videos to show?
I am genuinely curious, and not trying to make a statement or guilt anyone, I just want to know why one event would receive so much attention, and the other is met with a collective yawn.
That's easy
That’s easy.
How many hot Bangledeshi tourist spots are there?
How many Western tourists or supermodels were caught in the cyclone?
horatius
Umm. Because they are all brown and Muslim and speak in a strange tongue. Just a guess.
Dreggas
Not to be too cynical but…it’s bangladesh, it happens regularly. Not to mention that acknowledging this would mean acknowledging extreme weather becoming more common which means acknowledging global warming.
guyermo
the tsunami was sudden and had no prior warning, had lots of dramatic video and involved tens of thousands of white people and three continents. Whereas the cyclone had ample warning, no dramatic video, and nearly all the white tourists left the area.
Plus the Bangladeshi government really acted like douche bags to those protesters.
but my money is on the the pretty, white girl syndrome in the media.
jcricket
That doesn’t work (horatius) because the Tsunami affected the same people.
John at Americablog has been trying to raise attention, because right now only the Christian right is seriously trying to mobilize relief, and that’s a shame (not because they are, but because we all aren’t).
I do want to point out that the reason third-world country death tolls tend to be so high in natural disasters is because of the lack of building codes (i’m being totally serious). When everyone lives in a hastily-constructed tin shanty on an unstable hill (or under the sea, or on top of each other), the potential for mass casualties is massively increased during any kind of concentrated natural disaster.
Our system of regulation isn’t perfect, but one of the things the western world does best is building codes – saves countless lives in a totally “unsexy” way.
demimondian
I don’t know why. (OT: I’m actually amazed at how few people died — deep in one of your threads last week, Dreggas and I talked about this disaster-to-be, and I predicted tens of thousands of deaths. That only a few thousand have died is a wonder.)
I’m afraid that the fact that there were many days warning, and so all the westerners who might have been threatened had time to get out if they wanted to, makes it different from the tsunami
grumpy realist
No beautiful white girls to show pix of, is my guess. How much fuss did the news give to that actress whose boyfriend was swept away in the tsunami?
Probably also because typhoon flooding in that part of the world is depressingly “normal”, ditto for the number of people who have died. The glibertarians will simply say “well, it they didn’t want to undertake the risk of floods, they shouldn’t be living there!” (Totally oblivious to the fact that most of Bangladesh *is* nothing more than a flood plain.)
jcricket
Welcome to the former East Pakistan!
Zifnab
I’ll take “all of the above for $100” Alex.
Seriously, though, if you just want to know why its not headline news in the mass media, that’s probably because mass media doesn’t have any real reporting staff living in Bangladesh.
The story isn’t happening in a “hotspot” that reporters are already covering, and Bangladesh isn’t sexy enough to receive a camera crew out on a plane. Someone crunched the numbers a while back and determined that Bangladesh + Cyclone + ??? != Profit. Hence, no coverage.
Welcome to your Free Market Media.
capelza
I have seen quite a bit on the news actually.
And 15,000 is a big death toll, but in the early 70’s it was half a million (anyone remember the concerts for Bangladesh? And the George Harrison song?)…then the next HUGE disaster for them it was something like 160,000 killed.
Terrible numbers, the mind can’t wrap around them, but in a very sad way, this time it was much better, because they actually were more prepared. Millions are still homeless, though. That comes literally with the territory.
jcricket
Also totally seriously, what will they say when massive parts of the US are in complete drought mode? Where exactly are we all supposed to live. Pretty much everywhere is either drought-capable, tornado prone, hurricane alley, earthquake zone, under sea level, ready for a mudslide, etc.
How Libertarians ever became considered the “serious” party is beyond me. Everything’s so simplistic with them and completely detached from the world, human nature, evidence, etc.
ThymeZone
It’s not important because nobody is playing the gender card, or talking about driver’s licenses for illegals.
Once these “issues” are tied to the disaster, you will hear about it every day on Hardball.
Andrew
I’m pretty sure that Libertarians were never, ever considered the serious party by anyone, including themselves.
ThymeZone
Unlike, say, the religious right.
Michael D.
John: In all honestly, I think it’s a been there, done that attitude, especially in Bangladesh, where disasters like this occur all the time. Not on as large a scale probably.
OxyCon
I chose: “is it because a tidal wave is much more sensational than a predictable storm?”
This is a seasonal occurance in Bangledesh. Each year a cyclone hits and thousands die, though this year it is worse than usual.
All of which reminds me of a comedy routine by the late Sam Kinison:
“I’m like anyone else on this planet — I’m very moved by world hunger. I see the same commercials, with those little kids, starving, and very depressed. I watch those kids and I go, ‘Fuck, I know the FILM crew could give this kid a sandwich!’ There’s a director five feet away going, ‘DON’T FEED HIM YET! GET THAT SANDWICH OUTTA HERE! IT DOESN’T WORK UNLESS HE LOOKS HUNGRY!!!’ But I’m not trying to make fun of world hunger. Matter of fact, I think I have the answer. You want to stop world hunger? Stop sending these people food. Don’t send these people another bite, folks. You want to send them something, you want to help? Send them U-Hauls. Send them U-Hauls, some luggage, send them a guy out there who says, ‘Hey, we been driving out here every day with your food, for, like, the last thirty or forty years, and we were driving out here today across the desert, and it occurred to us that there wouldn’t BE world hunger, if you people would LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS! YOU LIVE IN A DESERT! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! NOTHING GROWS OUT HERE! NOTHING’S GONNA GROW OUT HERE! YOU SEE THIS? HUH? THIS IS SAND. KNOW WHAT IT’S GONNA BE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW? IT’S GONNA BE SAND! YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! GET YOUR STUFF, GET YOUR SHIT, WE’LL MAKE ONE TRIP, WE’LL TAKE YOU TO WHERE THE FOOD IS! WE HAVE DESERTS IN AMERICA — WE JUST DON’T LIVE IN THEM, ASSHOLES!”
–From an appearance on Rodney Dangerfield’s “It’s Not Easy Being Me,” 1984.
John Cole
What exactly is the definition of a glibertarian? Is Jim Henley one? Radley Balko? I have a number of libertarian tendencies- am I one?
jcricket
Oh, the Randians take themselves very, very seriously. And outside of the “fuck you I got mine” Norquists, every “Libertarian” I meet seems to think their ideas are the serious ones kept out of the public discourse by special interests in both parties (not because the arguments are unconvincing).
I read a while back that Libertarianism is grossly over-represented online and we do seem to spend an awful lot of time discussing/arguing over various Libertarian schemes (er, policies).
So can we just start ignoring them? Say something like “some adherents of that discredited school of thought known as Libertarianism disagree, but that’s hardly worth discussing” from now on?
MobiusKlein
Only heard it from the blogs.
And about building codes:
1) Building codes don’t protect from geography all that well.
2) See USA – CA – San Diego. We don’t learn that lesson well. Building houses in dry hills leads to predictable results.
3) I’m sitting right now in a brick warehouse in San Francisco. Can it survive a big earthquake? Dunno.
jcricket
No, do be a glibertarian you have to first be a big “L” libertarian, and then only apply your libertarianism to other peoples problems. Glibertarians replies to any situation where someone else is hurt is “fuck you I got mine”, “told you so” or “nanny nanny boo boo”.
You, on the other hand, can have a rational discussion about situations, admit there is a place for government intervention, and accept that helping others is potentially a good thing.
jcricket
My point wasn’t that building codes guarantee building safety, but that they reduce the incidence of mass casualties. In fact, earthquake protection in buildings is generally designed not to keep the building in perfect condition forever, but to allow it to stand long enough for you to get out/away.
Cinderella Ferret
I just got back from
supporting the war effortshopping. So what happened?Muslim charities were in place–and some of them not friendly to US interests–and ready to provide aide. I don’t know how large or effective these efforts are, but I do know they were in place before the cyclone. Maybe the US train and arm a militia to shoot looters. I hear Blackwater may be looking for more work.
demimondian
For what it’s worth, John, glibertarian is to libertarian aa “tax-and-spend nanny-state liberal” is to “liberal”. Not that there’s anything wrong with either one.
demi “nanny-statist” mondian
MobiusKlein
Well, yes. And it has been retrofitted, so building codes do help. My point, however, is that building codes can only do so much to hold back Mother Nature. Think Mount Vesuvius – the best defense is to be in a city not named Pompeii.
Dreggas
let’s not forget overpopulation and competition for what little land there is. You put 15 million on a coast and get a tsunami, well, 15 million are affected. Considering how small bengladesh is and that most of it is coast (as well as below sea level) it’s fucked no matter what the building codes are.
demimondian
In fact, the principal reason that the death count is so *low* in this disaster (remember, the cyclone brought a 20+ ft storm surge along for the ride) is that the Bangladeshi government, with help from the US, Europe and (I think) Japan, built new schools — vast concrete bunkers perched on stilts high above sea level. They double, of course, as emergency shelters in the case of a typhoon.
And, obviously, they save lives, even in the case of monster storms. Now, if we could just figure out what to do about the densely populated part of the country on the Bay of Bengal.
grumpy realist
I used to post over at Reason and would pester them to give me a good definition of what a “libertarian” would believe. Nobody ever came up with a coherent answer.
Libertarians remind me of toddlers–the only word they understand is NO. NO taxes, NO government, NO FDA, NO regulations, NO restrictions on guns, NO restriction on private scrip, NO regulations for worker safety, anti-discrimination rules, sexual harassment rules. NO drug rules.
And most of them seem to be software coding geeks working for large corporations and they’re perfectly happy to have Big Brother Corporation read their emails, give them random drug tests, and monitor them through video cameras. Go figure.
Cyrus
There’s no solid definition, of course, but the term seems to have two uses. First, there are self-identified libertarians like Glenn Reynolds (I always thought the term came from his name, but maybe not) who are very, very worried about government tyranny like high taxes and laws about hiring policies, but don’t particularly care about fiddly technicalities that never affect them like the Fourth Amendment or habeas corpus. (This obviously doesn’t include you; see, for example, your post a couple days ago responding to Don Surber.)
The second definition is someone I can’t think of a named example of, but I see them all the time in comment threads, especially at Ezra Klein’s. They’re the kind of person for whom the free market is the answer to everything. (Your employer doesn’t provide health insurance?) Find a job that does. (You can’t find a new job that easily?) Buy an individual policy. (You can’t afford one?) Ridiculous, market competition must make some affordable policies, or else a company would be missing out on customers. (Individual insurance is a riskier proposition for the company, therefore always more expensive?)
Well, then pay the high prices. If you can’t afford it, clip coupons. You shouldn’t have had that second kid. Maybe if you start going to night school, you could get a job that pays more. And it’s not like being poor is that bad anyway.
capelza
grumpy realist..I go to Reason.
Balko’s pieces on the wrongs in the criminal justice system are great. I am a libertarian when it comes to social positions…though I think MYOB as social policy might be a better term.
L (with the big L) might have worked, a nd I say might, if the poplulation of the world hadn’t increased by double in my lifetime. Galt’s Gultch is now covered with houses, it’s a subdivsion of of Denver now. (Yeah, for you purists I know it isn’t). I just wish they’d be honest and call themsleves what they are…anarchists.
How can you take people seriously who post “recycling is slavery”.
RSA
There is so-called left libertarianism, which combines ideas of personal liberty with egalitarianism. I’d probably fall into this category, to the extent I understand it. These views are drowned out by more mainstream (and more fringe) libertarians on the Internet, though.
MNPundit
Hmm. Let me boot up the snark processor and think like the media….
1. There are always floods in Bangladesh.
2. That region could use some hefty depopulation.
3. Islamic terrorist groups are already stepping in and they’ve got it covered.
Zifnab
Right, right. There’s a certain degree of sane libertarianism, arguments that typically come down to the local level. Should my boss be able to read my email? Should my police be able to arrest me for wearing a provocative t-shirt? How should my local schools be funded? How should local roads be funded? How should local businesses be taxed/subsidized?
The libertarian typically discourages government interference and argues that people should sort things out on their own. If you don’t want your boss to read your email, find a company that gives you that freedom. Police shouldn’t be able to touch you, but everyone else should feel free to treat you like the social skunk you are. Schools and roads should run on voluntary contributions. Businesses should be left to live or die on their own. Etc.
Of course, people typically sort out community problems by forming organizations through which they can pool resources. Charter schools, the ACLU, a church, whatever. And these resource pooling organizations – be they non-profits, clubs, businesses – just happen to end up looking a lot like government entities. So the problem of libertarianism is that it ultimately seems to come full circle, even though the original premise of unlimited freedom from public restraint seems sound.
grumpy realist
What causes me to throw up my hands about Libertarians is their “leave it up to the Free Market (TM)!” as response to everything, “Taxation is theft!” and “Return to the gold standard!”
The anarchic Libertarians seem to think that living in a Mad Max world would be just dandy. Funny how none of them have moved to Somalia or Iraq, which you think would be libertarian paradises–no gun control, no regulation, no taxes, and a very weak government.
The inability for a country to have a high-technology economy without some form of governing organization/taxation/R&D program to deal with infrastructure also seems to have totally slipped their minds. Libertarians seem to believe that roads, water systems, and electricity sprout naturally from Magic Pixie Dust.
Feh.
capelza
I have this occassional fantasy that includes Randian Libertarians suddenly without electricity or water or the internet in an urban wasteland. It makes me smile.
The discussion about energy…nuclear is the way to go, solar is for hippies and would need government subsidies…like nuclear wouldn’t? Pixie dust indeed.
demimondian
The difference between solar and nuclear is actually pretty straightforward, capelza: solar can provide enough electricity to power suburbia, although at a net energy deficit, and nuclear can power the world for the foreseeable future.
jcricket
But, but, but real Libertarianism hasn’t been tried…
Bleh.
I think the problem is that all of us, on both sides of America’s political divide have small-l-libertarian tendencies. Who, generally speaking, doesn’t like individual liberty?
We just all seem to disagree where the individual liberty should stop and collective interests should start. This is because in the real world, this shit is complicated. You can’t just “leave it all up to the market”, unless you want predictably bad results (horrible working conditions, environmental destruction, massive increases in income inequality) – it’s just reality.
But “Big L” Libertarians, especially the “glib” kind want to just sidestep the whole “reality” thing and live in the philosophical troposhere where they get to lord over us because they have a “philosophy”.
BTW – the perfesser has finally admitted he’s not a Libertarian (recently).
capelza
demi…I think micro and mutli source. If even just the air conditioners in the sun belt are run on solar power (individually, not on “the grid”) the demand would be decreased..wouldn’t it?
When I was in college, nearly 20 years ago, I had a class where energy demand was being discussed. At the time, the amount of electricity used to power our air conditioners was greater than that of China’s entire energy demand. Of course that has changed hugely.
Seriously, why throw all our energy eggs in basket? Why must we, as individual Americans be solely dependent on “the grid”… I said it in another post, we used to heat our hot water by serpentinging black tubing on a black roof…the most low tech thing possible..it worked great for most months of the year (at the worst if a freeze came, we switched to propane briefly) and even in the winter the water was tepid..and that was outside Eureka, CA..not what you would call part of the “sun belt”.
kurtimus
I’m trying to picture a bunch of squatters living on $50 a year in a shanty village waiting for the building inspector to come by and approve their wiring.
demimondian
I didn’t say we shouldn’t pursue solar and micro — I’m the one who heats my house with wood, remember :). I just think that we need to realize that those power sources will never provide enough electricity to run our industrial base. TO get to that level, you need much higher concentrations, and those mean coal, oil, gas, or nuclear.
Gus
demi.
You’ve obviously done a good deal of research on the issue. I’m surprised that there isn’t more potential in solar. Are you talking about existing technology? Can your provide a few links? Also, how about wind, geothermal, tide, etc.?
capelza
demi..I am not someone who thinks that nuclear is evil. But when someone uses the excuse that solar will require government subsidies and think nuclear won’t (is there any country that doesn’t have heavy government involvement in their nuclear industries?) are being deliberately obtuse.
Two things, though. I lived, again in Eureka, next to one of the ancient nuclear power plants..they had built it on a fault (which if you know the region is not a good idea at all…Humboldt County is where the San Andreas turns hard left into the Mendicino fracture zone AND the small subducting plates of my own beloved Cascadia Subduction Zone begins…so, no..let’s not put one there.
And the second is that I lived through the WPPPS (Whoops!) debacle here in the PNW (I forget where you live). Nuclear isn’t going to come overnight and save us from ourselves which I am sure you know. :)
I would also like to see a better technology for the reuse or storage of nuclaer waste. The rods at the Eureka plant stayed in place for decades…
Fwiffo
Sidr is the second strongest cyclone to hit Bangladesh since record keeping began, so it’s not like this is an every-year occurrence. It’s not even in the top-5 stories on Google. I’d say that’s a pretty big indictment of the “seriousness” of the media.
grumpy realist
Actually, expect to see some massive improvements in solar cells soon. There’s some really interesting stuff coming out from nanotech groups. The major problem has been the tweaking so a) you know what you are doing and b) you have something that really lasts. Holy grail is roll-to-roll processing with solar efficiencies of 15% or higher.
Part of our problem is that we’re right now still set up with a fossil fuel infrastructure with a bit of natural gas on top of it. Heat can be generated by boilers using waste material (or as waste heat off of co-gen fuel cell systems) OK–let’s say we go to a mixture of renewables and nuclear: How in the heck do you schlep electricity around? Need better batteries….which also have been improving dramatically–the new Lithium ion batteries are really getting up there. Problem is the energy density–making sure they don’t blow up when they short-circuit (the nail-gun test.) Are we going to go to a hydrogen-based system? Not very efficient (especially if you are trying to make your hydrogen by stripping it off of hydrocarbons), plus storage is a bitch.
Fuel cells–co-gen systems are up to 83% efficient even in the lower temperature fuel cells, plus you can have them run off natural gas (either directly or with a reformer in front.) Don’t expect fuel cells to be adopted for cars anytime soon–too expensive and still the storage of the fuel is a question. Hydrogen sequestration still damn difficult/expensive–best around still is finely divided platinum. Methanol/ethanol fuel cell systems quite possible soon for computers–you may be able to recharge your laptop by giving it a slug of vodka.
For mobile transport I expect plug-in hybrids with flex-fuel systems to be the wave of the future. As batteries improve, we may even get to pure electric.
Wind quite possible in Midwest–supercapacitors needed to even out loads, plus there’s how you get it to where it’s needed. Again expect better battery technology to play a role.
Even with all this, we use a HELL of a lot of energy in transport. We really should be pushing for more rail, diesel, horse….and my favorite: giant zeppelins.
capelza
Fwiffo…I am not saying that the cyclone shouldnot be big news, because it should. But again, the latest death toll is 3100, though I am sure it will go up.
Like I said earlier, the cyclone of 1970 killed a half a million people.
This storm is terrible, but to me, the low death rate is “good” news comapred to the past. Bangladeah needs more than sympathy and care packages to cover this latest storm (though they do need this)..they need long term assistence to figure out a way for a country that has a HUGE part of it’s population of 150 million people living in a river delta/flood plain. How can that be changed?
Punchy
12-26-04 changed everything, John.
dom
I tend to agree with the reasons many above gave…brown people + foreign + poor = no media coverage.
But I’ll say this: remember when there was MUCH OUTRAGE after Sep. 11/Katrina/etc. because the Red Cross did not earmark 100% of the associated donations to victims of those tragedies – the reason being that they needed to save some of that money for future disasters that did not benefit from massive public outpourings of financial support? They were right.
dom
And yeah, the current top four stories on foxnews.com:
1) “Is Clinton Camp Playing ‘Nixon Tricks’ on Obama?”
2) “Boys, 8 & 9, Charged With Rape”
3) a story about a Texas school ban of, um, “freak dancing”
4) a woman who is suing her husband for a share of his lotto winnings
Current top story on the BBC’s site? A package about the Bangladesh cyclone.
Andrew
You need a lot of water for a nuclear plant. On the other hand, you need a lot of water for a coal plant too.
Andrew
quite efficient.
also, sails for tankers and giant cargo ships.
Punchy
Fuck you. It’s glandular.
Sincerely,
Robert Plant
jcricket
I don’t understand why having big discounted sales will cause people already struggling to keep up with their Hummer payments to buy tanks.
mightygodking
Nanosolar and Miasole are both past this now, producing roll solar cells with efficiency of 18-19 percent (and they think that in the next decade they’ll be at 22 to 25 percent).
They’re busy setting up factories right now and their first year’s production run is already presold. They’re going to make fucking billions.
Bruce Moomaw
It may be that this happens so often in Bangladesh that thre is a certain irrational tendency to think: “Well, we really can’t do much to help them — if this hurricane didn’t get them, the next one will, and besides why don’t they just MOVE AWAY from there like we would?” (The thinking is similar in regard to the horrendous wars going on in central Africa, and their victims.)
All this is indeed irrational; but when it comes to thinking about distant phenomena, people give an awful lot of liberty to their irrational impulses. (Especially on the part of Americans, who, as George Will points out, get annoyed by long-lasting problems and like to insist on putting a total end to them — or, if that’s impossible, sweeping them under the rug — as soon as possible.)
Zifnab
Rail is expensive on startup. Diesel isn’t sexy enough. Horse? Really? I thought we were talking about efficiency.
Now zeppelins – the mode of transport I know least about – is one I could totally get behind. Call me crazy, but isn’t the biggest energy cost in flight getting on and off the ground? And doesn’t lighter-than-air cargo totally solve that?
Maybe the price/pound is just too far off, but I would think for sure that zeppelin-based shipping would be the wave of the future, not the past.
zzyzx
I heard a theory that part of the problem is the name. We hear “cyclone,” think it’s a tornado, and stop listening.
Punchy
Fixed.
old newsman
This is a pretty minor disaster as far as 3d World calamities go.
jcricket
When I hear cyclone I think pinball, but that’s neither here nor there.
Screw Zeppelins, my money’s on space elevators. They sound cool. Don’t care if they are cost effective, but who wouldn’t like a zillion-mile-tall carbon-nano-tube thingie.
ThymeZone
There you have it: Bangladesh Fatigue.
It was bound to happen.
srv
Where exactly are all the videos of screaming blond tourists?
srv
oh, sorry. What That’s Easy said.
grumpy realist
Oh, we’re working on the carbon nanotube stuff as well. At present, I think it’s going to be the regulatory stuff that’s going to be more of a hurdle to getting a Space Elevator up than the technical hurdles.
And yeah, horse might not be that efficient, but if we run out of liquid fuel, we’re going to have to think about going back to the hay-burners. (Diesel might not be sexy, but it can be pretty efficient, especially with direct injection.)
JWW
Idoits, you are,
Once again, break away from your pisshole news source. The good ole US was on this days ago. You dickless fucks can’t wait too skew events. The US was attending the situation as it happened. You find pride in making your asshole case, in nothing but the rear. Print the truth, not your imagination.
rachel
What the hell was that, and where did it come from?
Randolph Fritz
There is, however, excellent coverage over at
the liberal mediumThe Guardian.BIRDZILLA
Liberals especialy the eco-wackos and that green nut case AL GORE will blame this on GLOBAL WARMING knowing how rediclous they can be to take advantage of any devestating storm that cuases such a mess
OriGuy
Or Naples. Or Tacoma, for that matter.