Miraculously the people in this amazing photo survived! From the BBC story:
A Swedish tourist who was pictured running into the Asian tsunami to save her family survived the catastrophe, as did her children, it has been revealed.
Newspapers around the world showed a desperate Karin Svaerd heading into the waves as other tourists fled.
On Sunday the 37-year-old policewoman told the press she survived by grabbing hold of a palm tree on the Thai beach.More amazing stories of survival, including the Svaerd family, in The Sydney Morning Herald.
]]>< 
If you follow the links on Instapundit you will find out that this picture is of a tsunami in China from a couple years back. Or, what they call of Tidal Bore. Apparently some legitimate news organizations were faked out by this picture as well.
http://instapundit.com/archives/020194.php
http://www.newsdesigner.com/archives/000398.php
I will never understand why some human beings stand and often even approach massive onslaughts like this. It’s not curiosity, either, but something else…perhaps stupidity, I just don’t know, but I’ll never understand it.
Yes, the photos are from China, and aren’t related to the Southeast Asian 12/26 tsunami…just read that, will try to return with a link fer’ ya’.
They aren’t called Darwin Awards for nothing.
Kevin, I thought you never “deleted” your posts?
You really should have left things up originally, then just did an “update” or an entirely new post. Now the comments seem out of place, because the original photo you showed you’re not showing anymore.
Henry, I read the comments because I saw his update and it all made sense to me. (BTW thanks BillK)
If it were text, he’d probably do a strike thru… that’s hard to do on a pic.
P
Well, this latest story of survival contradicts my earlier comments, with this woman running with excessive valor toward the destructive wave to save her family.
My earlier comments on this thread were written in reference to the photo since removed from this thread, was after viewing many people in China standing before an obviously dangerous approaching wave and some of them even walking closer to the event, and certainly do not apply to this courageous woman in this latest survival story. Her actions make sense, have motive and reason based on life and sustaining life (I’d have done the same thing she did), and are very understandable.
What Suzy said, Paul.
There was a picture here EARLIER that Bill K was referencing too.
After writing about how much more caring conservatives are about the fate of racial and national others, it is only sensible to compare this post to other manifestations of conservative outrage over the Tsunami. In particular, the sympathy for Swedish citizens–such a wonderful display of cosmopolitanism on the part of magnanimous republicans like yourselves–makes for interesting contrast to the following flyer from a conservative ‘religious’ organization:
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/jan2005/5000_dead_Swedes_1-2-2004.pdf
The elephant in the Democrats’ room is simpleton Michael Moore. The elephant in the Republicans’ room? No need to name it.
Close, but no cigar, Pedro. Fred Phelps is kept at arm’s distance (or farther) by the vast majority of the GOP. When he’s accorded a place of honor at a Republican National Convention (say, next to a former President of the United States), then you might have a case.
But please see our hostess for some lovely parting gifts…
J.
I’ve just had one of our designers put together those 2 amazing Before & After photos of Indonesia in a flash film. You can view it here:
BEFORE AND AFTER.
Incredible.
Digital Globe is putting up some of their satellite before and after tsunami photos for free with some new comparisons of Sumatra. Also check out (and keep track of updates) the US Navy’s Tsunami Relief Operations photos. Most are of the carrier, choppers and personnel, but overviews of the Indonesian devastation are also shown starting on page two.
If mentioning Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones University, Creationism and Intelligent-Design, etc., is regarded as unfair game when discussing the presumed superior magnanimity and cosmopolitanism of republicans, then I don’t see how it is fair to judge liberals on the basis of the flamboyant and imbecilic rhetoric of a handful of fools like Michael Moore. I–for one–shall never vote for a party that does not vociferously condemn the fanaticism of the elephant kept at arm’s distance by the GOP. I would gladly consider voting for someone like John McCain, but certainly–no matter how fiscally conservative I may be in democratic circles–not for the party that panders to and attracts the vote of the overwhelming majority of bigots.
Pedro, by far the vast majority of Americans are not bigots, only the select few “radicals” on either side really display any sort of bigotry. The only thing weird is that liberals claim to be the “open-minded” party that welcomes people of all creeds. Tell that to the hard liners who won’t accept anyone that disagrees with them.
Extreme conservatives, on the other hand, will at least allow moderate conservatives in on debates and discussions.
The euphoria in the press claiming that national, religious and racial differences have been set aside in the international aid effort for the victims of the tsunami has one glaring omission.
One of the first nations, as usaul, to launch an aid effort was Israel. Israel’s generosity, for such a tiny country, went virtually unreported. Now we see television reports in America that Sri Lanka is refusing aid from Israel on the basis that Israeli military personnel may be involved. This should be condemned in the strongest terms.
Pedro, Pedro, Pedro…
Sorry, no shifting the goalposts mid-game. You mentioned Phelps, I responded about Phelps. Then you came back and implied you’d initially mentioned those others, and I’d blown them off. “Guilt by association” is one thing; “guilt by inference” is even more stupid.
Again, none of the above were honored with a seat next to a former president at the GOP National Convention, as Michael Moore was. Or if you don’t like the Moore example, how about Moveon.org? The Democratic National Committee openly partnered with them, in clear violation of the laws regarding 527 groups. That’s in comparison to… let’s see… I think Bush once gave a speech at Bob Jones. I didn’t agree with that, but it’s hardly as openly illegal as the DNC “partnering” with a 527, as McCain-Feingold clearly prohibited.
And if you wanna open the whole “look who claims to be on your side” can of worms, Pedro, be prepared to start defending Markos “Screw ’em” Moulitsas, Marc “probably bought a pardon from Clinton, then got involved in the Oil-For-Food scandal,” and Democratic Underground. Do you really wanna go there?
I think not.
J.
If mentioning Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson, blah, blah, blah….
Get back to me when one of them makes a crackpot movie pulling in over a 100 million and is treated like fucking royalty by the media then we’ll talk. Oh, and all the leftys say they would consider voting for McCain under a delusion that it gives their opinions some sort of credence. They won’t and it doesn’t.
“Pedro, by far the vast majority of Americans are not bigots, only the select few “radicals” on either side really display any sort of bigotry.”
I never said that the vast majority of Americans are bigots. I said that the Republican party panders to and attracts the vote of most bigots, and that that is the principal reason someone like me wouldn’t vote for it.
“The only thing weird is that liberals claim to be the “open-minded” party that welcomes people of all creeds.”
I think it is fair to say that the Democrats are far more fond of diversity than Republicans are. There ought not to be anything controversial about that.
“Sorry, no shifting the goalposts mid-game. You mentioned Phelps, I responded about Phelps.”
Since when do *you* decide what my argument is about? It is you who have decided to interpret my argument as an indictment of the Republicans on the basis of the bigotry of individual Phelps. I never constructed such an argument, quite simply because I oppose that form of argumentation. The point of my comment is precisely to undermine the notion that guilt-by-association or guilt-by-sampling is somehow good rhetorical form. Notice how the first sentence of my response to you is an if…then statement, the conclusion of which is that judging liberals on the basis of the idiotic rhetoric of Moore’s (or anyone else for that matter–Moore may be replaced by X without loss of purpose) is as unfair as judging Republicans on the basis of what Robertson et al have to say.
I am opposed to the judgment of the generality of republicans or democrats on the basis of what some vociferous voices that tick us the wrong way appear to us to be saying.
As for the disclosure of my political position, I consider it only civil to explain why I oppose the Republican party. I am fully aware that many thoughtful republicans oppose the Democratic party because of its association with what they perceive as the ‘loony left’. I can live with the loony left, but I can’t accept bigotry. And frankly, the suggestion that the loony left is bigoted does not fly with me. Bigotry is not simply the display of hateful and spiteful indictment of a political party. It is the advocacy of excluding groups of people–based usually on race, ethnicity, religion or sexuality–from having full rights as citizens. Now, I may not judge the vast majority of republicans on the basis of their association with bigots, but I cannot be on board with their political programme unless and until they loudly get rid of them.
Btw, the constant reference to the superior magnanimity and cosmopolitanism of republicans ought to have given away that my comments were sarcastic.
I think it is fair to say that the Democrats are far more fond of diversity than Republicans are. There ought not to be anything controversial about that.
Sure, if you don’t think lying is controversial. The dems yap about diversity, where Bush has actually put it into action. That you ignore that point is pretty telling.
But, besides that, are you even a citizen, Pedro? Or, are you just another poseur?
Just how does my citizenship affect the quality of my argument, Julie? Let me suggest that you take an introductory course in the most elementary logic. Your attempts at reasoning show the urgency of taking such a measure.
As for ignoring Bush’s diverse cabinet, I do not do such thing. I think it is marvelous that President Bush has quietly given opportunities to qualified officials of minority groups. I simply don’t think it ought to be controversial that Democrats are far more ideologically fond of diversity, nor that they are actually the more ethnically diverse party.
You see, I respect thoughtful conservative arguments against the fetishisation of diversity. What I don’t have much respect for is the flamboyant insinuation that the true friends of diversity are the Republicans, when we all know that that is not the case. (I, in fact, do not fetishize diversity. I’m far too fond of meritocracy to be in tune with standard Democratic rhetoric on diversity.)
In a similar way, I have respect for the argument according to which the loony (but earnest) and influential anti-war rhetoric of all-star radical leftists can have devastating consequences in an increasingly globalized world, and that it is utterly irresponsible for Michael Moore and others to suggest that the current administration is fascist. I can appreciate the thoughtful republican’s argument that the damage caused by these irresponsible extreme leftists is even more devastating than the bigoted rhetoric coming from the extreme right. But the attempt to redefine bigotry as opposition to the radical religious right strikes me as particularly disingenuous.
Just how does my citizenship affect the quality of my argument, Julie?
One, your opinion carries no weight. Two, I am sure I am not the only one who has had it up to here with non-Americans lecturing us on politics.
Let me suggest that you take an introductory course in the most elementary logic.
No.
As for ignoring Bush’s diverse cabinet, I do not do such thing. I think it is marvelous that President Bush has quietly given opportunities to qualified officials of minority groups.
Sure you did. And now you are patronizing.
I simply don’t think it ought to be controversial that Democrats are far more ideologically fond of diversity, nor that they are actually the more ethnically diverse party.
Who cares what they are or are not fond of? They talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. And until they do, they should be ashamed of themselves.
You see, I respect thoughtful conservative arguments against the fetishisation of diversity.
Fetishisation is not a word.
What I don’t have much respect for is the flamboyant insinuation that the true friends of diversity are the Republicans, when we all know that that is not the case.
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to insinuate it, I meant to STATE IT AS A FACT. And, what do you mean by “we” kimosabe?
(I, in fact, do not fetishize diversity. I’m far too fond of meritocracy to be in tune with standard Democratic rhetoric on diversity.)
Fetishize is not a word. And frankly, it sounds like how one would discribe Clinton’s penchant to boink women of color.
But the attempt to redefine bigotry as opposition to the radical religious right strikes me as particularly disingenuous.
It’s not disingenous at all. Believe it or not, even the radical religious right, as you call them, is protected by the First Amendment and can be discriminated against.
Both fetishisation and to fetishize are words, Julie. Kindly look them up. Or are you also in desperate need of English lessons from non-Americans?
Pedro: I’d like to be so bold as to suggest that you point that fine tuned focal point toward yourself and ask, “are you in desperate need of American websites and citizens?” I mean, I’m just curious, you visit a foreign land, you don’t work your way through a crowd there with by spraying bad fumes at everyone. Or else, if you do, you certainly aren’t a tourist on a friendly, curious visit.
I remember the (Chinese) photos well as I have been interested in tsunamis and tidal bores for a while.
They are NOT from a tsunami but from a known regular occuring phenomenon, tidal bores. One of the largest know occuring in China. These occur as high tide water rushes back into rivers meeting resistence from the out flowing river. As these events are known of in adavance, people often gather to watch (and even ride them in boats and surfcraft) hence the smiling, running crowd.
And, I bet there’s something ELSE actually bothering you, way beyond julie’s vocabulary or how she types or does not.
Anyway, just curious why you’re so determined to make a thread about tsunami survivors and photos about them into something about you and your problems with certain individuals in our world.
Thanks for that information, gary, about the original photos (this thread, since removed from this thread for anyone later to the thread)…what you share lends another dimension to the human behavior depicted.
Both fetishisation and to fetishize are words, Julie. Kindly look them up.
I just did. Fetishisation is not a word. Plus, the use of “buried verbs” should be avoided. As to fetishize, I found it in only one of my four dictionaries. However, it is still a poor and inappropriate word choice.
Or are you also in desperate need of English lessons from non-Americans?
Not from you, Bud. Obviously, it’s news to you, but your writing is barely comprehensible.
“Or else, if you do, you certainly aren’t a tourist on a friendly, curious visit.”
First of all, S, I’m not spraying fumes at ‘everybody’. Secondly, the point I made is one of elementary logic: one’s citizenship bears absolutely no relevance in the evaluation of one’s arguments. But since you’ve accurately inferred that I’m not a tourist, I’ll happily tell you that I’m married to an American citizen, that I intend to live in this country, and that I actually look forward to the day when I can exercise the right to vote. I have lived here for a good number of years now, and I believe I’m perfectly qualified to comment on American politics.
The accusation of fuming would be more credible had I engaged in Bush-bashing (instead, I praised Bush’s humility in quietly appointing minority officials), republican-bashing (instead my comments make references to thoughtful republicans and concede that judging republicans on the basis of its fringe members is unfair), or something of that sort.
You are perfectly right that there is something *else* that disturbs me about this site. I’ve tried to articulate it in my comments. As for Julie–who obviously doesn’t speak academic English, but who’s to blame her for it?–, it is not her ignorance which disturbs me, but her irrationality. And, as a logician, I’m darn well qualified to say so.
very good…
Wow. I stopped by to see if a hoax picture, mistakenly sent by a friend was featured. Who would have suspected that I’d find such a diverse group of people arguing semantics? While thousands lie rotting on the beaches. Nice.
i found a good collection of tsunami photos at tsunamipix.com