This is disgusting:
PATONG BEACH, Thailand - Many believe the tsunami that devastated this tourist hotspot and killed thousands had one positive side: By washing away rampant development, it returned the beaches to nature.
Greg Ferrando glistened with sweat and sea water as he went for a barefoot jog up the immaculate white sand beach, where the tsunami has wiped away almost all signs of humanity.
“This whole area was littered with commercialism,” said the 43-year-old from Maui, Hawaii. “There were hundreds of beach chairs out here. I prefer the sand.”
The beauty of Thai beaches is the stuff of folklore: pristine, clean and untouched. That was 10 or 20 years ago. More recently, they have been swamped by development.
“Everyone is talking about it. It looks much better now,” he said. “This looks a lot more like Hawaii now, where vendors aren’t allowed on the beach.”
“They were just building and building and building. It was too much. You couldn’t even walk around,” said Moriel Avital, a 24-year-old Israeli who lived on the island for four months.
“It was all gone in one wave — it’s telling people not to mess with nature,” she said. “Paradise should be paradise and should not become this civilized.”
Unbelieveable!!!
HatTip: Economics W/ A Face.
I’ll see your disgusting Green and raise you a disgusting libertarian. The Ayn Rand Institute explains why the U.S. should not donate money to tsunami victims.
Heavens, my post has been blocked again! It’s the Right Wing conspiracy to block dissent, is what it is!
Doh!!!
And now I see that my healthy liberal rebelliousness has triumphed over right wing oppression!
Btw, you do agree that there is a fundamental difference between what the Ayn Rand Institute said and the greens, right Mitch?
The Ayn Rand Institute is *not* arguing that the USA shouldn’t help the Tsunami victims, but that it shouldn’t come from the government. In other words, it should come from the people’s free choices and desires. Not given by Bush as if that government money is his to spend. The money he has is *collectively* the tax payers. And it should be them who willingly give it out, not the government.
That’s a fundamental difference between what the Green’s said.
Btw, this is a side of liberalism that I tend to admire. I hate cencorship just as much as the best of them…So this part of you I encourage ;).
Kiddo, I’ve been fighting censorship since before you were born. Literally.
The essence of government, when it runs well, is that it is the agent of the population’s will. It provides for the common defense and police, builds roads, and conducts and encourages basic research (such as creating the Internet). One of the other things it does is provide foreign aid. I see nothing shocking about this. I know the Libertarian Party disagrees with me on this, but, then again, the Libertarian Party is a bunch of kooks, as crazy as the organization in Santee that’s waiting for the saucer-people to come.
Q: How many libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?
A: In a free market, there will be no darkness!
Indeed, I see the American outpouring of generosity toward tsunami victims to be a great example of the American system at work. The American government gave some bushels of money. The American people said, “Not enough!” and dug deep into their pockets and gave more.
Even though I generally agree with libertarians (on Economic issues), that joke is too funny.
I like to distinguish between libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. Libertarianism is a philosophy that has much to recommend it. The Libertarian party are crazy as egg-eating dogs.
egg-eating dogs? Why are they crazy? My old dog used to eat eggs…but he was a mean dog.
I should’ve said “egg-sucking dogs.” It’s an expression popular in the American South, I’m told.