Something pissed me off about the tsunami stories yesterday. It was on Good Morning America. They had just done this story on this American doctor who had lost a daughter in the wave. There were three kids and one daughter and the son had made it to safety in spite of being swept along with the water. They had been searching and the cameras were rolling when they found a photo of the missing daughter on the bulletin board of one of the temples acting as a temporary morgue. They were talking about how they had lost the mother to cancer the year before. Pretty much broke my heart. Then the very next story was anounced by Charley Gibson as "and next we will update you on the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit Model who fought to survive the wall of water." And I really had to ask myself, who gives a good goddamn whether this chick was a swimsuit model or not. Are we so jaded already on this story that we have to talk about minor celebrities in order to bring continued interest to the story? Did Sport's Illustrated somehow give her special training on tsunami survival or something? She's somone's daughter or sister or mother or wife who was lucky enough to survive where hundereds of thousands of others lost their lives. That's the story damnit! Her being a swimsuit model had nothing to do with it. Maybe Charley thinks the water god saw her out there in the water being pretty for the camera and decided that a perfect piece of ass like that had no business being killed because there are far too few good pieces of ass in the world. That's how water gods think right? Damn they piss me off sometimes.
And since I'm bitching already. While I was in NC, shooting this old house, I came across the inevitable Anarchy symbol painted on the wall of a barn. It's either that, a pentagram or 666 you know. And I started thinking about the posers that put these symbols on things. I say posers because most people who are really comitted to an idea don't really have the need to go around spray painting the symbols on random structures. It's just someone's lame attempt at shock value. Most people who get behind the idea of Anarchy as a societal system, I think don't have the first clue about what true anarchy would really mean for the individual. They seem to think that they would someohow be immune from the violence and chaos that would occur. Or at least that whenever they were tired of participating in it, they could somehow step back and not be affected. I'm sure a lot of us have seen situations that turned into total anarchy. But over time and given some distance, most situations like that tend to fix themeslves somehow or at least get to a state of relative peace even if the situation that started it is really not resolved. Especially around elections I hear people getting disgusted with our government and suggesting that anarchy might be the way to go. To those people I pose the question, "OK what comes next?" Because as bad as things might get, there are still small comforts that we take for granted will always be there. People tend to think if the goverenment was overthrown and no one was in charge and everyone just did what they wanted to do that you could somehow still have something you could count on. It doesn't work that way folks.