There was an earthquake the other day near Japan. Every news site has to have a story about it, whether it's an AP reprint, or something more original. I was talking to a friend about it, his only opinion concerned the 'aftershocks'. To him they aren't aftershocks, but another instance of an earthquake. Good point. Just because earthquakes come in groups, they are still the same, some are just stronger than others.

I read some of the articles. Because of the big wave that killed hundreds of thousands of people, there is now a tsunami warning system. To me, it's a waste of time and effort, more trouble than it is worth. I know, some would say a human life is priceless, but I fail to see how such a system would have saved many people when the last one hit. It took just a few hours for the wave to hit in Indonesia, and it takes time to get the word out. How long does it take to get people mobilized? There were over 200,000 killed in the big one, how many of them could have been saved? If the wave from the water didn't get them, the wave of bodies dashing from the shore just might.

So this one was no big deal. Water swelled in Hawaii and California, but not more than 3 feet. The pieces I read tried to make it as bad as possible. Hawaii was 'lucky' because they had 6 hours to prepare for waves close to 3 feet. They had to prepare for 3 foot waves? What preparations were necessary, wax on the surfboards? Aren't such waves a surfer's dream? Don't the waves get this big when it storms? In California some boats were pulled away from the floating docks they were attached to and received minor dings. Not much of a story there. The author was creative though, he said the harbor master reported the boats 'possibly' suffered greater damage. Maybe the owners would have had to actually touch up some paint.

Cynical? Yeah, but it seems to me, and I've said it before, these people are just slatherin for a juicy massacre to report on. Do these 'reporters' wonder at all why people like me question what they write?