Lahaina Maui Hawaii Fires vs East China Floods

Video: Lahaina Maui Hawaii Fires vs East China Floods - response and coverage commentary. 視頻：夏威夷拉海納毛伊島火災 vs 中國東部洪水 - 響應和報導評論.

When faced with Natural Disasters governments are usually faced with tough decisions: choosing the lesser of two evils.

In the case of the northeastern China floods, opening the dam was the lesser of those two evils.

It happens all over the world - it is a necessary ACTION, in most cases, to protect the dam as they’re built to withstand only a certain amount of pressure.

Now, that ACTION combined with countless other EMERGENCY RESCUE ACTIONS is what kept the death toll rather low when you consider how many people were in danger.

Western media chose to pick THAT ACTION to report extensively… I wonder why?

What we have seen in Lahaina, Hawaii- - - was exactly the opposite. INACTION from leadership. From Biden staying at the beach and choosing to go to California before visiting Hawaii NEXT MONDAY… to the sirens not working! To the power company keeping cables live during the storm. To the MILITARY not helping. The COAST GUARD not picking up those who jumped in the water. The FIRE DPT not hosing from the waterfront …

You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to know something isn't right with the response to the Maui, Hawaii fires.

ACTION vs INACTION
Who did better?

面對自然災害時，政府通常面臨艱難的決定：兩害相權取其輕。

就中國東北地區的洪水而言，打開大壩是這兩害中較小的一個。

這種情況在世界各地都會發生 - 在大多數情況下，這是保護大壩的必要行動，因為它們的建造只能承受一定的壓力。

現在，考慮到有多少人處於危險之中，這一行動與無數其他緊急救援行動相結合，使死亡人數保持在相當低的水平。

西方媒體選擇選擇這個行動進行廣泛報導……我想知道為什麼？

我們在夏威夷拉海納看到的情況恰恰相反。 領導層不作為。 從拜登留在海灘並選擇在下週一訪問夏威夷之前先去加利福尼亞……到警報器不起作用！ 幫助電力公司在暴風雨期間保持電纜暢通。 對軍隊沒有幫助。 海岸警衛隊沒有救起那些跳入水中的人。 FIRE DPT 沒有從海濱噴水……

你不需要成為陰謀論者就知道對夏威夷毛伊島火災的反應有些不對勁。

行動與不行動, 誰做得更好？