Sewol. Chronicle of a tragedy.

Sometimes the sea is not as kind as we would like to believe. Sometimes the sea is brutal. This time, however, was not only the sea, but the criminal incompetence of those who ruled the ship a handful of minutes before the tragedy was taking place. Who didn't wish to be present to avoid, expertly, that the incident occurred, who for only greed has increased dramatically the carrying capacity of the ship, helping to raise the center of gravity and, in fact, jeopardize all passengers. Sooner or later it would happen! 

Hurts to find out what happened at the time that over 300 young student were aboard to reach an island vacation.

Cries my heart to read this terrible news, I'm a father, I understand the pains of those parents, and I am horrified at the thought. There is still much to be done so that do not happen again, not by the hand of man, not to earn a few dollars more. What ever are now those dollars faced with the death of so many young lives?

What caused Sewol sinking? 

Human errors, which accounted for 85% responsible in all maritime accidents; will not reduce in accidents waiting to happen; but number of accidents could decrease in a climate of more improved safety culture in maritime sector. All of as are accounted for this challenging task. The 6,325-ton Sewol was carrying 476 people, including 325 students from a high school in Ansan, just south of Seoul, when it sent out a distress signal at 8:58 a.m. in waters 20 kilometers off the island of Byeongpoong.

MS Sewol, previously Ferry Naminoue or Naminoue-Maru, was built by the Japanese company Hayashikane in 1994. She had 146 m (479 ft) in length and 22 m (72 ft) in width, it could carry 921 passengers, 956 including the crew.  It was operated by Cheonghaejin Marine Company, Incheon.

It had been reported to have space for 180 or 220 cars and could carry 152 20-foot shipping containers. The maximum speed of the ship was 22 knots (41 km/h; 25 mph

Sewol operated in Japan for 18 years (from 1994). The ship was brought in from Japan on October 2012. 

Since then extra passenger cabins were added on the third, fourth and fifth decks, increasing the passenger capacity by 181, and increasing the weight of the ship by 239 tons. The construction was legal and passed regulatory tests.

After regulatory safety checks by the government of South Korea, the ship began its operation in South Korea on 15 March 2013. 

The ship then made two-to-three round-trips every week from Incheon to Jeju.

It was reported that Sewol again passed a vessel safety inspection by the South Korean Cost Guard on 19 February 2014.

This inspection was called an “Intermediate Survey” which according to International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), “include examinations and checks as specified in the Rules to determine whether the ship remains in a general condition which satisfies the Rule requirements.”

How the accident happened?

On 16 April 2014; about 30 kilometres (19 mi) off the southwest coast, the ferry began to list badly as it headed for Jeju. There were reports of the ferry having veered off course but the co-ordinates of the accident provided by port authorities indicated it was not far out of the regular shipping lane. 

The ship, reportedly altered the course with a very big rudder angle (a sharp turn) and during that turn (to starboard side?), ship very heavily listed on her port side. Right at that moment, a very Rescued passengers reported hearing a loud noise and the ferry coming to a shuddering halt – indicating it may have run aground although the water was reportedly 37 metres (121 ft) deep at the place where the ship capsized. Rescued passengers also reported that they were told "don't move" by an announcement over the ship's intercom system, whilst the ship was sinking.

Inside the ferry, chaos unfolded, survivors said, as the walls and floor seemed to exchange positions. Bottles and dishes fell. The ship’s twisting stairways became almost impossible to negotiate. Passengers were tossed to one side. Trays and soup bowls overturned, said Song Ji-cheol, a college student who worked part-time in the cafeteria.

The ferry was reported to be sinking at 8:58 am Korean Time.

At 9:30 am, the ferry was reported to have tilted 20 degrees to the Port side..

By around 11:18 am, the bow of the ship was submerged, with about 2 metres of height and 20 to 30 metres in length showing. 

At 8 am KST on April 18, only 1 metre of the bow was above water

As of 1:03 pm, the ship was completely submerged.

During the capsizing, it was first believed that passengers trapped in the vessel were able to send text messages to friends and family as the vessel sank. However, subsequent investigations by the Cyber Terror Response Center reported that survivors had not used their phones from noon on the 16th to 10 am on the 17th and determined that all reported text messages were fake.

Ocean temperatures in the area where the ship capsized were around 12 °C (54 °F), and the length of time before signs of hypothermia are exhibited at that temperature is approximately 90 minutes.

As of 25 April 2014;  188 of the ship’s 476 passengers and crew members confirmed dead and about 118 missing, compared to 179 survivors.

Captain accused of leaving the bridge

Initial investigations showed that at the time of accident, the third officer- an inexperienced officer who started to work onboard just 6 months ago-  was on duty and the Ship’s captain Lee Joon-seok- a 68-years old professional-  arrived into the bridge right after the accident.  According the report of third officer, the Captain was calm and asked the angle of ship’s list. 

According to my experience, what Captain’s behaviour was the proper practice and there is nothing to blame. Captain can not be expected to be on the bridge at all times and duty officer is eligible for navigation at open seas,  as far as the ship is not navigation in high risk areas or pilotage waters. According to reports, neither was the case. So what happened? We can only estimate. 

Can a sharp turn cause sinking?

Answer is quite simple: Yes, it can. It can and for various reasons this can take place. But, there should be other assisting factors for this result. First, if the ship has got a very narrow GM (Metesantric Height)  distance, or negative GM that can occur. Such ships are called as "tender ship" (Contrary to a "stiff ship")  and they ususally have difficulty to correct themselves if listed to one side. The metacentric height (GM) is a measurement of the initial static stability of a floating body. It is calculated as the distance between the centre of gravity of a ship and its metacentre. A larger metacentric height implies greater initial stability against overturning. 

Metacentric height also has implication on the natural period of rolling of a hull, with very large metacentric heights being associated with shorter periods of roll which are uncomfortable for passengers. Hence, a sufficiently high but not excessively high metacentric height is considered ideal for passenger ships. An excessively low or negative GM increases the risk of a ship capsizing in rough weather, for example HMS Captain or the Vasa. 

It also puts the vessel at risk of potential for large angles of heel if the cargo or ballast shifts, such as with the Cougar Ace. A ship with low GM is less safe if damaged and partially flooded because the lower metacentric height leaves less safety margin. For this reason, maritime regulatory agencies such as the International Maritime Organization specify minimum safety margins for seagoing vessels. 

A larger metacentric height on the other hand can cause a vessel to be too "stiff"; excessive stability is uncomfortable for passengers and crew. As greater the metacentrik height goes, righting lever increases accordingly.  It corrects the ship to come upright again. If a ship floods, the loss of stability is caused by the increase in KB, the centre of buoyancy, and the loss of waterplane area - thus a loss of the waterplane moment of inertia - which decreases the metacentric height.  

This additional mass will also reduce freeboard (distance from water to the deck) and the ship's angle of down flooding (minimum angle of heel at which water will be able to flow into the hull). The range of positive stability will be reduced to the angle of down flooding resulting in a reduced righting lever. 

When the vessel is inclined, the fluid in the flooded volume will move to the lower side, shifting its centre of gravity toward the list, further extending the heeling force. This is known as the free surface effect.

The island group on the Port side of the ship let us think that ship altered the course to Starboard, not to Port. The island group on the Port side of the ship let us think that ship altered the course to Starboard, not to Port.

Which could be the case in Sewol accident? 

If Sewol was not in a collision-with a submerged rock or any other unknown object- then, most probably, the ship had a very narrow metacenter height and large heel periods. 

Using the helm with a great angle- due to the inexperience of the officer on watch or a technical failure, as mentioned above-  could result in a big outwards heel. 

When turning, especially in a sharp turn for which a greater angle of rudder has been used,  the initial heel when the wheel is put over is inwards, because the rudder force is acting at a point below the centre of gravity of the ship.  

As the ship begins to turn, the centripetal force on the hull (which is greater than the rudder force), acting through water pressure at a point below the centre of gravity, overcomes the tendency to heel inwards and causes her to heel outwards.  

This outward heel is very noticeable when turning at good speed.  If the wheel is eased quickly the angle of outward heel will increase, because the counteractive rudder force is removed while the centripetal force remains, until the rate of turning decreases.  Should an alarming heel develop, speed should be reduced instantly.

Then, returning to Sewol case; this is a question which remains to be answered:  why the ship's rudder was put in a very large angle-most probably to hard to starboard (less likely to port) which resulted in the sharp turn and heel? Answers may vary: there might be another ship, a sailing or fishing boat, or the island was too close on the port bow due to a drift (remembering the strong currents in the area, drifting should be expected; and inexperience of the officer might play a role here, again) caused a panic to officer,  forcing her to put the helm hard to either side. The inexperience of watch officer could play a role in here. Because, if she was aware of the metacenter height of the ship, she would not do so. 

On the other hand, the officer on duty, appears to be a female officer, said to reporters that, she did not make a sharp turn, but "the steering turned much more than usual."

What is the meaning of this? To my interpretation; She means that she did not give a rudder command with a big angle; but, however, due to the Helmsman's error or a technical failure, the rudder went all the way to the side. Well, hard to port or hard to starboard. An exceptional order which could be used very easily in harbor operations but never -except emergency- on a ship with little metacenter margin at full speed ahead! 

Of course, a human error of helmsman, or a mechanical failure of the rudder, should not be omitted. What third officer said could be just the truth. But the result remains unchanged: A rudder command was given with a great angle while the ship was proceeding in her full speed. As a counter action, the ship’s speed should be dropped immediately and in this case, according to wittness reports, this was also done. 

Whatever happened; had happened at the initial heel, the very first one. Witnesses say that there was a very big noise. If not crashing to a submerged rock, or obstacle, what could be the cause of this, if not the clushing of cargo, either with each other or with ship's side plates? And, in this case, as the cargo of Sewol were nothing else than cars and vehicles in the garage and some containers on the fore deck, shifting-sliding-overturning of the vehicles at ship’s garage during the heavy listing  could be the case. This could push the center of gravity towards the listed side and crashing  of vehicles could damage the ship’s shell plates which could lead sea water inside- further worsening the scenario. The result is an immediate and inevitable capsize. 

Sewol Captain: Did he know the ship was tender?

And how this emergency situation was handled by the ship’s crew? Reports seem that crew- and obviously the Captain- underestimated the situation at the very first moment.  In a good risk evaluation should result by alarming all crew and passengers to gather at muster stations. Ship’s emergency alarm should be announced. This was not the case, however. The passengers were asked to stay in their cabins, assuming this wold be safer. Wrong assumption!

Another important point. Many people trying to find an answer to the question: why Sewol captain was so late to give the order for evacuation? Captain's answer to this question is clear: "I did not want to risk the passengers in cold water and strong currents until the assistance arrives" he says. But; he could have ordered passengers to vacate the inner cabins and come upper decks, where they would have had a greater chance of survival -- without telling them to abandon ship. So why he did not do that?

To my estimation: the Captain knew the small metacentre margin that  the ship had. If all passengers rushed up to upper deck, this would even worsen the situation by changing the center of gravity further up. That's why he did not call all passengers to the upper deck, hoping to balace the ship in the mean time. Big risk, at the cost of the life of passengers!

"You couldn't turn the wheel very sharply on that boat. You just couldn't. It was dangerous because the dynamic stability was not very good." This is the statement one of the ex-crewmembers of Sewol ferry, concurring with my early remarks about the accident that the ship had a stability problem with marginal metacenter height. 

Ex-workers  also said that "the vertical extension and renovations to the cabin deck raised the ship's center of gravity without taking into proper account the water levels in the ballast tanks" which further justifies my insight. 

Lessons to take 

This is another maritime accident to take lessons, but it costed to so many young lives. Maritime business requires serioussness. Accident has no mercy once it happened. Human errors, which accounted for 85% responsible in all maritime accidents; will not reduce in accidents waiting to happen; but number of accidents could decrease in a climate of more improved safety culture in maritime sector. All of as are accounted for this challenging task. 

Some compare this accident with the Costa Concordia accident. Well. In some point of view, Captain Schettino handled the emergency situation much better with much more passengers had been evacuated with less victims in comparison. But, he was luckier. He had much more time before the ship capsized. But, we must appreciate that except his very early flock out of the ship, and except the wrong maneuvering right before hitting the rocks Capt. Schettino did the right things to do in the emergency situation. But, every situation has it's exceptions. Let's see the end of judgements. 

A prayer for the poor victims. 

R.I.P.

Hot Dog

Luckily I have not eaten dog in Hanoi. By a kind of basic disgust I avoid eating meat that I don't have the slightest idea of the origin, so I keep me well away from certain restaurants too cheap or those exhibiting live animals in cages just outside, means that sooner or later the hairy inhabitant of the cage ends up in the pot. The following article was suggested to me by a friend, is hilarious in some form for humans to read, not for dogs. I am against these practices that I consider barbaric. Indeed I am disgusted just thinking about it. 

If you like read it, otherwise change page, I'll understand. 

SB

Hey, you know what everyone does in Hanoi? Eats tons of dog. All the time. If you don't believe me, come here, get up early, and watch the salivating packs of humans gather at dawn to chase strays through the streets. Most of the time they don't even bother to kill the dog before they start tearing away at its flesh. If they do, it's because the kids aren't quite as adept at eating live prey as the adults are. And that's totally fine, these things take time—just like how, in this country, not all children are born with the ability to keep down jellied eels.

Dog eating in Vietnam isn't just a stereotype. It dates back thousands of years and seems to be a present from the Chinese. It’s mainly eaten in the North and is believed to bring good luck and male virility. Rather ominously, no one has been able to tell me precisely what breed is eaten since I moved here, which might explain the large number of “dognappings” that take place in Hanoi.

The streets are full of men sporting chipped teeth and NY Yankees caps, all urging you to try their restaurant’s tasty "thit chó." Others have portable stalls with the dead canines revolving on a spit. I've yet to work up the courage or become desensitized enough to take a trip down "Dog Street," which I imagine looks something like the Westminster Dog Show after a terrorist attack.

I know that eating dog is the norm here, much as it's the norm in the US to eat Big Macs. I love dogs and have been surrounded by them since I was a baby. But after a few weeks of speaking to locals, coworkers, and fellow Westerners, the barrier was starting to crumble. I wanted to feel like more than a tourist in Hanoi, and I saw no point in remaining a conscientious objector.

So, one Friday after a couple of Bia Hanois (beers), my American friend and I set off in search of canine cuisine. The search didn't take long. Within a couple of minutes, we were being led to the side of a central Hoan Kiem restaurant, where we found a live dog laid out on the table.

At least I thought it was still alive.

It was only as I neared the head that I realized something was amiss. As in missing. Half of its rib cage was missing. Out sprung an animated chef, dancing some kind of crazed knife dance with jazz hands. Evading this guy and working our way round to the head, I was amazed to see that all its teeth were present and it still looked lifelike—just with a slightly darker coat. I later discovered this is because there isn’t any preparation or oven basting. The dogs are just cooked whole with a blowtorch.

By now, the momentary machismo of ordering dog had been quickly supplanted by a strong feeling of dread. This wasn’t going to be a pleasant experience. As I eyed the mountain of cold, unappetizing dog carcass towering in front of me, my thoughts returned to poor Digby (my aunt's dog) and every other canine I’d stroked/cuddled in my life. Sorry, guys. I was about to betray all of you.

I reached hesitantly for my drink, but by now a dozen pairs of eyes were fixed on my trembling hand, willing it to grab the nearby chopsticks. Twenty-two years of Westernization was no match for this unbearable peer pressure I felt. It would be easy to draw this out, but ultimately what happened is that I succumbed, I shut my eyes and slipped a slimy piece of dog into my mouth.

The first thing that struck me was the sheer chewiness. Ten gabbers on MDMA couldn't work up the gum power between them to gnaw through a chunk of this stuff in less than two minutes. What had started as a harmless foray into local tradition had quickly become a living nightmare where I was choking on an Everlasting Gobstopper of guilt. Lassie, Sounder, my ex’s adorable puppy Boris, the Tatler dachshund, your boys took one hell of a beating.

While it was torture for my jaw, the taste wasn't nearly as bad—just unremarkable. The texture was awful though: semi hard wood glue peppered with pieces of reinforced concrete. The closest taste description I can muster is a disconcertingly vague hybrid of turkey and pork.

As if reading my mind, the waiter suggested adding some spice by mixing the meat with his “special sauce.” I was ready for any kind of flavor at this point. Then I found out his special sauce was fermented shrimp paste, which tasted like a medieval prostitute’s gusset. I immediately regretted my decision.

Having managed eight or nine chunks of the clammy canine flesh, I uncovered the cold sausages made of dog's blood below—“doggy black pudding” as our waiter excitedly exclaimed. One bite of this, and I was done. Absolutely, unequivocally, eternally fucking done.

I’d be lying through my teeth if I said I felt pride after trying dog, but what I felt wasn't exactly shame, either. Clearly it’s a taboo in the West, but it wasn't hard to remind myself how commonplace it is in Vietnam as soon as I walked out of the restaurant and was confronted with more delicious little doggies being pushed around on carts. 

The price, for anyone who’s interested, was only $10 for the two of us. They cost a lot more alive, which can probably be explained by the fact that they're a lot more fun climbing over your stomach than up through it and out of your mouth.

La strage degli innocenti

Inorridire sarebbe il minimo, nei primi mesi di questo 2014 nato sotto tutti i buoni auspici, stiamo assistendo a quella che potrebbe tranquillamente essere classificata negli annali storici come una strage di innocenti. Chi dovrebbe proteggerci non lo fa, chi dovrebbe vegliare su di noi, sui nostri figli, sulle nostre famiglie, con piglio sicuro e condotta da buon padre di famiglia, non lo fa.

I comandanti "Schettino" o suoi emuli volontariamente o involontariamente, si moltiplicano come i pani e pesci di una famosa parabola. Che succede in questo nostro mondo, che giudico imperfetto, da farci inorridire e fuggire da tanti malanni degni della peggiore legge di Murphy?

Quando la HMS Birkenhead, una nave britannica che trasportava truppe, cominciò ad affondare al largo della costa del Sud Africa nel 1852, il capitano e gli ufficiali militari a bordo notoriamente consentirono alle donne e bambini l'accesso a bordo delle scialuppe di salvataggio prima di tutto. Il capitano e molti dei soldati rimasti sulla nave fino all'ultimo, perirono in mare pur di aiutare le donne e i bambini nella loro strada verso la salvezza. Il loro gesto cavalleresco di sacrificio è considerato un esempio, lo standard per il nobile comportamento in mare.

In seguito altre manifestazioni di coraggio da capitani e membri dell'equipaggio che hanno messo i loro passeggeri in salvo hanno scandito decenni successivi, come il capitano Edward J. Smith, che è andato giù con il Titanic.

Ma tale coraggio non si e' manifestato nel corso di due grandi catastrofi marittime negli ultimi tempi.

Il capitano Lee Joon-seok del Sewol, traghetto che batteva bandiera della Corea del Sud affondato la scorsa settimana, è stato oggetto di pesanti critiche per aver abbandonato la nave, mentre centinaia di passeggeri sono rimasti a bordo. Decine di loro sono morti e più di 200 mancavano ancora all'appello e sicuramente sono annegati o assiderati nella bara d'acciaio che li stava trasportando all'isola di Jeju per una breve vacanza. Le azioni a dir poco criminali di Lee e di una parte del suo equipaggio hanno spinto al confronto con quelle non meno criminali del capitano Francesco Schettino, che era al commando della nave da crociera Costa Concordia, schiantatasi su uno scoglio al largo delle coste italiane nel 2012, uccidendo 32 persone.

Testimoni hanno detto che Schettino si gettò in una scialuppa di salvataggio per fuggire dalla nave, anche se centinaia di passeggeri erano ancora a bordo. Nel corso della sua difesa il capitano ha detto di essere caduto in una scialuppa di salvataggio quando la nave si inclinò bruscamente. Sappiamo che Schettino è ora sotto processo con l'accusa di omicidio colposo plurimo, per aver causato un disastro marittimo e per aver abbandonato la nave con passeggeri ancora a bordo. Anche se nega gli illeciti per tutti sarà sempre additato come il comandante codardo, anzi, già adesso “Schettino” è sinonimo di codardia. 

I casi del Sewol e della Costa Concordia hanno sollevato domande circa gli obblighi di un capitano di una nave passeggeri che rischia di affondare, soprattutto quando le colpe dirette o indirette del naufragio sono da addossare al capitano stesso. Lasciando il Sewol subito dopo aver iniziato l’affondamento, Lee ha rinnegato alcune delle sue funzioni fondamentali. Il primo obbligo del capitano è la sicurezza del suo equipaggio e dei passeggeri. Lui deve rimanere a bordo della nave fino a quando tutti i passeggeri sono stati evacuati in modo sicuro. E poi l'altra ragione per cui deve rimanere a bordo della nave riguarda i diritti di salvataggio (vedasi il link http://www.fog.it/legislaz/cn-0489-0513.htm). 

Per un capitano lasciare la nave prima e in una situazione di pericolo, con la minaccia di affondamento non è esattamente il modo professionale di agire. Una convenzione marittima internazionale sulla sicurezza della vita in mare prevede che un capitano sia responsabile della nave e di tutte le persone a bordo, ma non prevede che il capitano rimanga sulla nave durante l'affondamento. Non necessariamente si vuole un capitano morente con la propria nave. Tuttavia lui ha la responsabilità della sicurezza di tutti a bordo di quella nave.

Alcuni paesi, tra cui l'Italia e la Corea del Sud, fanno dell'abbandonare la nave un crimine marittimo. E analogamente a Schettino in Italia, Lee si trova ad affrontare accuse penali relative al suo ruolo nel disastro, tra cui appunto l'abbandono, la negligenza, l’aver causato lesioni personali e non aver richiesto il soccorso da altre navi. Il presidente sudcoreano Park Geun-hye ha paragonato le azioni di Lee e alcuni membri dell'equipaggio del traghetto a un omicidio.

Schettino e Lee tuttavia non sono i soli a aver abbandonato una nave, destinata all'affondamento, davanti ai loro passeggeri. Così come per il ruolo d'onore dei capitani che andavano giù con le loro navi, non c'è una sala della vergogna per chi ha abbandonato la nave prima dei passeggeri. Un esempio del passato: il piroscafo italiano Sirio naufragò al largo della costa spagnola nel 1906, uccidendo più di 150 persone. Il suo capitano fu segnalato per aver abbandonato la nave alla prima occasione, ma morì di "crepacuore" in seguito, secondo un rapporto delle autorità.

Lee ha attirato soprattutto critiche per aver ordinato ai passeggeri di non muoversi, apparentemente per ritardare l'evacuazione della Sewol prima che naufragasse. Si fanno molte congetture sulla questione. I siti coreani e statunitensi parlano di ordini dell'armatore a ritardare l'evacuazione in attesa di una nave di soccorso della stessa compagnia, per evitare di dover pagare il diritto di soccorso. Il capitano avrebbe dovuto essere il tramite di informazioni oneste e chiare per tutti relativamente alla situazione, non avrebbe dovuto ordinare di sedersi ma evacuare la nave. Lee ha difeso le sue azioni adducendo scuse puerili e senza senso. 

Sapeva che nel braccio di mare, dove stava affondando il Sewol, le correnti erano abbastanza veloci, e la temperatura dell'acqua era piuttosto fredda e ha usato queste informazioni per discolparsi. Ma provare a salvare le vite è diverso che lasciarle sedute aspettando che succeda qualcosa “perché l'acqua è fredda o la corrente forte”. Meglio tentare di salvarsi che morire annegati. Inoltre l'abbandono anticipato di Lee potrebbe aver aggravato la crisi a bordo della nave. Quando non esiste più una leadership a bordo, essa lascia un vuoto che è quasi impossibile da colmare. I membri superstiti dell'equipaggio senza una guida capace hanno manovrato erroneamente le zattere di salvataggio, riuscendo a metterne in acqua solo un paio senza armarle, palloni galleggianti inutile, e corre veloce il sospetto che le zattere non fossero a norma. 

Ci sarebbero dovuto essere abbastanza membri dell'equipaggio per gestire i passeggeri 

Angosciati e impauriti. In quei casi allora conta la testa. Se ci sono persone scomparse, avrebbe dovuto esserci altri membri dell'equipaggio alla loro ricerca per condurle in superficie e salvarsi. Ma un traghetto non ha molti membri dell'equipaggio, di solito si limitano allo stretto necessario non includendo nelle necessità quegli esperti in grado di gestire con freddezza e capacità la situazione.

Sebbene la legge scritta non specifica che abbandonare la nave sia un crimine, è una tradizione marinaresca di lunga data che il capitano sia l'ultimo a essere tratto in salvo da una nave che affonda, e questo discorso vale anche secondo gli esperti legali.

In generale, il capitano è l'ultimo a scendere dalla nave.

In un video promozionale dal 2010, Lee è raffigurato nella timoniera di una nave mentre scruta il mare con un binocolo. Loda la sicurezza che una nave offre ai suoi passeggeri. 

"Credo che sia più sicuro di qualsiasi altro veicolo", disse in quell video "purché si seguano le istruzioni dei nostri membri dell'equipaggio." Lee ha avuto modo di essere lì e poter prendersi cura di tutti. Ma non l'ha fatto. Incredibilmente ha abbandonato al loro destino trecento ragazzi impauriti, trecento govani vite. 

Proprio per colpa loro sono morti trecento giovani, ironia della sorte si sono salvati solo coloro che le istruzioni non le hanno seguite.

TAGS: strage, Corea, Corea del Sud, Sud Corea, MH370, Malesia, Malaysia, Boeing, 777, traghetto, affondato, ferry, boat, morti, studenti, vittime, freddo, annegamento, ricerche, Cina, Cinesi, Malaysia airways, seoul, sewol, South Corea

Disordine pubblico

Impazzano sui media la foto e le polemiche per un poliziotto in borghese che a Roma ha preso a calci una manifestante. Fatto senza dubbio da biasimare, ma nessuno sembra porre analoga attenzione all’evidenza che sabato scorso, per l’ennesima volta, centinaia di violenti – come peraltro abbondantemente previsto - abbiano potuto bloccare il centro della capitale, pestare e ferire carabinieri e poliziotti, distruggere tutto il possibile, terrorizzare la gente e i turisti barricati negli alberghi di Via Veneto con il bilancio finale di solo 4 fermati. 

Evidentemente, nonostante foto e filmati, i soliti violenti che un paio di volte l’anno si recano in gita di protesta a Roma da tutta Italia possono e potranno continuare a farlo impuniti. 

Ben diversa la faccia feroce mostrata dallo stato contro i 24 “Serenissimi” veneti che risultano tuttora in galera, non si è capito alla fine neppure perchè. Due pesi e due misure tra violenti veri e secessionisti presunti, che non fanno onore né al governo nè al ministro dell’interno Alfano che si congratula sempre con tutti (ormai è una sua litania) ma poi non mi pare risolva i problemi di ordine pubblico. 

Circa poi la proposta demenziale di “numerare” i poliziotti perché non la si applica invece al contrario ovvero diffidando i più violenti dal partecipare a nuove manifestazioni, numerandoli per poterli riconoscere più facilmente e – ove fossero nuovamente coinvolti in scontri e sprovvisti di “numerazione” - automaticamente arrestarli. 

Viene fatto per i tifosi di calcio che vengono diffidati a assistere alle partite, con squalifiche pesanti alle società anche solo per gli slogan razzisti di una minoranza (anzi, adesso anche solo per slogan “territoriali”!) e non si applicano le stesse misure per i violenti di piazza, magari già schedati? 

Mi sembra davvero un assurdo.

Pinocchio Renzi

Renzi parla bene, benissimo. Coltiva prima di tutto la sua immagine, piace alla gente, preannuncia soluzioni condivise che entusiasmano e molti pensano “finalmente!”. A essere obiettivi va anche detto che è sorretto da un coro monocorde di elogi di stampa e TV dove appare ovunque, altro che “par condicio”. Provate a immaginare una presenza così massiccia del Berlusconi dei tempi d’oro: sarebbero state polemiche e proteste, ma per Renzi tutto è dovuto, i media si inchinano negli applausi.

Oddio… non proprio tutto è ok se consideriamo che all'effetto annuncio e all'operazione immagine non segue spesso la realtà. Qualche esempio? La vendita "on line" delle auto blu va lentamente e non rende come si sperava, certo il primo lotto è andato a ruba ma si trattava di poche auto, una briciola in contronto delle cinquantaseimila ancora nel bilancio dell'amministrazione, i "bravo" e gli "evviva" che secondo la nostra stampa hanno accompagnato le applaudite visite di Renzi in Germania, Francia, Gran Bretagna e a Bruxelles avrebbero dovuto rendere qualcosa e invece - a parte qualche pacca sulle spalle - l’Europa continua a dire “nein” all'allargamento della borsa.  

E che dire di quella promessa dal sapore elettorale degli 80 euro in busta paga era ormai obbligatoria dopo essere stata strombazzata così tanto, ma costa strappi e tagli da altre parti, compresa la spesa sanitaria che è importante soprattutto per gli anziani e i più deboli. 

Intanto il premier abbatte il risparmio - che viene supertassato - e alla fine anche la tanto sbandierata cancellazione delle province si è rilevata  una bufala con nessun vantaggio effettivo per la spesa pubblica. Se Renzi “vende” come risultato le quote rosa imposte negli Enti di Stato a grattare la vernice si vede subito che è soprattutto questione di facciata visto che comunque a comandare sono gli amministratori delegati – sapientemente lottizzati dal PD - e non i presidenti, così come contano poco le "capolista rosa" democratiche per le elezioni europee dove si vota comunque con la preferenza.

Renzi è furbo e si guarda bene, per esempio, di applicare le stesse quote rosa nell’Italicum, il nuovo sistema elettorale con il trucco dove saranno invece i (bloccati) minicapilista di collegio ad essere poi i veri futuri eletti in parlamento, tutti di nomina dei leader di partito e alla faccia del parere della gente.

Ma i guai veri per Renzi sono altri: l’economia non cresce, il bilancio non pareggia, la disoccupazione incalza. “Una riforma al mese” aveva annunciato, ma quella del senato è impantanata così come quella elettorale. I giorni corrono e sicuramente l’immagine renziana renderà al PD soprattutto per le imminenti elezioni, e poi? Dall’altra parte il centro-destra appare spappolato e diviso, incapace di trovare nuovi leader credibili e fili conduttori di una politica comune, mentre Grillo insiste con la quotidiana demagogia, che paga in termini di audience e speriamo bene, teso allo spasimo a raccogliere proteste e consensi sapendo che ci guadagna dal derby quotidiano con il premier e con il grande vantaggio di non essere mai verificato alla prova dei fatti (per ora).