January 01, 2005

• IS this some new American disease, turning every fucking thing in the world into a discussion about itself and its fucking godforsaken government?
• No, dng, critical thinking is not new in the US, it's just not practiced very often.
• No dng, the problem is that 60.5 million Americans were content with the job this guy is doing.
• I'm tired of all this bullshit about who's contributed less or more. It's not a competition, and turning the whole tsunami disaster into a foreign aid competition only serves to marginalize the people who've seen family members swept away and their homes destroyed. Also, as much as I hate Bush, who cares that he's spending money on his inauguration? Hey, guess what? The CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are making tons of money too, how come they're not donating it to the Red Cross? Or how about those after-school programs we're funding? Surely someone with no home or family is more deserving than a poor American child who at least has those? Of all the sources of money out there that could theoretically be used to greater benefit, why pick on Bush's inauguration of all things?
• Because he's an ass, that's why.
• "We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks" Well, that about sums it up. Google away for the rest of that speech.
• Chrominance, it matters because we come off like we are the compassionate leaders of the free world, and guess what? We ain't. Also, CEOs are not there to help people, but your government is. And I agree that we should help Americans, but funding for social programs dropped dramatically during the Reagen administration and has stayed low since. We expect "faith based initiatives" to do the job. I don't know about where you are, but we have as big as homeless population in LA as we have for 20 some odd years. This administration talks the talk, just doesn't walk the walk.
• I know my fellow Amuricans are irate about what Bush is doing, and what other politians have done. But, you know what? That's not the point in this case. The tsunami was not a political event, and you shouldn't try to turn it into one. Donate what you can, and THEN, contact your representitives and tell them what you want them to do. Grousing about it on this venue accomplishes nothing.
• It makes people aware and maybe they will take your coment to "Donate what you can, and THEN, contact your representitives and tell them what you want them to do" to heart. A lot of people are content to just sit back and think everything possible is being done, and it isn't.
• Yeah, I'm not too interested in this line of thinking; fuck it, just so long as people get helped. Yes, cocksucking asshole politicians will use the situation to promote themselves & whatever damn agenda they might have, but under the circumstances, fuckem, we'll deal with them assholes later. Right now we got work to do.
• But but but we're sending Jeb Bush to help. Ain't we great.
• "Of all the sources of money out there that could theoretically be used to greater benefit, why pick on Bush's inauguration of all things?" because it's totally superfluous, chrominance, to spend a record amount on an inauguration for a guy who's already in office, while "those after-school programs we're funding" aren't. And it would be nice if those CEOs would donate some of their bonuses or profits, but they aren't an elected official. Why would anyone complain about saying we should be doing more and saying it's political? I hate Bush, but if John Kerry were in the same position, I'd criticize him as well. Only thing is, I don't think it would take Kerry three days to even comment on the situation, and I don't think he would continue his vacation when one of the worst natural disasters to ever strike humanity had just occurred.
• Just a couple thoughts... 1) It wasn't unreasonable to give $35M to start with, as it appears the intention was there to offer more. Until the full scope of the problem is better defined, throwing more money at the countries involved right off the bat could actually do more harm than good... at least in the sense that, until there was a bit more of an assessment to the damage, it would be hard to tell who among the nations affected needed it the most (and needed money, for example, more than immediate diversion of such things as foodstuffs, water and water purification systems, or clothing). But they sure did screw up by not saying "To start, we have sent $35 million, and remain in contact with the governments involved. We're prepared to give as much as is needed, and need only be asked once more information is in." 2) A politician the level of Bush usually isn't really involved right off the bat in these things, as generally, the people who have the most experience in dealing with natural disasters around the world are, I would guess, most likely careerists in the State Department (USAID). 3) I would wager that the maximum apportionment power which rests in the careerists above probably sounds a lot like $35M. For more than that, they would have to specifically rise to cabinet-level folks and the President. 4) While I think that, in general, the US is on a per-capita basis quite stingy with its international aid (as opposed, to, say, spendthrift 'regime change' grudge-wars by President Dunce), the increased aid is a welcome number. Per capita is, to some extent, a straw man. A displaced family doesn't eat percentages, they eat goods and need money for sustenance and shelter and rebuilding. To sum up, I don't think that the $35M was, necessarily, stingy to start with, until more info was forthcoming. And I think that $350M is respectable, though if I ran the zoo, as it were, I probably would've upped it to $1B, because I think it's pretty clear that this is the worst natural distaster to hit the world in many decades (and if the death toll tops something like 300,000 (IIRC), the deadliest ever on record.
• I suppose, then, it's more the attention given to things like "generosity rankings" that bothers me. I, for one, am glad the U.S. has decided to chip in a great deal more than the initial $35 million, but all the talk about who's more generous per capita strikes me as comparing the size of your dicks (to bring everything back to Team America). Personally, I'm more interested in hearing how the money's going to be used. And I don't mean that in a needlessly critical way so much as I'm genuinely interested in the logistics of handling emergency aid when the disaster is so large. The loss of life and property is great in an area of the world less affluent than our own, and the tsunami affected a massive geographical area to boot. What are the priorities here, and how are they being met? The stories about what's being done to combat clean water shortages are far more interesting than "The US rose on the Generosity charts to #7 with a bullet!" stories.
• waitingtoderail - but the inauguration is going to take place, no matter what we think. And, maybe CEOs will donate, but we'll probably never know whether they did. Pick your battles. Don't fight windmills. Do what you can first, and you'll feel cleaner about trouncing your elected representitives when you tell them that they need to make for efficient relief efforts. Your political leanings would be better served in a different thread. Really! The important thing, now, is to save people in the disaster area. And, Aargh. I didn't send Jeb, nor did you. I sent what I could afford, personally, to a charity. And I'll take my own advice about contacting my representitives and telling them what I think. But political screed seems to me to be so irrelevant at this point. We can do a critique when the emergency is over.
• "Pick your battles." What battle, path, is more important than making whatever pitifully small attempt I can make to raise people's awareness that WE SHOULD BE DOING MORE about the deaths of 120,000 or so people? I don't know if anyone else noticed this either, but what really disgusts me is that coverage of this seemed to spread when it was found out that there were a lot of European (read: white) tourists there.
• "We can do a critique when the emergency is over." Why should we wait until "it's over?" Disease is beginning to spread as water supplies become contaminated with decomposing bodies - WE NEED TO DO MORE NOW TO HELP SAVE LIVES - it's not going to help anyone to say, oh well, we could have done this better AFTERWARDS when people are DEAD.
• Just in case you're interested: Infectious Disease Risks from Dead Bodies Following Natural Disasters (pdf file).
• Personally, I'm more interested in hearing how the money's going to be used. Ah, yes, me, too. I'll just bet if we could trace it, we'd find quite a large sum working it's way back into US deep pockets. Non-profit means the organization doesn't make a profit, but the administration can do quite well with a nice juicy disaster or two. Indeed, Bush has so crapped on our foreign relations we may never get rid of the stench. But hey, we're Numbero Uno, who needs allies? /sarcasmfilter
• What battle, path, is more important than making whatever pitifully small attempt I can make to raise people's awareness that WE SHOULD BE DOING MORE about the deaths of 120,000 or so people? waitingtoderail - exactly. My point was that you won't do that by posting here, really. And, at this point it appears to me that a major problem is the inefficiency with which aid is being distributed. Please, please, please complain to those who might make a difference. Sorry, but the political discussion interspersed here sounds too much like pre-election carping that not only became tiresome, but also didn't get anyone elected but Bush. What is it going to accomplish now? And, at least to me, it seems to denigrate the plight of the people who are suffering in so many countries. I feel strongly that we should be doing something positive for them - not just sending money, but letting our political representatives know that the distribution system has to be improved. And, yes, opining that the US should be sending more $$. And, if there are any other suggestions for getting that done, I'd love to hear them, and how we can implement them. In the meantime, until help is getting to those people properly, what good is rehashing our dislike of the administration going to do? Expressing opinions on MonkeyFilter may make you feel empowered, but opinions are really meaningless. Plus, since most of us agree, it's pretty much a circle jerk. We can all get our Bush-bashing jollies after the crisis is somewhat contained, but the energy just seems misdirected at this point to me.
• Doesn't make me feel empowered, that's for sure.
• I think that for political reasons the US govt is going to give what it is required to do, re standards of humanitarianism, for reasons of diplomacy. That's it, and that's all that's required. These decisions aren't due to any other standards. What indivudual citizens of a nation give is more a measure, if someone really needs a measure.
• I agree there was some political pressure, but I do think that there's a chance the Admin didn't really know the scope of the disaster, until recently. The enormity of it is nearly incomprehensible. and the earliest reports of it, strangely, seemed somewhat sanitized. i remember thinking, "man, it could have been worse," when i saw the pictures of the standing buildings. But then the satellite pics showed the ripped away flesh of the earth, and then i knew.
• But but but we're sending Jeb Bush to help. Ain't we great. Jeb in 2008! Trust And Obey, You Filthy Hippies!
• You guys know the $350 mil is actually a loan, right? It isn't a gift.
• That's pretty standard, isn't it? The third world owes an impossible amount of money.
• Wow, the looney left is tripping over itself to find any way to criticize Bush using this horrible disaster as their platform. Talk about a lack of ethics. I dont like the guy either, but this whole "generosity" ranking crap and picking some arbitrary government function and comparing it to the aid are really low blows and you guys are just using dead people cheap political kicks. Did it ever occur to you that nations closer to the event itself will pitch in more? Or there's no real guide to work with on these matters? Or that there's a chain of command for doling out huge amounts of money? Its like there's this global poker bet and "we gotta beat them japs!" Pathetic really. I'm glad aid agencies are out there and working and volunteers aren't just sitting around and bitching about how Bush is Satan. If it wasnt the inauguration, it would be the war, or missile defense, etc. Sigh. No wonder you guys can't get anyone in office.
• "If it wasnt the inauguration, it would be the war, or missile defense, etc." Well, since those things are stupid, yes, it probably would be them. "Did it ever occur to you that nations closer to the event itself will pitch in more?" No. We are the wealthiest country in the world, and while it may be easier for closer countries to provide direct ad (by which I mean people), there is no reason that Denmark should be contributing more than us. You want cheap political kicks? How about criticising Clinton for speaking out about this event before our President decided to do so? FUCK POLITICS - THERE ARE PEOPLE DYING and Bush seems to be going about his business like nothing's going on. Eff you if you think it's wrong to criticize someone who has the responsibility of representing you and me and everyone else who calls themselves American and he has to "interrupt his vacation" to make a comment about it? "there's no real guide to work with on these matters?" Well, there should be then. We suffer enough natural disasters of our own to have some kind of idea of what's needed when tragedy hits. And we will be hit someday by something like this. Wait until Mount Ranier blows its top and downtown Seattle is covered in ash and lava. Or California is hit with a 9.0 earthquake. These are all foreseeable things, as was this event. No reason not to have a "guide" on what should happen when the inevitable occurs.
• That's pretty standard, isn't it? The third world owes an impossible amount of money. Perhaps, but it does reinforce the whole political aspect of the "gift". Which is to say that a country won't be expected to pay anything back... if it "plays nice" with the US and lets American corporations walk all over it.
• [This post is shit] Alex, I'd be interested to see a link to back up what you're saying. With Canada at least, the aid money appears to be a gift, sent to agencies like the Red Cross that know how to spend it. Plus, there's a moratorium on interest accrued on existing debt for all the countries involved for an indefinite period of time.
• Smo, I don't have a specific link, but as a matter of course, much is done with respect to arms deals and debt forgiveness when it is politically feasible. A lot was given to Pakistan, for example, in exchange for its assistance in tracking down Bin Laden post-9/11.
• Skallas said: Sigh. No wonder you guys can't get anyone in office. Bullesye, dude. I am a Dean-loving, ACLU-joining liberal and I agree with you totally.
• "bulls-eye", that is.
• Well said, waiting to derail. I can't for the life of me figure out just why the people who defend Bush and his regime do so at every turn, no matter how obvious it is that the vile collective of them have fucked up yet again. skallas, I don't see any 'tripping over itself to find any way to criticize Bush': rather, I see that nearly every action this reprehensible person and his regime takes is wrong. Therefore, criticism of U.S. policy and government is more than rational -- it's obligatory from everyone who isn't a pandering devotee of the far-right false-patriot circle jerk. I don't care what nation donates the most money in total. The metrics I use to determine what I think of a country's efforts to help are primarily kroner/dollars/yen, etc. donated per capita and percentage of GNP donated.
• [This post is shit] Seconded Criticise Bush when he actually fucks up (and he will). He didn't come up with the $35M original pledge, and didn't personally raise it to $350M. There are government agencies come up with those numbers, and Bush just gives the OK. If anyone else was in the White House (even a Democrat) the aid amounts would be the same, and they'd still be spending at least $40M on the inauguration. This is just cheap political bitching, and you're using a pile of dead people as your pulpit.
• This is just cheap political bitching, and you're using a pile of dead people as your pulpit. That's a bit harsh, especially when Bush's press sect's first words were a snarky "I feel your pain." Let's ignore the dollars for a second and look at the larger picture: if most of the Muslim world hated my country, I'd get up off my ass quick and help Indonesia et al. as a strong humanitarian gesture. My own left-wing bias aside, this was a dynamite opportunity to mend some fences around the world, and it was passed up.
• Sorry, Alex, but it seems much better, and more efficient, to do something personally, rather than waiting for a bureaucracy to get its act together. They're slow by nature. Here are some some personal reactions to this unprecidented crisis from the US. I'm sure people from other countries are taking other personal actions to help. I agree with rocket88. Maybe you've personally done something to make this better, but if you haven't, it isn't "harsh." Go out and sell hot chocolate and call me in the morning. And, I would point out (again) that one of the major problems is getting the aid distributed - to which the administration has responded. I've lost the news story from this morning which gave that stress, but here's one from this evening about Powell's visit to the area. As much as you might hate the Bush administration (and I do) I don't think they're just shining this thing on. And their new reaction, may be, at least in part, due to opinions expressed by people like you and me.
• They showed some footage last night of the first NZ aid arriving - they couldn't even land the helicopter in the remote town they wanted to because there was so much debris on the ground. I imagine this is a fairly widespread problem, not unsurmountable but certainly adding to the difficulties.
• Some of the delay in getting aid to those who need it most can probably be attributed to bureaucracy and political indecision but the biggest problem at the moment is, as tracicle mentioned, logistics. Supplies and expertise are on the way but the local transportation infrastructure was marginal before the disaster and is now non-existent in many places. As for keeping score on the donation count, that can come later.