This is why our country is great

[bryanthompson]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20050104/ap_on_re_us/tsunami_americans_respond_1&printer=1

U.S.-based relief groups report an overwhelming response from donors moved by the devastation of the Indian Ocean tsunami, with more than $200 million raised as of Tuesday. One charity said online pledges were coming in at the rate of $100,000 an hour.
...
Numerous U.S. corporations have made large donations — including $10 million last week from Coca-Cola and $5 million Tuesday from Midland, Mich.-based Dow Chemical Co. The Connecticut-based relief group AmeriCares received $500,000 from The New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites) Foundation.

Major drug companies such as Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and Bristol-Myers Squibb have been giving not only cash but also antibiotics, bandages, pain relievers, syringes and other supplies.

Celebrities also are pitching in. Bullock gave $1 million to the Red Cross, while Leonardo DiCaprio, who filmed "The Beach" on a Thai island in the tsunami zone, set up a link on his Web site for relief donations. Singer Willie Nelson agreed to headline a benefit concert Sunday in Austin, Texas.

In Ohio, the majority owner of the Cincinnati Reds, Carl Linder, and his son, Carl Linder III, provided $200,000 for a flight carrying 60,000 pounds of antibiotics, food and water for tsunami victims in India and Sri Lanka.

In Fargo, N.D., which was hit by the Red River flood in 1997, city officials agreed to give $10,000 of taxpayer money to tsunami relief.

Individuals, celebrities, towns, and even those 'evil drug companies' are donating money and services to help people on the other side of the world.

It's inspiring, to say the least.

[juanbenae]

i wonder if the insurgence and bin laden see how good we can be?

[techweenie]

Our country is great because of Sandra Bullock and Leonardo Di Caprio?

Don't you right wing guys hate them for being liberals?

BTW, a British paper reported that the English were giving about $1.8 million an hour last weekend.

[Aurel]

The United States still lags behind other countries in what it's giving for tsunami relief. According to this MSNBC article, Japan is donating $500M (about $4 per capita), Sweden is giving $75M (over $8 per capita), and the U.S. is limping in with $350M, or just over $1 per capita.

These things matter. The U.S. fancies itself as the world's superpower. It therefore has greater responsibilities than any other world country, and that especially includes international aid (and not just military conquests). The U.S. response to the tsunami has been sorely lacking, and is only where it's at because the country has been shamed for its stinginess.

This is one of the worst disasters of modern times. We ought to be contributing a billion dollars (still only 0.009% of our GDP), at least, and it should not have to be shaken out of us.

Aurel

[djmcmath]

Sadly, Aurel is right. We are lagging behind on our donations, and it reflects poorly on us as a nation. We've been blessed so generously; how can we hoard our wealth? What happens when we're next in line for a tsunami strike?



Dan

[Aurel]

Actually, I just copy-pasted this quote from another thread I was reading on the same topic, so don`t flame the messenger...
(Plus, I have plenty more replies to copy-paste on the topic )

BUT, there is a parabole in the Bible about the widow who gave all she had, and the richman who gave more, but only a little fraction of what he had. Guess who God preferred ?

Aurel

[techweenie]

There was a comment early on that major nations were being 'stingy' (the official did *not* name the US).

At that time, the US government had pledged $5 million (yes, that's the original pledge). Later it was mentioned that another $10 million would perhaps go to the Red Cross 'later.' Then the figure was revised to $35 million; then to $350 million.

So as stupid and stingy as the original response was, the US has made what I think is a reasonable pledge, and US citizens will probably nearly double that commitment.

And no, I don't think GWB was obliged to cut short his 'brush clearing' vacation when the news of the disaster was developing.

[rrpjr]

Interesting how the conjunction of "America" and "great" often evokes scorn.

I believe the gist of the piece was the breadth and depth of contributions from different sections of the American culture. Yes, it is impressive to see what drug companies are contributing (though I don't expect any recantation of Noam Chomsky’s governing law of "corporate evil" anytime soon). As for the numbers, nice to note the competitive parsing down to pennies, but I believe such computations should probably wait. We are, after all, still counting bodies. In the end, I'm confident America's generosity (no matter who is in the White House, believe it or not), will measure up admirably. In addition, these numbers do not account for the full range of our material aid, such as helicopters off aircraft carriers and other redeployments of men and material).

In any case, I'm not sure about the logic of our "responsibility." Why does it follow that being the lone superpower obliges us the most? I think a reasonable argument can be made that the lone burden of super-powering, of restoring and protecting freedom for millions of oppressed people around the world at no small cost of blood and treasure (which many on the Left often remind us) might relieve rather than compound America's financial “obligation” here. Perhaps this is really the moment for those wealthy nations who contribute nothing to the hard struggle for freedom around the world to take the lead in an entirely different kind of struggle. Must we bear all burdens?

[djmcmath]

Aurel, you're right again. I guess even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. I don't know if I'm more saddened by our pathetic charitable donations or by the fact that I must agree that a Frenchie has pointed out the truth! (J/K)

Actually, I was thinking of the same passage. Of course, there's also the teaching about how you shouldn't advertise how good you are: "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing."


Dan

[azasadny]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/flash/photo/world/2004-12-30_quakesatellite/movie.htm?startat=1

[techweenie]

Thanks, Art. Those are amazing photos.

[Aurel]

Originally posted by rrpjr
Perhaps this is really the moment for those wealthy nations who contribute nothing to the hard struggle for freedom around the world to take the lead in an entirely different kind of struggle. Must we bear all burdens?

It is a matter of priorities.
Nobody asked the US to go `Liberate` the Iraqui people. Actually, the majority of the nations at the UN voted against it, and the result has not been convincing at all. The Iraqui are not liberated yet, but in a situation of unsafe chaos.

Sure, this burden leaves less money for humanitarian aid.
But it was uncalled for, totally unnecessary, and happens to be a failure so far.

So, why should other countries chip in more because of G.W. Bush insane war in Iraq, when at the same time he wants to take the lead over the UN ??

So far, the 350 Millions pledged by the US govt. for the Tsunami help costs only 2.5 days of war in Iraq. Just to put things in perspective...the war in Iraq costs $122,000 per minute !!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm

Aurel

[cstreit]

Wow DiCaprio put a LINK ON HIS WEBSITE.

Whatta guy!

[rrpjr]

That the war was "uncalled for, unnecessary and a failure so far" is disputed on all counts. We were in a state of war with Iraq when President Bush took office. We'd been at "war" for them for more than 10 years, through three administrations. Nothing could be more more "sane," in my mind, than to finish it while finishing off a gangster regime with multiple ties to terrorism and in violation of 18 UN resolutions, the enforcement of which that great body of nations had cravenly shirked. We now know why they did shirk it, most likely: so not to disturb the payola stream from their oil-for-food "humanitarian program".

Which provides every kind of moral argument for the US to circumvent the UN entirely and handle the distribution of its own aid.

Inasmuch as failure is deeply wished for by many, we have not failed so far, and will not. Freedom is never easy but we will prevail, and the democratization of Iraq will prove not only a great thing now, but accrue to us for generations as people there and in that region experience and witness a wholly new way of life. The reason the terrorists are fighting so viciously is their stark fear at this reality, at the prospect of institutionalized freedom in the form of elections.

There was a time when the Left rooted for revolutions and liberations of brutalized people. Now they seem to represent a dreary kind of amoral beancounting.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by cstreit
Wow DiCaprio put a LINK ON HIS WEBSITE.

Whatta guy!

Yeah, and gave about a million dollars as well.

[A Quiet Boom]

Seems all the critics forgetting that the $350M is only the beginning if history serves a lesson. It's also forgotten the VERY important and certainly costly role the American military is playing in the region. European nations also tend to give primarily through their governments while the US give primarily through private and corporate donations, comparing what the US government gives to other governments is apples to oranges. Where is the outcry at the oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia who only pledged $10M?

What makes our country great is that we are doing so much for a region that is largely unsympathetic to American interests. Not to mention how much the US spends each year on global security.

I also don't get the criticism of GWB not cutting his trip short, for one thing there are communications at his ranch and I'm certain he was apprised of the situtation and for another I don't think it was really clear just how devastitating this incident was for the first few days. I know I still can fully comprehend the destruction and loss of life. In fact I'd have been critical of the administration if they started handing out large sums of my tax dollars before assessing what was needed. I also recall that every pledge the US has made came with a "and this is just the beginning". The data on hurricane Mitch from several years ago show that the US has spent upwards of $1B in total aid with spending still going on.

As far as liberal actors and actresses privately donating, that is fantastic, but why does their politics matter. This relief effort should not be politicized. The US is the most generous nation in the world period look at the facts. Last year US aid was about $2.4B or 40 percent of world aid, private donations more than doubled that number.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by A Quiet Boom
Seems all the critics forgetting that the $350M is only the beginning if history serves a lesson. It's also forgotten the VERY important and certainly costly role the American military is playing in the region.

That's a great point, Christian! Anyone here care to venture a guess as to how much it costs to keep a carrier group on station there? Or how much it costs to fly all the sorties we're flying in support of the relief effort? Add that to the $350M pledged that is sure to grow. And then add all the money and aid coming from private groups.
When all is said and done, you can bet that the US will have given more than any other country worldwide. The key here, IMHO, is not necessarly the number figure that is given, but rather, the fact that we WILL end up providing however much it takes, period. Politics or no politics...it's what we do!

Randy

[Mike(dat's me)]

Silly me... I didn't know it was a contest. -slap-

[A Quiet Boom]

Originally posted by Mike(dat's me)
Silly me... I didn't know it was a contest. -slap-

It shouldn't be, but Eggland from the UN started the whole thing with a ridiculous comment about "North America" being cheap, the far left saw yet another chance to criticize and here we are. Sometimes I wonder why these people don't just move to their beloved socialist Europe.

[azasadny]

I don't think giving should be measured merely by counting money. What about the US military and civilian folks over there right now doing the hard work? This is going to be a marathon, not a sprint... In a year from now, who do you think will still be over there helping those poor unfortunate people rebuild their lives? Let's appreciate the giving and generosity without sitting on the sidelines counting "who's doing more than whom", it's really pathetic and cheapens their generosity.