Tsunami Aid

[HeartRN]

I am positively sickened by the magnitude of the tsunami disaster, as I am sure are all of you.....so I don't want to overshadow the facts of this devastating humanitarian disaster, but I have to ask what you all feel (or if you have an opinion) about Jan Egeland's comments about the US and the aid they initially gave ("stingy") for tsunami relief. The link below is hyped up conservative propaganda( whichI was browsing, and don't necessarily agree with in its entirety), but the facts are outlined there (what Egeland said). Personally, I think the US was more than generous in its initial donation of $15 milliion. That a good amount of money with only preliminary reports, and really NO earthly idea what the magnitude of the situation really was. Initial reports only counted 14 people among the dead, after all. I feel this was quite generous....however, regardless of money and human assistance, it will take years for these countries to rebuild.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadAr ... p?ID=16473

I think Egeland had a poor choice of words...perhaps this comment was just misinterpretted, but IMHO it spoke volumes about the UN and how little it values the United States and our place in the world arena. What are your thoughts?

[DCJenn]

I thought 15 million WAS stingy and was kind of embarrassed. The lack of response from the US says more to me than the comments from the UN. Regardless, I sent the Red Cross an online donation today- there's no way that these poor countries are going to be able to rebuild without everyone stepping up to the plate in some fashion.

I think everyone had a pretty clear idea how devastating this would be. Billions of dollars are more accurate, and for what it's worth, our country happens to have more of those than any other.

Jenn

As an aside, if anyone's interested in donating money, the following CNN link lists organizations that are taking donations online.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html

[SueC]

When I heard the $15 million figure, I felt that was "lowish" also. Especially when you consider the billions that will ultimately be needed. I read that article in its entirety and I sincerely hope Powell was being honest in saying that is merely a down payment and there will be more to come. I was turned off almost immediately to that particular journalist when I read the quote that referred to the "Hate America Left".

[fluffhead]

Anybody who has worked in govt knows that $15 million is a paltry sum which any bureaucrat worth his pension could spend in a couple hours. I just love the way the administration is backpeddling on all this, forming coalitions and finally stepping up to the plate.

Did you see the editorial in the ny times today which suggests all the seismic activity this year is a big Gaia upheaval in the earth? I tend to be a little skeptical when it comes to Gaia theory, but it's pretty scary anyway.

[Auspicious]

I wonder how many of the survivors walking around right now face certain death from disease and lack of facilities without foreign aid, but can be saved with foreign aid.


Also, $15 mil coincidentally equals the cost of the athletic center at my little 2,000-student university, so I thought it was kind of embarrassingly stingy as well, until I heard that that was really just the initial wave of aid.

[PrincessFiona]

I'm not informed enough about the financial aspect to know how much/little was appropriate. It did strike me though that we are still donating much more than europe. (Did I just say that?)

That being said...David, what is Gaia?

kris

[Auspicious]

This is the NYT op/ed piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/op...inchester.html

At first I thought fluff meant Gaia the goddess, since I once knew someone who had a relative who worshipped Gaia in a religious way.

In recent decades, thanks largely to the controversial Gaia Theory developed by the British scientists James Lovelock, it has become ever more respectable to consider the planet as one immense and eternally interacting living system - the living planet, floating in space, every part of its great engine affecting every other, for good or for ill.

Mr. Lovelock's notion, which he named after the earth goddess of the Ancient Greeks, makes much of the delicacy of the balance that mankind's environmental carelessness increasingly threatens. But his theory also acknowledges the somber necessity of natural happenings, many of which seem in human terms so tragically unjust, as part of a vast system of checks and balances. The events that this week destroyed the shores of the Indian Ocean, and which leveled the city of Bam a year ago, were of unmitigated horror: but they may also serve some deeper planetary purpose, one quite hidden to our own beliefs.

[fluffhead]

Nice summary Julie.

I have nothing to add

[Auspicious]

Just tryin' to be helpful.

15 million dollars? I should hope that is only the "first wave" of aid sent.

[Meenah]

How about the fact that with so many dead humans, there are no dead animals being found. They know something is about to happen and get away.
Just a little twist to the topic!!
Luanne

[spotty_dog]

Luanne- I've experienced my pets predicting earthquakes. It's a real phenomenon!

My first reaction was that the sum is paltry as well. But then someone pointed out that we are MAXED OUT. This country is spending SO much beyond its means right now.

http://costofwar.com/

We've thrown our chips in elsewhere. We've got nothing but deficit spending -- ie racking up more debt to other nations -- to contribute to the humanitarian cause.

[PrincessFiona]

I found this on CNN

The United States uses the most common measure of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid.

By that measure, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. Next closest was Japan, at $8.9 billion.

That doesn't include billions more the United States spends in other areas such as AIDS and HIV programs and other U.N. assistance.

Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.

Such figures were what prompted Jan Egeland -- the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator and former head of the Norwegian Red Cross -- to challenge the giving of rich nations.

[fluffhead]

I guess that's the bothersome issue, Alison, that we can afford to bequeath hundreds of millions to Haliburton on contracts in Iraq for questionable (at best) purposes, and then plead poverty when it comes to saving lives.