Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The U.S. and other Western nations are "stingy"

United Nations UN Humanitarian Affairs Western Nations Stingy

  • Please log in to reply
138 replies to this topic

#1 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 04:34 PM

According to U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland, the United States and other Western nations are being stingy with the aid they are proferring to the nations suffering from the recent earthquakes and resultant tsunami.  See the story here.

Am I the only one offended by this?
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#2 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 04:54 PM

Sorry, but when the world's richest country pledges 15 million dollars toward one of this era's most horrific natural disasters while 40 million dollars gets spent on a glitzy, overproduced Presidential inagural, what else is one supposed to call it?

And you know what?  Despite the fact that the undersecretary has already backed off from the statement, it had the desired effect (aside from predictably keeping right wing bloggers in their perpetual huffy state toward the UN, France, and other durn furriners insufficently grateful toward American benevolence) of getting the US and other countries to pledge more money than they had in the beginning.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#3 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 05:06 PM

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 09:54 PM, said:

Sorry, but when the world's richest country pledges 15 million dollars toward one of this era's most horrific natural disasters while 40 million dollars gets spent on a glitzy, overproduced Presidential inagural, what else is one supposed to call it?

And you know what?  Despite the fact that the undersecretary has already backed off from the statement, it had the desired effect (aside from predictably keeping right wing bloggers in their perpetual huffy state toward the UN, France, and other durn furriners insufficently grateful toward American benevolence) of getting the US and other countries to pledge more money than they had in the beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


1) Actually, it countries.  The United States wasn't the only country he mentioned.  All Western nations, etc.

2) My understanding even before Egeland made he's comments the United States was saying that the $15,000,000 would not be all pledged.

3) Although not a blogger, I'll gladly accept the "right wing" epitaph and say that, yes, I think there is something "smarmy" and ungrateful in his comments.  It's like if I give a homeless person a dollar and they say to me, "Why didn't you give me a $20, you can afford it."  Sorry but whatever I (or the United States) can afford is irrelevant.  I'm under no legal or moral obligation to give anything and, yes, they should if not be grateful then at least not be ungrateful for anything I (or the United States) gives them.

4) I honestly don't know but I am curious about how much Norway, Jan Egeland's native country, is giving.
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#4 ZipperInt

ZipperInt
  • Islander
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 05:15 PM

The 'stingy' comment has some merit considering the amount of wealth most western nations possess. On the other hand, I think there are more tactful ways to get countries to pledge more money, and the comment came surprisingly soon after the initial pledge was met - more money could have easily been donated later on once an accurate understanding of the need was available. As far as I know, Canada initially pledged $1 million and increased that to $4 million soon after - other countries can do the same.
The second greatest podcast in the history of ever:
http://geeksonaplain.blogspot.com/

#5 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 05:21 PM

Yama, on Dec 28 2004, 10:06 PM, said:

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 09:54 PM, said:

Sorry, but when the world's richest country pledges 15 million dollars toward one of this era's most horrific natural disasters while 40 million dollars gets spent on a glitzy, overproduced Presidential inagural, what else is one supposed to call it?

And you know what?  Despite the fact that the undersecretary has already backed off from the statement, it had the desired effect (aside from predictably keeping right wing bloggers in their perpetual huffy state toward the UN, France, and other durn furriners insufficently grateful toward American benevolence) of getting the US and other countries to pledge more money than they had in the beginning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


1) Actually, it countries.  The United States wasn't the only country he mentioned.  All Western nations, etc.

2) My understanding even before Egeland made he's comments the United States was saying that the $15,000,000 would not be all pledged.

3) Although not a blogger, I'll gladly accept the "right wing" epitaph and say that, yes, I think there is something "smarmy" and ungrateful in his comments.  It's like if I give a homeless person a dollar and they say to me, "Why didn't you give me a $20, you can afford it."  Sorry but whatever I (or the United States) can afford is irrelevant.  I'm under no legal or moral obligation to give anything and, yes, they should if not be grateful then at least not be ungrateful for anything I (or the United States) gives them.

4) I honestly don't know but I am curious about how much Norway, Jan Egeland's native country, is giving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


In order--

1) I was addressing the United States since that's the country we're both citizens of and the one most publicly defensive about accusations of stinginess.

2) Colin Powell's statements that of course the US would send more than 15 million dollars came only after the undersecretary's public comments.

3)  Congratulations, you've just offered up a textbook definition of stinginess-- giving a tiny and insufficient amount of aid when a huge amount is both necessary to the recepients and easily affordable by the giving parties.  
You find the comment "smarmy"?  Too f***ing bad.  Tens of thousands of human beings are going to die from diseases and dehydration in the coming weeks unless a lot of people and countries donate a lot of money, food, and equipment very quickly.  If public shame makes rich countries step up to the plate and donate more than they originally planned to and lives are inevitably saved as a result, then frankly your hurt feelings don't really do much to counterbalance that.  

4) Given that Norway is among the most generous countries in the world when it comes to foreign aid as a percentage of GDP ( http://dominionpaper...oxfam_repo.html  ), I think it's safe to say they'll probably be giving a lot.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#6 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 05:37 PM

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 10:21 PM, said:

In order--

1) I was addressing the United States since that's the country we're both citizens of and the one most publicly defensive about accusations of stinginess.
Fine, but the comment was about Western nations, not just about the United States.

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 10:21 PM, said:

2) Colin Powell's statements that of course the US would send more than 15 million dollars came only after the undersecretary's public comments.
I would beg to differ -- I do remember hearing about greater amounts Monday morning -- but whatever.  If you really think Jan Egeland comment's madethe difference, more power to you.

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 10:21 PM, said:

3)  Congratulations, you've just offered up a textbook definition of stinginess-- giving a tiny and insufficient amount of aid when a huge amount is both necessary to the recepients and easily affordable by the giving parties. 
You find the comment "smarmy"?  Too f***ing bad.  Tens of thousands of human beings are going to die from diseases and dehydration in the coming weeks unless a lot of people and countries donate a lot of money, food, and equipment very quickly.  If public shame makes rich countries step up to the plate and donate more than they originally planned to and lives are inevitably saved as a result, then frankly your hurt feelings don't really do much to counterbalance that.
First, why the foul language?

But if the textbook definition of stinginess is now to believe that other do not somehow have a moral and/or legal right to the money I earn, then I am PROUDLY STINGY!

Besides, I'm willing to bet that both as a percentage of income and in total amount, I give far more than you do to charities.  (Including blood and money for Asia, I might add.)  So since we seem to be using foul language in this thread, unless you give more than x% of your income to charities and foundations (not counting any political contributions, of course), why don't you shut the f*** up.

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 10:21 PM, said:

4) Given that Norway is among the most generous countries in the world when it comes to foreign aid as a percentage of GDP ( http://dominionpaper...oxfam_repo.html  ), I think it's safe to say they'll probably be giving a lot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sincere thank you for the link.  However, it still does not answer the question about how much Norway is giving for this particular crisis.  Or how much the Norwegian people as individuals are giving, for that matter.

Edited by Yama, 30 December 2004 - 05:12 PM.

Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#7 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 05:50 PM

Yama, on Dec 28 2004, 10:37 PM, said:

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 10:21 PM, said:

3)  Congratulations, you've just offered up a textbook definition of stinginess-- giving a tiny and insufficient amount of aid when a huge amount is both necessary to the recepients and easily affordable by the giving parties. 
You find the comment "smarmy"?  Too f***ing bad.  Tens of thousands of human beings are going to die from diseases and dehydration in the coming weeks unless a lot of people and countries donate a lot of money, food, and equipment very quickly.  If public shame makes rich countries step up to the plate and donate more than they originally planned to and lives are inevitably saved as a result, then frankly your hurt feelings don't really do much to counterbalance that.
First, why the foul language?

But if the textbook definition of stinginess is now to believe that other do not somehow have a moral and/or legal right to the money I earn, then I am PROUDLY STINGY!

Besides, I'm willing to bet that both as a percentage of income and in total amount, I give far more than you do to charities.  (Including blood and money for Asia, I might add.)  So since we seem to be using foul language in this thread, unless you give more than 23% of your income to charities and foundations (not counting any political contributions, of course), why don't you shut the f*** up.


Given the staggering scale of the human catastrophe across the Indian Ocean basin, deciding that what really works you up is that a UN undersecretary thinks that Western nations aren't doing enough to help is so morally grotesque that a expletive with the naughty letters deleted seemed warranted-- I'm sorry if your sensibilities were offended.  

And you'll pardon me if I regard self-congratulatory claims made on the anonymous medium of the Internet with a degree of skepticism without accompanying evidence.

ADDED:

Oh, look, it appears you've completely misrepresented Egeland's comments, which weren't even specifically about the tsunami aftermath but a general lament that prosperous Western governments aren't doing enough to help poorer nations.  

"It is beyond me why we are so stingy. Really. Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least, how rich we have become," he said.  

"There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy."  

He suggested that governments "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more."

Edited by MuseZack, 28 December 2004 - 06:10 PM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#8 Yama

Yama
  • Islander
  • 310 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 06:19 PM

MuseZack, on Dec 28 2004, 10:50 PM, said:

Given the staggering scale of the human catastrophe across the Indian Ocean basin, deciding that what really works you up is that a UN undersecretary thinks that Western nations aren't doing enough to help is so morally grotesque that a expletive with the naughty letters deleted seemed warranted-- I'm sorry if your sensibilities were offended. 

And you'll pardon me if I regard self-congratulatory claims made on the anonymous medium of the Internet with a degree of skepticism without accompanying evidence.

ADDED:

Oh, look, it appears you've completely misrepresented Egeland's comments, which weren't even specifically about the tsunami aftermath but a general lament that prosperous Western governments aren't doing enough to help poorer nations. 

"It is beyond me why we are so stingy. Really. Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least, how rich we have become," he said. 

"There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy." 

He suggested that governments "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Apology accepted.

And I was about to say that I will show you my tax return if you'll show me yours but I like my anonymity too much.

And to Egeland's comment, it is his statement that "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more" that does indeed work me up.  As a taxpayer (as opposed to as an individual) I do want to give LESS.  Since when did the definition of compassion mean other people demanding that I give my money in (via taxes or government fiat or whatever) in amounts and/or to causes that I don't support or agree with?

And please note, I am not arguing that government can't demand payment for amounts or causes that I do not agree with.  For the record, of course it can and it does that to all of us all the time.  I am simply arguing that such is not "compassion" nor is the opposition to that idea "stinginess."
Straight, conservative, capitalist and pro-life African-American Christian.  Any Questions?

#9 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 06:23 PM

Muse Zack wrote:

Sorry, but when the world's richest country pledges 15 million dollars toward one of this era's most horrific natural disasters while 40 million dollars gets spent on a glitzy, overproduced Presidential inagural, what else is one supposed to call it?

We here in Florida are still waiting for the aid of the rest of the world for the Hurricanes we endured this year. A good number of other states felt the wrath of the Hurricanes, some of them made their way up to Canada.

When the rest of the world begs for our help, such as in Bosnia, Africa, or this tsunami, it's not "enough". When we need the rest of the world's help, we're told the U.S. is too powerful as it is and is the world's bully.

I'm glad America is sending whatever relief we can, with promises of more from Colin Powell, it would seem. We are givers, we help the world. We're not the world's policeman, we're the world's Boy Scout.

-Ogami

#10 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 06:27 PM

Zack wrote to Yama:

Congratulations, you've just offered up a textbook definition of stinginess-- giving a tiny and insufficient amount of aid when a huge amount is both necessary to the recepients and easily affordable by the giving parties. You find the comment "smarmy"? Too f***ing bad.

Although I've seen numerous examples in the past, it's reassuring that Zack is rude and nasty to anyone else who doesn't bow to his self-assured views. I wouldn't want to merit special treatment, you're all on Zack's s*** list if you dare question his infinite wisdom.

-Ogami

#11 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 06:36 PM

Let's see, now.  Fifteen mil is--what?  25% of what was thrown down the hole in pursuit of Whitewater, the crime that never was?

Crachit, you ingrate!

waterpanther
Posted Image

#12 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 08:45 PM

Well let's seize Bill Gates Billions  so we can take care of this problem. I mean what and where are you willing to accept the money being drawn from?

Education?

Defenses? I thought getting armor on the Humvee's was important.

Health and Human Services? I thought the old folks needed Flu shots.

Other Forgien Aid? So sending AID's Drugs to Africa can be put on hold. Or Relief monies spent to help the african's in Sudan is not that important.

Maybe if the UN was not so corrupt they would not need to hit rich members up for money.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#13 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 09:23 PM

Interesting little tidbits about this brought up in different reports...

1. He was talking about governments, not people. If you add private donations of money and privately-done in-person on-site work, it turns out that Americans have the highest generosity per person... probably because of the inherent emotional difference between choosing to give your money or time and energy and having your money confiscated by government for government to be generous with.

2. Even ignoring private charity and looking only at government, he was referring to the category of Western industrialized countries, not just the USA. That includes some high donors like (presumably) Norway, but also some spectacularly low ones like France ($136,000; about a 257th of what the American government's sending). America's placement on this list per capita isn't particularly high or low.

3. A list of the top 10 countries in this case by simple dollars has two giving double-digit-millions, a handful of single-digit-millions... and one or two in only the hundreds of thousands... in the top ten.

4. Let's go back to that "Western" part. After the second-highest donor, at $30M ($5M less than the USA), the third place drops way down to single-digit millions, placing the top two nearly together as separate from the rest of the pack. But that second-place nation is not very big, and, although it's industrialized, it's not "Western". It's Japan.

#14 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 09:44 PM

Hmmmm.  Sounds kind of like the "coalition of the willing" troop numbers.  Don't forget Poland!

waterpanther
Posted Image

#15 The Groovy Mule

The Groovy Mule

    Scratch My Nose

  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 29 posts

Posted 28 December 2004 - 11:15 PM

The Groovy Mule is back from Christmas and has been watching the news broadcasts concerning the tsunami and it's devastating effects.

The first thing The Groovy Mule thinks when he hears about donations being made to help out the survivors is something his uncle The Swanky Mule used to say: "you don't throw good money after bad."

On one side of the coin, in this day of instantaneous communication, television, satellites, cellphones, and abbreviated semaphore, anyone who stands on the shore of any area within strike range of the tsunami needs to be swept out to sea.  Likewise, there's a rule in nature that says whenever there are too many critters in one area, Mother Nature will find a way to reduce the population... every time.  So, there you go...

But...let's not be so cruel.  Anyone who argues that the western culture ...particularly the US... isn't one of the most giving culture in world is just a couple of deputies short of a posse. It's as simple as that.

A side thought: Zack, The Groovy Mule has read several of your posts ranging back, and understands that you enjoy some sort of special status due to being a writer for Andromeda.  It seems to The Groovy Mule that such a professional should really take a more...well... professional... approach in his posts...especially on a board where a lot of DROM fans hang out.  Some of your language just doesn't become someone of your position.

Edited by The Groovy Mule, 28 December 2004 - 11:21 PM.


#16 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 December 2004 - 12:02 AM

The Groovy Mule, on Dec 28 2004, 08:15 PM, said:

The first thing The Groovy Mule thinks when he hears about donations being made to help out the survivors is something his uncle The Swanky Mule used to say: "you don't throw good money after bad."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Wow.   :(
Posted Image

#17 Lord Ravensburg

Lord Ravensburg

    All your lightsabers are belong to me

  • Islander
  • 533 posts

Posted 29 December 2004 - 12:43 AM

Ok, let's remember that during disaster relief it is perfectly natural for a country to give an immediate aid package to be followed by greater contributions AFTER it has been determined where the money will be most needed.

However, before we go around calling anyone "stingy" let's compare numbers.  

This link provides a pretty comprehensive breakdown of which countries are contributing, and how much.  

By these numbers I'd say that a $35 million dollar initial U.S. contribution is pretty good.  

Also keep in mind that these numbers do not account for private contributions.  Unlike some countries, Americans do not necessarily rely on the government to decide where their charitable money goes.

#18 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 29 December 2004 - 12:59 AM

The Groovy Mule said:

The first thing The Groovy Mule thinks when he hears about donations being made to help out the survivors is something his uncle The Swanky Mule used to say: "you don't throw good money after bad."

I'll echo Lil's "Wow" there. What crawled up your butt and died? (And is that bad language to use here?)

The Groovy Mule said:

On one side of the coin, in this day of instantaneous communication, television, satellites, cellphones, and abbreviated semaphore, anyone who stands on the shore of any area within strike range of the tsunami needs to be swept out to sea.

Uh-huh. I think I've read that a lot of people started running when they saw the water go away, because they knew it would come rushing back in in a tsunami. They didn't outrun the water. So, because someone can't outrun water, they need to be swept out to sea? Wow, we're bloody callous and hostile these days.

The Groovy Mule said:

But...let's not be so cruel.

Too late...
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#19 The Groovy Mule

The Groovy Mule

    Scratch My Nose

  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 29 posts

Posted 29 December 2004 - 01:55 AM

Norville, on Dec 28 2004, 11:59 PM, said:

I'll echo Lil's "Wow" there. What crawled up your butt and died? (And is that bad language to use here?)

No, but that's flaming, as we read here from the guidelines:

Quote

Healthy disagreement is welcome, as long as criticisms are focused on the ideas being expressed rather than on the people expressing them. Responding to other posters with insulting, dismissive or deliberately disruptive comments violates this spirit.


#20 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 29 December 2004 - 10:00 AM

You'll pardon me if I decline to take etiquitte advice from someone who thinks people killed by a tsunami deserve it and that the survivors are unworthy of financial assistance....and refers to himself in the third person!
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: United Nations, UN, Humanitarian Affairs, Western Nations, Stingy

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users