Reactive aid is what we people of the world are good for. We all gonna feel better for kicking in 10 bucks to the Red Cross. We won’t think too much about the pathetic shit-ridden life that is down there 24/7. Nope, we’ll rally the troops to help, Red Cross this, donation that, care-package… blah blah blah.
Death and shit holes abound. This is the just the shit hole on the front page and lead story on news at 11.
When people say things like this, I always wonder what the hell it means? Are you saying we shouldn’t give to any causes at all, since there will always be suffering? Cause, to mess Jesus’ quote all up, “It’s really fucking dumb to help no one just because we can’t help everyone.” Now, let’s pour some perfume on some Haitian feet and stop whining about how there will always be some disaster on the news, jockying for attention and money.
I think Philster is saying it would make more sense to devote resources to help people improve their societies and economies in general, to make them better able to handle disasters when they come, than to devote resources to help them clean up the mess after disasters. Which it would, of course; but that comes under the heading of a counsel of perfection.
The masses feel better by donating when they see a disaster. Yay! We’re having a fund raiser for the Haitians! Let’s all feel good about ourselves! YAY US!
These are the same people who wouldn’t watch a microsecond of anything that matters in the world. No one pays attention to anything unless it’s a full blown disaster that shows up well on film. These people are not paying attention to things that matter in this world 99.98 percent of the time. American Idol? They got it covered! Who is banging Tiger? They got the list.
They live in oblivion, then toss a few bucks towards the disaster of the month club and it’s all good.
Haiti is a shit hole. Meanwhile, there is some other shit hole just waiting its turn. Hey, ‘‘earthquake rocks shit hole’’ makes people send in 10 bucks. Good for them.
Incidentally, this is not true. The United States has plowed billions of dollars into Haiti over the past few years. For a variety of reasons, most notably Haiti’s own institutional dysfunctions, this regimen of aid has failed.
So would it be better for people to NOT give during a disaster? Or should we pick a hellhole and just give a lot of money to it?
Actually Americans are quite generous. "In 2006, Americans gave about $295 billion to charity. This was up 4.2 percent over 2005 levels, and charitable giving has generally risen faster than the growth of the American economy for more than half a century. Correcting for inflation and population changes, GDP per person in America has risen over the past 50 years by about 150 percent, while charitable giving per person has risen by about 190 percent. "
How would not watching 'American Idol" help people who live in hellholes?
Now, I know we kick in billions all over the damn place. I’m venting, for the little do-gooders of my office haven’t a clue about anything. All they know is they are helping the Haitians with their 5 and 10 dollar donations.
What you are eluding to is just my point: There are things happening every day, via aid here, military support there, CIA support and a host of other '‘things’ and other policies around the world that are in play.
But I gave me ten bucks, so I don’t have to concern myself with international policy. I have to wait until next** week** for for Idol? Damn.
You must’ve missed the rest of my post there or perhaps you don’t know what that word in my location field is. I’m currently located in Busan, South Korea.
I never liked this attitude one bit. If people want to give during a disaster, why on earth should be give them a hard time about it. Why on earth should we presume to know what they do as far as charity goes for the rest of the year, and why on earth should we knock them if they DON’T give at any other time than when there is a disaster afoot? That is a great time to decide to give, if you aren’t a part of the solution at any other time.
I applaud those that are very active in charity and nation building and all sorts of do-gooder jazz all year around, and I mean that sincerely, but I am not about to turn my nose up at the people that only give when the sensationalistic news tugs at their emotional strings.
I couldn’t bring myself to watch the crazy, but I loved the elegant response from the Haitian ambassador to the US, who noted that the Haitian revolt paved the way both for the Louisiana Purchase and the Bolivarian revolutions in South America, so if the Haitians really made a deal with the devil, the US and much of the rest of the Americas certainly benefited from it.
By God, let’s do it high, wide and handsome! Let the entire world stand in slack-jawed amazement at our efficiency and generosity, how we can mobilize the resources of the richest and most powerful country in the world to reach out to the poorest and most miserable. That is the way to lead the world!
This seems pretty weak sauce for Limbaugh. I mean his basic complaint is that Obama is probably going to be compassionate, and he’ll then use this to show how compassionate he is. The BASTARD! He then follows up by basically saying "we’ve already given Haiti aid money. Tough shit about the earthquake; screw them.
I bet even his audience thinks this is stupid, and many of them have probably sent money to aid organizations for Haiti.
I don’t feel like arguing this inane OP, but I have been to Haiti. I was there in 1995 as a volunteer election monitor for several weeks in Petionville. In college I served an internship with Catholic Charities doing support work for recent Haitian immigrants.
Suffice it to say that if any one of us had to struggle for existence on a daily basis like the Haitians do there would be no shortage of empathy. This is a terrible tragedy as people like Paul Farmer and PIH and some stability on the government side have led to recent improvements which have been utterly wiped out.