How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Tsunami: Political Issue?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Tsunami: Political Issue?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


50 posted 01-01-2005 10:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOL! Save me a spot, John. I was wondering a bit on how global warming or the ozone layer helped cause a tsunami

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


51 posted 01-01-2005 11:18 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Facts have a way of cutting through the nonsense.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


52 posted 01-02-2005 01:33 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

First of all, as an aside, I've learned the amount the U.S government is now providing after assessment of the damage has jumped tenfold to $350 million.

No complaints there! Millions more may still need to be provided in the weeks to come with the inability to unload the cargo from bays and seaports and such, and with the worries of malaria spread, etc. but I am quite satisfied with a contribution such as this!

Now, about the new article (and no, you are NOT going to Hell! )

This is just the bias I've talked about for months. In the sub-headline, it reads "Environmental activists are shamelessly trying to exploit last week's earthquake-tsunami catastrophe in hopes of advancing their global warming and anti-development agendas."

The bias and misleading information is also seen where it reads, "environmentalists are also looking to blame economic development for the devastation wreaked by the tsunamis in hopes of slowing down progress in the third world."

I've volunteered for Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, etc. and in my experience, I beg to differ. There's a great fathomable difference between not believing in economic development and believing in ecological wisdom and economical justice.

"Moreover, the environmentalists are in feverish denial about the two factors that will, in the end, contribute most to the horrendous death toll from the tsunamis — the lack of an early warning system and lack of adequate post-disaster sanitation, both of which are tragic by-products of the region's severe economic under-development. Given that fact, how deceptive and calculating of the environmentalists to blame "development" as the deadly cause!"

Uh...no. I've heard no discrepancy from anyone at the local branch office I volunteer at located at 11th and Clay that with an early warning system and better provision of salubrious lavatories and accessories, everyone in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia etc. would be better off right now. Of course I agree there. I also believe soil erosion and the accelerating emission of carbon-based elements into the air and waters is adding to the extremes of extreme weather, and also happen to believe, like he believes himself, that tectonics can lead to climate change, and ocean temperature variations cause the rocks underneath the earth to become unstable and therefore, may cause seismic eruptions.

"It's bad enough that environmentalists continually try to advance their agendas based on what can only be described as comically wrong information. But what's really troubling is that they seem hell-bent on denying poor nations the opportunity to develop economically so as to pull themselves out of their abject poverty."

Steven Milloy indeed contributes a great deal in working to note out examples of "junk science" from the likes of the media to lawyers to businesses to activists to scientists. No one can argue that there is junk in all professions. However, Steven, is, after all, a regular weekly columnist for Fox News, and judging by the headlines alone, you can see his obvious political slant, where he plays adversarily with Bush and ridicules activists' claims incessantly with the frequent mentioning of Clinton and the Kyoto Protocol. Studies that support a right-wing agenda are endorsed, while studies that don’t are harshly criticized.

Of course the "Junkman" used to be a lobbyist for Philip Morris and Monsanto (two corporations I boycott) which they themselves exploited poor and helpless consumers worldwide for financial and personal gain and their crimes of the spreading of disease and social irresponsibility on humanity (why else would they change their name to Altria?) Let's also not forget that Milloy led the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, and its principal backer was Philip Morris.

Milloy is not only a kingpin on "junk science", he's one on adversarial junk journalism as well. The only real conclusion here is that Steven Milloy is not just the "junkman", he's also simply a "Bushman". Consider these quotes from his own weekly edition:

************************************

"Sentiment regarding 'the environment' doesn't seem to be a major factor in voters' minds as they weigh the decision whether to cast their ballots for President Bush or John Kerry." (sounds to me Milloy believes the environment is not an issue at all with the way he's quoted it)

"Bush has been roundly criticized on environmental issues since he took office. But this criticism has largely come from left-leaning environmental activists and their supporters in academia, the vast majority of whom didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and, moreover, probably wouldn't vote for a Republican under any circumstance." (Strikes me as he believes any criticism of Bush, especially on an obvious terrible environmental record, is unacceptable.)

"So I pay no attention to what so-called environmentalists say about Bush. Their attacks usually don't present the facts fairly and are designed to politicize and polarize voters."

"The most notable environmental decision Bush has made so far was his decision to pull the U.S. out of the economic dance-of-death known as the Kyoto protocol... The difference between the candidates is that Bush has rightly raised questions about the 'science' underlying global warming hysteria and is not at all interested in an international treaty."


"I suspect that the decision-making on the environment would be handed over to his wife, Teresa Heinz-Kerry... much the same way the health care issue was handed to Hillary Clinton during the early part of the Clinton administration. The environment is a hot-button issue for Teresa, and I doubt he'd turn down the billionaire who made his presidential campaign possible. What that probably means is that environmental extremists will once again have free reign over the EPA."
(One must understand the incredible reduction of the EPA staff and the staff re-appointment under this administration)

So to someone who admits he pays no attention to anything environmentalists say about Bush now, it's clear Milloy, and this source, is fiercely biased.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


53 posted 01-02-2005 02:46 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Noah,

Are you saying the Greenpeace UK  and Friends of the Earth quotes in  Milloy’s article:

‘the executive director of Greenpeace UK (search) told the British newspaper The Independent, "No one can ignore the relentless increase in extreme weather events and so-called natural disasters, which in reality are no more natural than a plastic Christmas tree."

Friends of the Earth (search) Director Tony Juniper told the same British newspaper, "Here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions."

A spokesperson for the Indonesian arm of Friends of the Earth told the Agence France Presse, "We can expect in the coming years similar events happening as a result of global warming and therefore help and prevention are the responsibility of the Northern countries as well.",


are fabricated?

Are you saying his statement:

“Earthquakes aren't caused by the weather or greenhouse gas emissions; they're caused by tectonics — that is naturally moving geological faults. While tectonics may cause climate changes, the reverse is not true.”

is false?



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


54 posted 01-02-2005 07:02 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0819/p16s01-sten.html

A few things we know:


1. We know that tectonic plates are all connected.

2. We know that the climate is changing.

3. The controversial parts are the mechanisms that generate climate change, and the effects of one tectonic plate with others over large distances.

I lived through the Northridge, California quake , one year, one day, and, if memory serves, one hour later, the Kobe, Japan quake hit. Is there a connection?

There seems to be a similar coincidence/connection between the South Asian quake and the quake that hit Iran last year.

So how does global warming cause, or magnify, earthquakes?

Well, apparently glaciers provide a stabilizing influence to tectonic plate movement. The weight and pressure provided by glaciers provides a "push back" to the stresses of tectonic movement. This keeps them from moving as quickly as they might.

When glaciers melt, this stabilizing effect is lessened and tectonic plates become more active.

But there aren't any glaciers near the Indian ocean?

Yes, but the tectonic connections I mentioned earlier would indicate that instability in one region leads to instability in another.

It's a stretch, but not completely out of the blue.

If correct, the prediction is that more earthquakes are coming.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


55 posted 01-02-2005 09:37 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

A stretch, Brad?

LOL. Now that is Junk Science. I pity the poor guy who admits he blew his nose just before the last three major quakes, 'cause sure as rain, he'll get blamed, too.


Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


56 posted 01-02-2005 10:27 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Brad, calling that just "a stretch" is the real stretch. ROFLMAO
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


57 posted 01-02-2005 10:29 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Life was so much simpler growing up in the fifties and sixties.

By 1984 the governments of the world were going to be totalitarian and control our every action and thought-  BUT

It didn't matter because we would have no trees by the seventies because acid rain as a foregone conclusion would destroy all vegetation in the world and hearken the end of plant life and destroy the food chain- BUT

It wouldn't matter because of the population explosion, we would be in the midst of world-wide famine and anarchy; even with the lowest projections of the experts, there was absolutely no way a crisis could be avoided- BUT

It didn't matter because we were all going to die in a nuclear explosion anyway- UNLESS

we all paid heed to our civil defense training and went in the hallways at school and placed our heads between our knees and didn't open our eyes so we would go blind and then not go outside and live on the big barrels of water and crackers kept in the basement-  YEP-

I have to admit I believed everyone of those predictions (which were offered as fact) as a child and thoroughly believed I would not live past the age of thirty...  which may be why our generation came up with the idea of getting rid of everyone over thirty...  ack...  now over thirty... anyway, Happy New Year all... off to find a hallway and some stale crackers....
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


58 posted 01-02-2005 11:08 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

It's interesting that you brought up the fifties. The last time we had a series of 9.0 earthquakes was during the fifties.

Will it happen again?

I don't know, but let's see what happens.

Ah, c'mon guys, I said it was a stretch, I didn't say how much stretching was involved.

How long has continental drift and plate theory been accepted by the mainstream? 30, 35 years?

It's still a new science and it's astonishing how much we don't know. This idea isn't science, it's just bringing two newspaper articles together (One from the NY times a couple of weeks ago and the one posted above).

40 years ago professional geologists scoffed when amatuers pointed out that Africa and S. America looked like puzzle pieces. 30 years ago, people thought an ulcer was caused by stress, 20 years ago, we thought it was impossible to grow new brain cells, 10 years ago, we all thought the universe expansion rate was slowing down.

Okay, okay, maybe I've been reading too much Bruce Sterling recently.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


59 posted 01-02-2005 11:34 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

What about all those butterflies
and the havoc their fluttering about
can eventually create?  There they are,
evil incarnate, slyly going from flower to flower!

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


60 posted 01-02-2005 04:28 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Huan Yi, to answer your question, I want you to take a look here:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/3159

Milloy has a history of mildly distorting the quotes of others just enough to make it not seem so obvious in furthering his own junk science agendas and for personal gain.

Perhaps there are indeed scientific communities that are desperate in getting their research out to the mainstream eye and see this as a golden opportunity, but while Milloy accuses them of exploiting the tragedy for their own personal and social gain, Milloy himself is dubbing and exploiting their own words for his personal gain of credibility and on the dishing out of "junk science".

In other words, jumping the gun and leading to rash conclusions can certainly arouse far more miscommunication.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


61 posted 01-02-2005 04:33 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

By the way, I just tried to re-title this thread to "Tsunami: Political Issue?" because with the satisfying new number coming in, money is no longer the issue here, but rather "Where do we go from here?", but 24 hours have elapsed so I can't edit the title myself.

Could I get some help from a moderator perhaps?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 05-18-2001
Posts 29020
Gaia


62 posted 01-03-2005 12:45 PM       View Profile for Midnitesun   Email Midnitesun   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Midnitesun

Since everyone wants to wallow in the politics of disaster, let me add this: I was stunned (but shouldn't have been) to read this morning (Associated Press, not liberal 'rant' news) that our wealthy current president has not yet made any personal donation, and it took him three days to even SAY anything about this tragedy. That speaks volumes to me, about the 'leader' so many have chosen. Shaking my head here. Last to the giving plate is not where our leader should be.
I won't say more than this as to the politics of this catastrophic human tragedy.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


63 posted 01-03-2005 02:13 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Kacy, I agree that it is troubling Bush waited nearly four days to make a statement to the public following the tsunami disaster.

As far as the money issue is concerned now, though it is true he hasn't yet made a personal contribution, Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan specified he intends to give one soon, and also appointed Clinton and Sr. Bush to lead the contribution efforts.

Anyway, $350 million is more like it to me as a welcoming and comfortable donation. Of course I'm still troubled with how much more the war is being funded and such, but I no longer see money as the central problem, but rather the focus now must be put on two things: leadership, like Kacy got at, and the debacle between the Junkman and the scientific community.

And I believe the scientific community MUST be embraced, must stop being blacklisted and jaded from the public. I think the general public has the right to hear from both the scientists and Milloy and decide for themselves what is sound and what is junk. For each side is just half of the puzzle in my mind, and though there is undoubtedly "junk science" out there, when you have someone who admits he doesn't think at all of environmentalists anymore and their claims, you've got a big problem.

There needs to be a bi-lateral community established, agreeing what science is sound and what is junk. One set up kind of like the 9/11 Commission, etc. This issue can't be settled simply on the Robert Kennedys and Steven Milloys.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
kayjay
Member Elite
since 06-24-2002
Posts 2334
Oregon


64 posted 01-04-2005 08:20 AM       View Profile for kayjay   Email kayjay   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for kayjay

There is much to ponder within these many posts.  The tough thing about cataclysms in nature is that abolute proof of a connection between such events and global changes in ozone, mean temperatures etc. is just beyond science.  However, the changes pose a strong argument that we are on the threshold of changing life as we know it irrevocably.  This is a great thread and thank you for starting it, Noah.  
Ken

Through rubble and trouble and dark of night
The yawn of a dawn will hasten the light

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


65 posted 01-04-2005 03:40 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Here's something else to ponder here. Is the tsunami, also, a religious issue?
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000962.html

Melanie Phillips is a right-leaning British journalist, and writer of a controversial political and social weekly column in the U.K publishing Daily Mail, who is claiming that the Greens are usurping the tragedy in an opportunistic manner to promote their scientific agendas, and hints having faith alone through the tragedy, as well as accepting all nature throws at us, is the best way to cope.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18309

On the other side of the spectrum is Bill Berkowitz of Working for Change, who criticizes Bush and a number of right-leaning Christian organizations for failing to respond to the tsunami crisis until at least three days following the tragedy (Since the 30th, one of the organizations Berkowitz provided, Focus on the Family, provided an immediate action plan via Focus Radio)

Has this disaster really went this full-blown politically and religiously across mainstream, or are these simply just two extreme positions that are all in their heads?

I believe personally Melanie brings about some strong and meaningful points, not so much agreeing with her that this is much of a religious issue, but simply having faith during times of crisis. Melanie quotes from Chief Rabbi Dr. Sacks in her column, “The response was not to try to understand why disasters happen, but to accept what nature throws at us and then to bring as much aid and comfort to the bereaved and suffering as we can.”

That’s where I believe faith comes in. You must hold faith and pray for the safety and health of communities affected by natural disasters like this, though I also believe you can have faith AND work to understand how disasters happen. That isn’t an unfaithful gesture, in my opinion, but rather an essential way in discovering patterns and, in the process, finding solutions, without challenging God’s faith.

As far as Bill’s view is concerned, though I do criticize Bush’s late response to the tragedy as well, and perhaps to those particular organizations he cites, where he makes some strong points about these organizations preferring eyeing a ban on gay marriage and appointing judicial nominees, there is much tension behind his column as well, as, though he makes points on some hypocrisy going around, it arouses those type of red vs. blue politics again that only bring back so much bad blood.

In my opinion, this is going way too far from both sides treating it as a religious issue, but that’s just one person’s opinion.

Does religion play a particular role in this tragedy? If so, should it, are you saddened or horrified it has come to it?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


66 posted 01-04-2005 04:42 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Let me try to get some clean up points here:

quote:
And with governments like in North Korea, (which has already test
flown one of its missiles over Japan, while letting three million of its
own people starve to death), and in Iran, (which is working on a missile
that can reach beyond its primary target, Israel), there is a readily
perceivable need.


One, it still doesn't work.

Two, what does SDI have to do with Japan or Israel? The intent is to protect the continental States, not other countries.

Oh yeah, someday it'll work, and once that happens, and someday we'll extend it to other countries.

This has nothing to do with SDI today.

quote:
I agree with you totally Brad, Massachusetts does pay more in taxes than Mississippi.  The blue states generally make more money than red states and therefore their taxes are more.

That is the point.  Democrats believe money should be funneled through the Federal Government and have the government solve people's problems.


And yet, you didn't follow it through. Mississippi receives more money than it sends to the federal government, Massachusettes receives less money than it sends. This is income redistribution that favors red states over blue.

Why would blue states favor this, why would red states reject it?

We have a gap between theory and practice.

quote:
That is a philosophical difference in the parties.

The Republican view would be that taxes should be low and individuals should take care of themselves and others rather than the federal government.  We have had somewhat of a turnaround in that idea recently in the area of welfare; it seems to be working.


Yet, in practice, the federal government keeps getting larger under either party. Those who receive entitlements simply change.

quote:
As far as your statements about tying foreign aid to emergency relief assistance, those are two entirely different and while the U.N. traditionally would try to tie the two together, there are different interests involved.  You are talking apples to oranges when you go there.


I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Yes, they are different. I asked which one is better. There's nothing about apples and oranges that doesn't allow you to prefer one to the other.

Still, could you direct me to some more information?

------------------------------
http://nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200501031119.asp

With all this talk over the generosity index, (Don't know why Mike posted that, I've already seen it.), the above article was interesting. The generosity index is not based on absolute amounts of giving, only relative to state income. America, in absolute terms, gives more than any other country. In relative terms, it's the lowest of any industrialized nation.

Mississippi gives more relative to income. Which state gives more in absolute terms?

I don't care which way you go, but in order for any of these numbers to make sense, shouldn't we at least be consistent?

One thing, however, seems fairly clear (Though it's hard to find statistics in this area). When it comes to private charity, America is number one.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


67 posted 01-04-2005 08:14 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don't think I've ever heard discussion, before now, regarding the personal private contributions toward disaster relief of any U.S. President or any other Head of State, for that matter. Is it even anyone else's business what anybody personally donates towards relief efforts?

Should we list all Heads of State, Senators, members of Congress, Parliament, and members of any other ruling body anywhere, with their respective incomes and their personal contributions toward relief efforts whenever a tragedy occurs? Do we really need one more test by which to attempt to judge the heart and integrity of another (as if we are even qualified to make such judgments anyway)? Or should we all just mind our own business and contribute whatever it is that we feel that we should, and respect others' privacy enough to allow them to do the same?





Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


68 posted 01-04-2005 09:32 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

"And yet, you didn't follow it through. Mississippi receives more money than it sends to the federal government, Massachusettes receives less money than it sends. This is income redistribution that favors red states over blue.
Why would blue states favor this, why would red states reject it?
We have a gap between theory and practice."

Not quite, you have to factor in a few things like military installations, seniors on retirement, medicare, medicaid, federal facilities, etc.  Federal spending encompasses a few things other than welfare.  D.C. far outstrips any state as far was federal expenditures in balance as to the others.  Some might say it is a bit of obfuscation to indicate that federal spending is equated to welfare and entitlements.

Perhaps the military and some federal spending benefits the entire nation.


"Yet, in practice, the federal government keeps getting larger under either party. Those who receive entitlements simply change."

Lost me there.

"I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Yes, they are different. I asked which one is better. There's nothing about apples and oranges that doesn't allow you to prefer one to the other."

We appear to be on different brain waves, which more than a view folk have accused me of...  The thread is about disaster relief, not foreign aid policy, neocon Wilsonian or pragmatic Trumanesque.  The latter might be an interesting thread, certainly in relation to the U.N., but still apples to oranges to me.

Final note, the average Mississippian gives over a $1,000 more a year than the national average per person.  The only figure I had available was that the average Connecticut citizen, which has the highest income per person, gave $175.00 less per person than the national average.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


69 posted 01-04-2005 10:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Brad, the point of the generosity index is the word generosity. WHo is more generous? The man who makes 100 and donates 10 or the man who makes 1000 and donates 10? They both give the same amount so there is your "asolute" value. Does that make them equally generous? That is the point of the generosity index.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


70 posted 01-05-2005 11:30 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Okay, let's go down that route.

Are Americans stingy?

Yep.

[quote]. . . the tsunami illustrates the problem: When grieving victims intrude onto our TV screens, we dig into our pockets and provide the massive, heartwarming response that we're now displaying in Asia; the rest of the time, we're tightwads who turn away as people die in far greater numbers.

The 150,000 or so fatalities from the tsunami are well within the margin of error for estimates of the number of deaths every year from malaria. Probably two million people die annually of malaria, most of them children and most in Africa, or maybe it's three million - we don't even know.

But the bottom line is that this month and every month, more people will die of malaria (165,000 or more) and AIDS (240,000) than died in the tsunamis, and almost as many will die because of diarrhea ( 140,000).

And that's where we're stingy.

In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.

We gave 15 cents for every $100 of national income to poor countries. Denmark gave 84 cents, the Netherlands gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents, France gave 41 cents, and Greece gave 21 cents (that was the lowest share, beside our own).

It is sometimes said that Americans make up for low official aid with private charitable donations. Nope. By OECD calculations, private donations add 6 cents a day to the official U.S. figure - meaning that we still give only 21 cents a day per person.

--

. . . . One of the most unforgettable people I've met is Nhem Yen, a Cambodian grandmother whose daughter had just died of malaria, leaving two small children. So Nhem Yen was looking after her four children and two grandchildren, and she could afford only one mosquito net to protect them from malarial mosquitoes. Each night, she had to choose which of the six children would sleep under the net.

Do we really think that paying $5 for a mosquito net to keep Nhem Yen's children alive would be money down a rathole?

When I contracted the most lethal form of malaria, in Congo, I was easily cured because I could afford the best medicines. But to save money, African children are given medicines that cost only 5 cents a dose but aren't very effective; the medicine that would actually save their lives is unaffordable, at $1 a dose. Do we really think $1 a dose for medicine to save a child is money down a rathole?

Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist, estimates that spending $2 billion to $3 billion on malaria might save more than one million lives a year. "This is probably the best bargain on the planet," he said.

The outpouring of U.S. aid, private and public, for tsunami victims is wonderful. But, frankly, the affected nations will get all the money they can absorb for the moment, and Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka are far from the worst off in the world.

"The really big money can be better and more usefully absorbed by developing good health and education programs in the poorest countries," noted Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development. "But that's not as visible or heroic."

---

. . . . The best response to accusations of stinginess is not to be defensive, but to be generous. And the measure of generosity is not what you offer when the spotlight is upon you, but what you do when the spotlight moves on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/opinion/05kris.html?oref=login
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


71 posted 01-05-2005 11:56 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

If DDT were allowed to be utilized, millions of lives of young children could be saved from malaria.  Because of political correctness, it cannot be utilized for fear bird's egg shells might weaken.

Millions of children are not dying from the stinginess of Americans, but by the unfounded fears of environmentalists.  (let's hear from Noah now)

The U.N. has a global fund to fight Aids, malaria, tuberculosis.  The U.S. is the largest contributor, the first contributor, the first contributor to make a second pledge, and in 2003 President Bush in the State of the Union requested and the Congress authorized 15 billion dollars.  That does not count bilateral efforts to which the U.S. donates.

As of 2003, the U.S. donated approximately one half of the global fund.  

I guess it is all a matter of perspective.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


72 posted 01-06-2005 12:33 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi


And yet  the world’s population has gone from three to six billion
in less than one hundred years with another over three billion to be added
in the next fifty, (with roughly two and a half billion of that increase
expected in Africa and Asia).
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


73 posted 01-06-2005 12:43 AM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I guess you could compare tragedies in other countries to the recent one in the Indian Ocean, but the first is too spread out to garner attention.  Now, if all the hundreds of millions of children who died from abortion were aborted all on the same day or even week, there would be outcry.  If all the AIDS and malaria victims all died from it on the same day or week, there would be outcry.  Not to sound heartless, but they didn't.  Millions were affected by the earthquake, aftershocks, and tsunamis in one day, hence the outcry and action.

Perhaps I'm just too jaded for my own good.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


74 posted 01-06-2005 01:07 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Alicat,

When the Khmer Rouge exterminated at a minimum one third of  Cambodia’s
population I don’t remember Americans being all that upset, no more than when
an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in 100 days.  That Saddam
Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands and let hundreds of thousands more die
rather than let he and his be inconvenienced by sanctions didn’t and still
doesn’t affect many.  There seems to be a certain discrimination involved
in determining when people get excited.  If a “government” murders or
allows murders of its own, that’s one thing, if a bug or god does it and that
“government” seeks or is open to aid against that unauthorized mayhem it’s
another.

Also please remember abortions are legal.

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Tsunami: Political Issue?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors