MSNBC's top programs provide more than 18 times as much coverage of Haiti earthquake as Fox News' to

You know....one of the things that impresses me as actually being a difference between our two societies is that the US does seem to be way more at the individualistic end of the spectrum, where Oz is, I think, still more towards the collectivist end. So, I think we are more likely to support community responsibility for stuff.

But.....you guys have way more of a tradition of corporate and rich people philanthropy...and I see NO evidence at all that your government is being any less generous than Australia's was towards Indonesia.

No way am I going to get into which government is more generous, but what the Oz (Howard) government contributed to post-tsunami Indonesia (per head of population) was a pretty extraordinary donation.

It is also worth noting that what we are actually contributing is a drop in our fiscal bucket. Clinton and Bush have been tapped to encourage fund-raising, and suspect they'll be successful. Our tax codes encourage corporate and individual charity, and corporations use charitable contributions as a means of promoting good public relations.

But what is really sad about the dog-in-the-manger attitude of conservative Americans is that this will be a pittance. We won't spend a fraction of what we would spend to invade and flatten a small country, and still be home in time to watch the teevee on the weekend. This isn't really going to cost the government that much, i suspect that most Americans know that, and this is another reason why i suspect a virulent racist component in those who object.

If we were living in the mid-nineteenth century and there was a tragedy outside the U.S., I believe a smaller percentage of people would be concerned to any great degree, since it is the modern media, with digital/cable quality pictures that enhances our empathy. However, even in the nineteenth century, no modern media vignettes would be needed to have Americans concerned about any tragedy befalling fellow Americans, in my opinion.

Let us remember that only 60 years ago, not that many Americans were that concerned, I believe, about the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc. that were dying in concentration camps (when the news got out). I believe many showed the "required" shock and then went back to what they were doing.

The media has stirred the hearts of many. But, let us see if the U.S. ultimately benefits from its largesse with a military base in Haiti, and an eager source of military recruits. Not that that would be bad. In my opinion, that would be good. Fair trade is not thievery.

You think "racism" is the only driving force? Let us not forget "clannishness." That exists, but between many groups that are white. In 500 years, we might become an American nationality; until then, I believe, we are balkanized by ethnicities, religions, sometimes greater than race. Just listen to an old Archie Bunker spiel to Meathead.

Emergency aid is for the purpose of helping people in dire need of assistance. There shouldn't be too many strings attached for any country receiving such aid. Interesting that you see it primarily as an investment for the benefit of the donor country.

The notion that we would recruit from among Haitians is ludicrous. We don't have any need for a military base on Haiti, either. It can't be said too often . . . Foofie is an idiot.

Well, you know, Setanta ...

And so it goes.

Many nations are, of course, providing humanitarian relief, with an obvious understanding of the meaning of humanitarian. I just heard on the CBC today that Canadian troops from CFB Valcartier are heading to Haiti. These troops have just recently rotated back from Afghanistan, so they wouldn't have to accept the deployment--but they volunteered. Being native speakers of French, they will be invaluable in the situation. Many of them are military engineers, and will help to deploy three mobile water purification units which can produce more than 100,000 gallons of water every day. Not everyone in the world is infected with the sort of greed and cupidity that Foofie displays.

HAITI WILL BE A CHOCOLATE COUNTRY AGAIN!!!

HEY, whaddya know, the big schmuck is back.

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood! I wouldn't be anywhere else!

John Kerry's next!

Although, if it makes you feel better, seeing Massachusetts vote a Republican into Teddy's seat does make me believe in evolution now! LMAO

Yes, it certainly was. So much so that I don't think it's a useful comparison. It was extraordinarily generous.

America certainly is far towards the individualist end of the spectrum and may well be the most individualistic culture around, but Australia is more individualist than most of the world as well in my opinon. The collectivist end of the spectrum is a place like Japan where they'll stay after a sporting event to clean up the stadium. They take it to a nutty level of collectivism where individualism is actively suppressed (e.g. schools traditionally prohibited distinctive clothes (uniforms), perfume, haircuts, jewelry etc).

But that quibble aside, I think this is an interesting insight and I do think that American individualism really is a big difference here, even though there is a lot more on the collectivist spectrum past Australia.



Americans are actually pretty generous folk in practice, but in theory they are so used to having things so damn easy in the world's most powerful economy that they are the quickest to blame the individual for their lot in life.

In some ways it's seen as noble, one of the nice things about America. It's about the pride of being one of the best meritocracies around, where you really can pull yourself up by the bootstraps and where your effort correlates most strongly with your lot in life.

But the ignorance comes from the arrogance of having won this birth lottery (of being born in America, which they are unreasonably proud of) and thinking that everyone else's lot in life is as equally ascribable to their own efforts. They have the illusions reality is always close enough to a meritocracy with a level enough playing field. They've never experienced the catch 22 that is a culture of corruption and abject poverty so they all too frequently will unreasonably chide the poor for being poor in a frustratingly patronizing way.

They reconcile the uncomfortable parts of the discrepancy in fortune by thinking that they just work harder and want it more. That their relative luxury is a product of merit instead of being grateful that they were born with a winning lottery ticket. They never consider that some people in lesser economies (and frankly there's absolutely nothing Haiti can do to be a larger economy, it's small) are competing against huge developed economies with a large head start. They don't consider that people in other countries may work harder for a lot less just because of where they were born, and that this dismissive notion that they just need to "fix" their country is a disgustingly stupid level of understanding of the complexity of doing so.

The earthquake itself is a large random setback and is the kind of misfortune that can set a small economy like theirs back a generation. By any reasonable standard it is an economic catastrophe inflicted upon them by chance but nothing is as easy as for the man who doesn't have to do it himself and who can smugly play arm chair quarterback and feel superior to the poor by kicking them while they are down.

Re: msolga (Post 3879952)
msolga wrote:



Robert said:


Yes, it was. I recall being somewhat gobsmacked at the time by the size of it. But the thing is, there wasn't some outraged backlash at the time, from conservative or other forces within the country to such a huge donation to Indonesia on our behalf.
I remain perplexed at the insensitivity & the sheer meanness of the US far right's responses to helping a near neighbour in dire need of emergency assistance. Yes, I know these people do not in any way represent the US majority, but, all the same ....
And no, I'm not asking for any extra explanation of the far right's stance. Just wanna say it's mean & it's ugly. How such (a small minority, admittedly) of folk get so out of touch with humanity in the process of appealing to their constituents is beyond my comprehension.

It has been far too long and who knows if the aid pours in for Haiti, there'll be tons more money to loot from Haitian banks. It was a good form of plunder in the past, no sense in not trying to grab more now.



No, fair trade isn't thievery, but that's never been the USA's mode of operation.

I get it now. That there was no backlash given the intra-national context and the extraordinary nature of the generosity certainly is a notable contrast.

Well yes. Absolutely. But heck, I am not likely to make a big deal of this in the current (US aid) discussion here, OK?

I have, admittedly, not followed every word on this thread, but I have read many of the links, and certainly the descriptions, but I did miss the links from the "far right" saying "we" (the US) should not provide emergency assistance to Haiti. Do they exist? What I saw were comments excoriating Obama, but not calling for a halt of aid. Did I miss the links?