Is France "stingy"?

9-11 is used almost exclusively for that purpose alone, Ms. Olga. This is the politics section of a debate forum. Bickering & point scoring is practically inevitable. Surely, you already know this.

I said right after 9-11, O'Bill. I can recall the Abuzz threads vividly. Very solemn & respectful. This changed after the Iraq invasion.

My last post of concern on this subject went to another thread, if you're interested.

I never knew of ABUZZ. A2K was my first... and may well be my last.

The reason I mentioned Abuzz, O'Bill, is because many A2K people were posters there, initially. I guess I just see A2K as a continuation of Abuzz, but taking different directions to it, too. Anyway, the immediate response on Abuzz to 7-11 was extremely respectful of US citizens by all of us, whatever country we lived in & whatever our political beliefs, as I recall.

I do believe you're concerned, O'Bill. I'm sure you do. It's just that this thread seemed to turn into a league competition: Who gave the most & who was the best? And a chance to settle a few old scores. That's all ...

I still say French people are cool.

I wouldn't look for that to go away anytime soon... and it's hardly a condition unique to U.S. posters as the anti-U.S. posters are out in force on these threads as well... but I am sorry it bothers you.

I like french onion soup too.

Mmmmm...french onion soup.

It does bother me. And I'm certain I'm not alone in this. I just wish some US posters had the same sensitivity for others as they have for their own.
Perhaps it's because the the disaster is so close to Oz, I don't know. But the human suffering affects us deeply. They are our neighbours. We are distressed for them. It is impossible for us to be silly about their plight. I repeat - this is NOT about the US for most of us here. Not everything is about the US.

You certainly are not alone, msolga.

And actually, I didn't notice any remarks about why which country contributed what elsewhere - all are glad (and surprised) that everyone is giving (e.g. Thailand [sic!] or the people, who were flooded along the Elbe river).

But I don't want to annoy Bill again with my babbling.

Thank you, Walter.

May there be more & more support for the desperate people who so need help at this terrible time!

Babble away to your heart's content, Walter!

Tico,

I apologize if you feel rudely treated when I made a passing comment about your erroneous interpretation of what you read. I have no intentions for such. However I am of the opinion that I have not treated you rudely and that you merely bristle at having your errors pointed out to you.

I commented in passing that it was your misunderstanding that made the comparison you based this thread off of and not French stinginess.

With all due respect I will continue to point out the errors and I stand by my observation that you failed to comprehend the text you read and posted.

I do not mean any of the corrections to contain any form of malice.



Quite right, my writing was imprecise and uncareful. Their rescue budget could easily have consisted of a larger figure whether or not it is commesurate with the rescue effort. Thanks for pointing this out.

However, getting past my imprecise wording, my point was that the article clearly speaks of an initial rescue budget that France allocated to efforts in one of the affected countries and that you compare it to totals of a wholly different scope.



Nowhere did I make this claim. I will not guess as to what made you read this into my postings.



I have not said a single positive thing about the French in this thread. I respectfully submit this as yet another example of your lapses in reading comprehension.



The French sent more than 16 people. The 16 you speak of are one team to be sent only to one of the affected countries (Thailand). I refer you to the text you posted and will assist by bolding certain words.



I respectfully submit this as yet another example of the factual inaccuracy and lapses in reading that I reference.



The distinction between search and rescue and subsequent aid (relief) continues to elude you and you add to this by bringing up a maxim for private sector donations to justify your equivocation about state contributions.

The sentiment you are repeating here is a common maxim for relief organizations accepting contributions from individuals. Have a look at what the Center for International Disaster Information's (CIDI) Guidelines for Effective In-Kind Private Sector Donations.

[b]Why do I always hear that cash donations are best? It makes me feel that relief organizations are only interested in my money? I'm willing to do so much more![/b] Your generosity is deeply appreciated, but from years of experience with hundreds of disasters we have learned that cash contributions are by far the most useful response. Financial contributions allow professional relief organizations to purchase exactly what disaster victims need most urgently and to pay for the transportation necessary to distribute those supplies.

It is true that cash is preferable for relief aid and aid from private citizens, it is also true that initial rescue efforts count upon trained teams, logistics and supplies more so than cash. I will try to avoid elucidating on this concept further and will have to live with failing to clear this up for you should you dispute this still.



No, it was not accurate Tico. You misread the article that refers to a single contribution for rescue efforts to one country. France had already contributed many times that amount at the time of that pledge.

• On December 26th the EU earmarked 4 million dollars through ECHO, the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Department, for "initial vital needs" saying that subtantial future aid was forthcoming.
  
• On December 26th France put together a team of "about 100 doctors, rescue specialists and communications experts" (if you want exact numbers I believe it ended up being a 95-man team and 17 tons of cargo) to be sent to Sri Lanka in a Airbus A310 on the 27th.
  
• On December 28th EU aid commissioner Louis Michel announced 27 million more in contributions and made a suggestion for a donor's conference.
  
• On December 28th the figure you cited (only a fration of France's contributions) is allocated to a single rescue effort in one of the affected countries.
  
• On December 29th France pledged 15 million Euros.
  
• By December 30th France's had added more to total 41.3 million euros (56.17 million dollars).
  

The US had many separations of contributions on scales similar to the one by France that you mistook for being France's total. For example, out of the 35 million dollars you cited as being the US contribution smaller separations occured as follows:

• On December 26th $100,000 for Sri Lanka and $100,000 for the Maldives.
  
• On December 27th $100,000 to India for emergency activities.
  
• On December 27th $100,000 to Indonesia.
  

If you are wondering why it works this way it is due to proceedures for states of emergency. Those 3 figures are the result of U.S. Ambassador to Sri Lanka and the Maldives Jeffrey J. Lunstead, U.S. Ambassador to India David C. Mulford, and U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia B. Lynn Pascoe issuing disaster declarations on the 26th and 27th.



I'm not sure whether you would consider the sources of information I peruse to be "known". If you mean mainstream media then it's unlikely that they would cover the finances in such detail. I get my data straight from the statements and budgets from the varying agencies.

For example usaid.gov breaks down the emergency US aid as follows (the agencies named are the "implementing agencies":

To India
Prime Minister's Relief Fund Emergency relief activities Countrywide $50,000
Indian Red Cross Emergency relief activities Countrywide $50,000

To Indonesia
Indonesian Red Cross Emergency relief activities Sumatra $100,000
Indonesian Red Cross Airlifted emergency relief supplies Sumatra $35,650
Indonesian Red Cross Airlifted emergency relief supplies Sumatra $13,650

To Malaysia
Malaysia Red Crescent and National Disaster Management and Relief Committee Procurement and distribution of relief items, shelter Northwest Malaysia $50,000

To the Maldives
USAID/Sri Lanka Emergency relief activities Countrywide $100,000
UNICEF Airlift of emergency relief supplies Countrywide $8,100
UNICEF Airlift of emergency relief supplies Countrywide $44,250

To Sri Lanka
USAID/Sri Lanka Emergency relief activities Countrywide $100,000
Multiple Emergency relief activities Countrywide $2,500,000
IFRC Airlift of emergency relief supplies Countrywide $44,560
IFRC Airlift of emergency relief supplies Countrywide $5,400

To Thailand
Thai Red Cross Procurement and distribution of relief items Countrywide $100,000



On December 29th when you posted the following:



France wasn't missing a couple of zeroes, you were. And as I suggested earlier it is due to your misreading of what that sum represented.



You were looking at a miniscule fraction of France's contributions and comparing it to the totals of other countries.



Please explain what "different rules" you have in mind, I have no idea what you are trying to say.



I have very clearly illustrated that this is a factual inaccuracy that you are repeating.



I have very clearly illustrated that you were doing precisely that.



Tico, I again apologize if I have offended you, but I stand by my remarks. You were making factually inaccurate claims and demonsrating lapses in reading comprehension. I understand that you do not appreciate being called on demonstratably false postings but the fact remains that you were wrong, I'm sorry.

Americans are definitely not stingy

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of charity.

To the United Nations, and the New York Times, charity apparently is defined by how much a government offers to those in need from the money its citizens have coughed up in order to stay out of jail.

To most Americans, charitable giving involves willfully directing cash from their own pockets and giving it to causes they favor -- in this case helping the millions who survived the Asian tsunamis.

The widely different mentality comes to the fore in the wake of the comments by U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland that the initial U.S. response to aiding the victims was "stingy."

Then the Times, whose mind-set is unfortunately almost as close to the U.N.'s as its physical location, piled on with an editorial titled "Are We Stingy? Yes" that concluded "Mr. Egeland was right on target."

They are off-base, but not surprisingly so, given that the United Nations and Times share the worldview that sees everything in terms of government involvement.

But nowhere near all the aid that pours in to help victims of tragedies like these comes from governments.

And the money raised by the tens of thousands of churches and community groups in the United States who, as you read this, are rounding up help for the victims won't be counted in the figures you read in the newspaper.

The U.N.-Times mind-set fails to acknowledge that when it comes to charitable giving, the United States dwarfs the rest of the world -- and not just in total dollars. On a weighted basis that takes into account our greater wealth, Americans are the second-most-generous people on Earth.

Americans are, by nature, more skeptical of public bureaucracy and prefer to give away money themselves rather than give it to the government to do it. More socialist-leaning societies prefer state-funded (and tax-supported) government programs.

The U.N. mentality is predictable. Most of its officials come from countries where the tax rate is so high that no one has much extra money to give to charity.

Egeland's Norway is typical, with a top tax rate approaching 80 percent. Government controls virtually all the money that isn't hidden under the mattress from the tax collectors.

Perhaps that is why Norway's rate of charitable giving from non-government sources, adjusted for relative wealth, is a quarter that of the United States.

And, by comparison with their neighbors, Norwegians are generous. A recent study published in Philanthropy Magazine found that the average American household contributes six times as much to charity as a comparable one in Germany.

In all, Americans contributed $241 billion to private charities last year, which dwarfs the total of any other country. But, even on a scale that considers giving as a percentage of national wealth, Americans are more generous than everyone but the Israelis, according to a study by Lester Salamon, director of the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Now, it's clearly true that the U.S. government's initial commitment of $15 million was low, but that was before the scale of the tragedy was known. Secretary of State Colin Powell says eventual U.S. help will be in the billions of dollars.

And although the reaction from Egeland can be expected based on the current acrimony between the United Nations and the Bush administration, there is no reason to cut the Times editorial board slack.

Its view is not surprising, given the Times is the semi-official mouthpiece of Blue America. Maybe the folks there still think the presidential campaign is raging.

But then, in much of John Kerry's America, giving to charity is as declasse as going to church. That's not opinion; that's based on a similar weighted formula on charitable giving within the United States.

In fact, the study by the Catalogue of Philanthropy ranked the 50 states on a "generosity index" that measured charitable giving in comparison to state wealth.

Given that they also rank high on measurements of church attendance -- which correlates with charitable giving -- states in the South, Midwest and Rockies, which President Bush carried against Kerry, would seem likely to rank high on that index. And, in fact, the 25 most generous states in that index all voted for Bush.

Perhaps this is one of those situations reflecting the adage that "where you stand is based on where you sit." Maybe the Times ought to send a foreign correspondent into Red America to find out how the folks there live -- and tithe.

source

I think the babbling is by those who wish to score cheap political points off each other by opening, and continuing to bicker in, threads like this - whether they be nonsense posted about France (still haven't grasped the weird hatred of them, but hey, who gives a rats) or those moaning about the US/Bush, or defending same, with similar hyperbole.

I would have thought the situation too grave and horrifying for this - but, have fun if it is what you want to do.

Thousands of Americans are missing, Ms. Olga, and no one has been silly about their plight, or any other victim's. Expecting everyone else to drop his or her normal grievances or to behave in a sufficiently solemn manner as defined by you is unrealistic. The title of this thread should have told you there'd be bickering & point scoring here. Interesting that you find Walter's participation in it un-offending. While his demeanor is a bit passive-aggressive, he's certainly carried the ball a few yards for his side of the endless struggle.

Babble to your heart's content, Walter. Just don't whine if I choose to point it out.

Plenty of national and local news services aired the initial "list" of country donations (ending with France's $135,000). Why? Because it was FUNNY! Pure and simple.

When that Egelund creep made his "stingy" comments (which he later tried to soften), he didn't use the words "stingy" and "Australia" in the same sentence. No, he singled out the U.S. and THAT is what some of us are reacting to on THIS thread.

The U.S. bashing on this website is so rampant, I've become almost desensitized to it.

Thanks for your free psycho-socio screening of my behaviour, Bill.

I appreciate it very much.