The U.S. has finally donated more aid to the tsunami relief fund than hulking Canada. No, seriously.
Of course, the SCLM is doing its best to try and convince us that the initial tsunami aid offer was $35 million, not the $15 million that it actually was (or $4 million, if you believe the San Francisco Chronicle). But who you gonna believe - me, or your lyin' eyes?
This ABC News article doesn't mention the $15 million pledge, but remains factually true, proving that you don't need to explicitly lie to deceive:
The United States had pledged $35 million
Was there actually a pledge of $15 million, or did I just dream it up? Well, Reuters (UK) thinks the initial offer was $15 million.
The United States initially had committed $15 million, then raised its contribution to $35 million after U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland criticized rich nations such as the United States as "stingy" for cutting back on general aid funding even as the world economy was growing.
So does the San Francisco Chronicle.
White House officials bristled at the criticism, saying the initial commitment of aid -- $15 million on Monday, increasing to $35 million Wednesday -- was only a start toward what would be a multiyear, multibillion-dollar international relief and recovery effort.
Shoot, even...ABC News thinks so.
"I think politically they've done poorly," said Derek Mitchell, an expert in Asian affairs at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Mitchell said the administration initially announced a contribution of just $15 million and said officials did not do enough to make clear that much more likely would be coming to help meet needs expected to reach into the billions.
(Wait. Didn't ABC News just imply that the initial offer was $15 million? Yes. I'm confused.)
I think politically they've done poorly," said Derek Mitchell, an expert in Asian affairs at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Mitchell said the administration initially announced a contribution of just $15 million and said officials did not do enough to make clear that much more likely would be coming to help meet needs expected to reach into the billions.
David Shuster over at MSNBC implies that $35 million was the initial offer:
I appreciate that the 35 million our government is sending to Southeast Asia is just the beginning. And I'm confident the public and private contributions from the U.S. over the next few months will end up being a hundred times that.
But, the initial American government response to this disaster feels awfully empty.
This San Francisco Chronicle article gets it wrong - lies - whatever you want to call it (wait - didn't they just tell us it was $15 million? yes. don't ask me - I just work here):
The pledge of $350 million is a tenfold increase in the initial $35 million U.S. assistance package that critics called miserly considering America's vast wealth.
CNN implies that $35 million was the initial amount. Reuters (huh?? didn't they just...yes.) misleads us, as well. As does the Washington Post.
So, many papers are telling us many different things. Is there a pattern? Well, Reuters, ABC News, and the San Francisco Chronicle all told us it was initially $15 million. Then, after the White House told them to rewrite history, they followed their marching orders and started misleading their readers to believe the initial offer was $35 million - not $15 million. That's the pattern. When the White House speaks - the SCLM listens. Talk about your revisionist history.
Don't think this is an isolated incident. This stuff happens with *your* press ALL THE TIME. Think about the Administration changing their stated reasons for invading Iraq. That's one of the best cases I can think of, but the list is long. Trust me.
One interesting factoid I found while Googling some articles was this. Canada's initial donation amount was $4 million. Then they jumped up to $40 million, which outdid America's $35 million. Profoundly embarrassed by the world, including Canada, France, Britain, and Sweden - all of whom had pledged more than the U.S. at the point of our new $35 million pledge, the Bush Administration finally upped our pledge to $350 million.
The San Francisco Chronicle's $4 million initial offer claim is probably credible - because Reuters says the same thing, but there were no press conferences and Powell's getting up on stage acting all generous and all the other self-congratulatory stuff that came with this rich white (and not-so-black) guys vacuuming $15 million taxpayer dollars out of our pockets.
The United States expects to initially pledge $4 million in aid for victims of the devastating tsunami in Asia and has already released $100,000 to each of India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives, an official said on Monday.
Why the big deal about what the initial amount was? Well, the UN guy who called 'the West' a bunch of cheapos was reacting to the U.S.'s initial pledge of $15 million. Let me say that again. Well, you get the point. If the initial pledge had been $35 million, then this UN might not have come out and blasted everyone for being a bunch of tightwads. His criticism is what got the world condemning the U.S. - and finally got Bush to give us some ching. So, the UN guy's criticism ended up costing U.S. taxpayers, and it ended up costing another blow to America's once-vaunted reputation, and it costs Bush some political capital here at home and abroad, but it probably will save thens of thousands of livesin southeast Asia.
International aid for disasters? Of course. But international 'development aid' and 'foreign investments' and 'democracy operations' and other assorted grab-bags of U.S. international treachery? Fuck no.
GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK, BITCH!
UPDATE: I should clarify my position on foreign 'aid' - both of the type that actually does aid, as well as the stuff that terrorizes. It is, or should not be, the responsibility of my government to donate my money to foreign countries. However, in keeping with longstanding policy, I would argue that a good use of our money in this case, both morally and practically (world opinion/defense/etc.), would be for our government to donate relief aid to the tsunami victims. However, I would strongly support a gradual pullback of state (government) support for giving my money away - allowing private U.S.-based institutions the time necessary to build infrastructure to handle these aid efforts - via private citizen donations - in the future.
And, once again, it looks as though only the U.S. public will think they are world-beaters in the generosity department. The fact that tiny Australia (and Germany) has surpassed us in donations will be lost in the shuffle of Bush's massively magnanimous $10,000 donation. Gotta love the U.S. prop...I mean, media.
No comments:
Post a Comment