I'm going to be ranting here
so let's get that out of the way fast. I shouldn't read the message boards from news stories; I really shouldn't. They make me angry and sad and frustrated. There are, I'm sure, some good people out there but even the best people succumb to name calling and venting their frustrations (to put it mildly). I don't know much but I do know a little and what I know is when your elected officials (even if there is questions about their being elected) give a few crumbs to aid people in need, it's quite disgusting. This is what I'm talking about:
Editorial: Are We Stingy? Yes
Published: December 30, 2004
"President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunami's in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.
We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises. "
This would have fit so well with the message board I was on the other day. There were a few people in favor of dear old Bush and defended him by bashing France. This person basically said that France was giving a measly amount of 125 k. This turned out to be untrue as I did a basic search on France and aid and it turns out they are giving something like 20 million (http://www.ttc.org/200412291555.ibtftsc16569.htm) . Remember France is a small country and this is quite a bit for them. What did the US promise? 15 million. This coming from a country that toots its horn for being the wealthiest around. Hmmm. Does this sound like a moral and Christian president? I don't know...let us remember the story of the Good Samaritan...
The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37
25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he said, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What do you read there?" 27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And he said to him, "You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live."
29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.' 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" 37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/luke10.stm)
Now, what does this have to do with our current prez? Let's see...Bush claims to be a moral, Christian president. Hence, he believes in the principals of the bible. My question is, is Bush following the teachings of the bible in making his decisions to lead, protect and help? Further, if Bush were in the story of the Good Samaritan which person would he be? Obviously not the Samaritan. Saying you are going to do something and actually doing something are two entirely different things.
And yet, all said and done, most likely the promises will remain just that...promises. Wouldn't it be wiser to stop bombing Iraq, start establishing talks with the "insurgents", take our troops to Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc and do some ACTUAL peace keeping? Wouldn't this make more sense and make me believe this president might actually be a little "moral"? Wouldn't helping people in need create a sense of balance in the American people and the rest of the world?
I hope the answers are in the works and not in the words.
Editorial: Are We Stingy? Yes
Published: December 30, 2004
"President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunami's in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.
We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.
The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.
Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.
Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.
Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises. "
This would have fit so well with the message board I was on the other day. There were a few people in favor of dear old Bush and defended him by bashing France. This person basically said that France was giving a measly amount of 125 k. This turned out to be untrue as I did a basic search on France and aid and it turns out they are giving something like 20 million (http://www.ttc.org/200412291555.ibtftsc16569.htm) . Remember France is a small country and this is quite a bit for them. What did the US promise? 15 million. This coming from a country that toots its horn for being the wealthiest around. Hmmm. Does this sound like a moral and Christian president? I don't know...let us remember the story of the Good Samaritan...
The Good Samaritan Luke 10:25-37
25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he said, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What do you read there?" 27 He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." 28 And he said to him, "You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live."
29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" 30 Jesus replied, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.' 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" 37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/luke10.stm)
Now, what does this have to do with our current prez? Let's see...Bush claims to be a moral, Christian president. Hence, he believes in the principals of the bible. My question is, is Bush following the teachings of the bible in making his decisions to lead, protect and help? Further, if Bush were in the story of the Good Samaritan which person would he be? Obviously not the Samaritan. Saying you are going to do something and actually doing something are two entirely different things.
And yet, all said and done, most likely the promises will remain just that...promises. Wouldn't it be wiser to stop bombing Iraq, start establishing talks with the "insurgents", take our troops to Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc and do some ACTUAL peace keeping? Wouldn't this make more sense and make me believe this president might actually be a little "moral"? Wouldn't helping people in need create a sense of balance in the American people and the rest of the world?
I hope the answers are in the works and not in the words.
Comments