Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: Shag from Brookline

Will I be able to take a tax deduction? Will I get access to the Bush Jr. Administration that otherwise may not be available and thereby advance my net worth? Will I meet the Swift Boaters? Rove? Chaney? Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Drudge? Novak? Will? Hoagland? Krauthammer? The Hammer? Will I want to have a drink with George W? Can I remind him of his claim of being a compassionate conservative?

Posted by: Shag from Brookline | Dec 31, 2004 10:26:48 PM

Posted by: Aaron S.

No and No.

Posted by: Aaron S. | Dec 31, 2004 11:20:19 PM

Posted by: Luka Yovetich

I'm not sure that there is any way for an issue like that to keep from getting partisan. But maybe I'm wrong. I wonder what the total amount of money being donated by U.S. citizens is (both through the gov't and privately). I wonder if that figure is far greater than the $40 million ... And if it is, is that relevant to your concern?

Also, (and this is just a small point) I'm wondering if you're right to say that the scale of this disaster is unprecedented in our lifetimes. Wasn't there an earthquake in China back in 1976 that killed 300,000 or so people? I seem to remember readin something in the San Diego paper this past week that listed at least a few other natural disasters that killed more people than this one. Nobody's projecting the death toll to rise to 300,000 are they?! God I hope not.

Posted by: Luka Yovetich | Jan 1, 2005 12:48:55 AM

Posted by: frankly0

Say what you will, but it is the very fact that the issue became partisan that turned the tide on this issue. At first, the Bush administration was going to put up only $15M. Then, after scathing and unquestionably "partisan" criticism, they upped it to $35M. When the criticism did not abate, and it was clear that Bush was taking some major hits on the issue (especially given that it was, after all, Christmas time, and Bush makes a huge stinking deal out of being more Christian than thou), it got upped to $350M. It's simply unimaginable that that much money would have been put up without political heat, driven, as it inevitably is, by the opposition party.

Three cheers for partisanship, I say.

Posted by: frankly0 | Jan 1, 2005 1:18:42 AM

Posted by: SGT. Rock

President Bush seems to be saving us 1 million dollars, Bill Clintons second term inauguration cost 41 million. Were was your outrage when Rowandan's were being massacred, Liberians massacred, Congolese massacred. This was happening while the Clintons were in office, and spent 41 million dollars. This event takes place and money is spent justly or not every time a president wins office, next time it will be more. If it were a Democrat would you complain if it were the Jews that suffered a natural disaster and lost hundreds of thousands.
Probably not.
The Shri Lankans turned down rescue help from the Jews because of rumblings from the Muslims. In my opinion if you needed help that bad you would not let polotics interfer with the lives of your people, obviously the Muslims don't care for thier and others people's lives. So, I don't think that the Shri Lankans deserve the Anericans peoples tax dollars iether.
If what President Bush is spending ruffles your feathers are you aware of how much of our Tax dollars went to Arafat (the school children killing terrorists that he was) 75 million every year it was to spent on schools infastructure and Medical needs for the palistinians, what ever he had left over he could spend on what ever he wanted. Remember the shipment of Iranian weapons that was intercepted by the Jews. Well 16 million of our tax dollars went to purchasing those weapons, that would have been used on the Jews, and I heard no outrage from the left or the world. In what hole have you been hiding, while evil has been growing, and we have inadvertantly supported.

Posted by: SGT. Rock | Jan 1, 2005 1:36:45 AM

Posted by: Chap

Feh.

There's ALWAYS going to be something more deserving. I didn't see you carping about anything Hollywood, or the cost of Green Day's new video, or why celebrity 'x' still owns 'y' new toy. I challenge you to pick on that celebrity six months from now--maybe it'll do some good.

I read $15M as available "right now" money for DART teams and planning $$ so we know what magnitudes of need exist and goes where it's most needed. (Read some blogs to see where people without food are getting truckloads of sweaters--in the tropics--and let's not forget Live Aid, where $$ went other places than where it should have been.) $15m to $350m in a day or two unimaginable? Ever work with USAID, who funnels most of the money that many "nonpartisan" aid NGOs rely upon? Ever see what an effective aid profile looks like as a function of time?

And don't forget to add in the Bonhomme Richard strike group, a rather nontrivial amount. And all that NONgovenmental money, which in our system is allowed to occur without national fiat. You know, people actually giving money and aid without being forced to by The Gummint.

Three cheers for carping, apparently.

Posted by: Chap | Jan 1, 2005 1:45:19 AM

Posted by: Josh Jasper

1 week of operations in Iraq costs us about a billion dollars. Perhaps we could appeal to the Iraqis to vote to have us leave when they have elections.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | Jan 1, 2005 1:54:53 AM

Posted by: Answerman

Can it be done?
Lay you 40 to 1 not a dime less will be spent.

Will it be partisan?
Of course--only Democrats will rally around the cause.

Should an issue be made of it?
The question is, how will it bear on the issue that counts, social security. Maybe it will mobilize a few more partisans to that cause.
But be assured, saving social security is what matters, and the forces arrayed against it are formidable.

Posted by: Answerman | Jan 1, 2005 1:59:14 AM

Posted by: Sgt. Rock

"saving social security is what matters, and the forces arrayed against it are formidable."
Are you laying around right now waiting for your Gov. cheese? Good God provide for yourself man, no government gives, they only take. The only thing a government gives is sucking sounds like that which goes down the drain.
Our going to expect them to wipe your to rearend or you going to set up some Gov. fund for that to "social buttwipe security" better save it before it exists.

Posted by: Sgt. Rock | Jan 1, 2005 2:23:30 AM

Posted by: Yehudit

"At first, the Bush administration was going to put up only $15M. Then, after scathing and unquestionably "partisan" criticism, they upped it to $35M. When the criticism did not abate, and it was clear that Bush was taking some major hits on the issue (especially given that it was, after all, Christmas time, and Bush makes a huge stinking deal out of being more Christian than thou), it got upped to $350M."

There is absolutely no evidence that the formal aid amounts increased due to public pressure and that they were not already in the pipeline to be paid out over time. As others have noted, the formal aid does not include the thousands of US troops and equipment sent to the area, notr the private contributions of American citizens. More here.

I notice no criticism of Kofi Annan continuing his skiing vacation for an extra three days after the disaster. Nor any notice of the Thai and Sri Lankan govts withholding the tsunami info for fear of panicking the tourists. Only the West, actually only the US deserves blame for anything, any time, anywhere. Even if you have to twist the facts in order to do it.

I will let John Podhoretz have the last word.

Do you really think the Left's attempt to make this tragedy into a stick to beat the US, isn't going to backfire and discredit you all even more? But you just can't help yourselves, can you?

Posted by: Yehudit | Jan 1, 2005 3:24:02 AM

Posted by: frankly0

There is absolutely no evidence that the formal aid amounts increased due to public pressure and that they were not already in the pipeline to be paid out over time.

Please. Just please.

If indeed the money way "in the pipeline" before public criticism, is it even conceivable that the Bush administration would not have come out with the most impressive number of all? And why did it take four days for the 350M figure to come out?

Yeah, I know, the right believes that the Bush administration is ALWAYS hiding its light under a bushel basket, and that it just NEVER manages to take credit for all the wonderful things it does.

On earth, though, we have a different idea.

Posted by: frankly0 | Jan 1, 2005 4:08:17 AM

Posted by: Chap

Okay, Frankly0, how do you arrange for such purchases? Where does the money go? How does it get funneled? Since Congress hasn't made a separate appropriation, who gets money taken from them to make it work? What needs to be bought and how do we get it there? Since the strike group is racing at top speed, their logistic capability will be limited to equipment on hand until they get boots on the ground. Who writes the contract to lease the ships for the heavy lift?

Wouldn't it make sense that these types of questions take more than thirty seconds to answer?

Even if you were correct about the reason for the money going to a larger number, I get a similar answer timewise using anecdotal experience and rules of thumb. Would it not make good fiducial sense to figure out where to spend the money so that the people who have that money taken from them (me, for instance) get that money used effectively? I haven't checked with more than two of my NGO friends, but they also have a finite time frame to get into gear as well--unless they're already on the ground it takes time to start rolling and flowing logistics.

Please, you say. Okay, I see that you and I have differing starting positions for our worldviews, but there is a common reality on the ground here. Have you ever done something large-scale like this? I mean, would it not cause a mortal wound to perhaps consider that this might possibly be like other human enterprises in that it's not a miraculous and instantaneous "everything gets better"? I bet you'll see misallocated resources, fraud, theft, and stong taking from the weak too--look at what the different parties in Sri Lanka's eternal civil war are doing with aid near their factional borders, for instance. We may even completely kark up the crisis planning for this and have some fantastic screwups, but I doubt we'll have soldiers with child porn rings like the UN has (as of last week--not that it's S.O.P., but we do have better processes to prevent such things from occurring or punishing those who fail.)

Is that going to be automagically all better now that some hubris-laden arrogant functionary at the UN decided to publicly complain that he didn't get everything he wanted?

Has your heart become so hard that you are unable to see any competence or good in others?

Posted by: Chap | Jan 1, 2005 4:28:31 AM

Posted by: sts

Everyone who is posting here agrees that in the midst of such suffering, there is not enough the US can do.

Now let's hear from you Left partisans, so eagar to score partisan points:

1. If you have any proof that this Administration has increased its contribution as a result of criticism, and not as a result of its own enhanced knowledge of the scale of suffering and devestation, let's have it. And by proof I mean factual and empirical proof, not rhetoric, premised on the idea that the Left is really, really nice and the Right is really, really mean.

2. In the absence of any such proof, why not apologize for this calumny?

3. Finally, why don't we turn this into a discussion about how we can help all of these poor suffering people? Counting contributions in the universal commodity equivelant--money-- isn't enough. We need to deliver water and food and medical care to the people who need them.

Posted by: sts | Jan 1, 2005 5:10:03 AM

Posted by: Yehudit

"We need to deliver water and food and medical care to the people who need them."

Right now there is so much aid piling up the on-the-ground logistics haven't caught up. But I'm sure you'll figure out how to blame that on the US too. The UN is going to try to take the credit for whatever is done.

Posted by: Yehudit | Jan 1, 2005 5:47:14 AM

Posted by: Chris

Survivor’s Guilt Syndrome

I know my comments are going to offend just about everyone but that’s life.

Fact: They died, you survived. You can’t change that.

Fact: This disaster and everything else is not the fault of America or Americans. It is not Bush’s fault, it is not the Republican’s fault and it’s not the Democrat’s fault. Call it an Act of God or explain it by physics and hydraulics because either way it occurred this time and it WILL happen again.

Fact: Americans are lucky in that they have more than most everyone else.

Fact: You are not going to sell your possessions (house, cars, computers and all of the other fixtures of a comfortable life) and donate the money to the relief effort.

Fact: You have not missed a meal during the past week and then donated the money to the Red Cross or Red Crescent.

Fact: You have not returned your unnecessary Christmas presents and used the refund to fund the relief effort.

Fact: You are not going to get on a plane and travel to the area because you do not want to smell the thousands of rotting bodies.

Fact: You are going to be angry with my comments because they are like the bloated bodies in Sri Lanka, India, and Indonesia; unsightly, putrid and undeniable.

Posted by: Chris | Jan 1, 2005 7:34:53 AM

Posted by: S. Weasel

And Americans have spent over $100 million going to see "Meet the Fockers." How much do you think that has impacted charitable giving? My guess: the two have sweet eff-all to do with each other.

We indulge in very little government pomp in America. The rituals we do observe are probably worth what we spend, for the sake of preserving some sense of history and ceremony.

I'm reminded of po-faced Jimmy Carter refusing his official oil portrait. An ugly and pointless gesture.

Posted by: S. Weasel | Jan 1, 2005 8:48:57 AM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

I’m not going to comment, per se, on gaudy pomp and ceremony or the excesses or deficiencies of the current or any other administration beyond noting my general objection to big government spending public funds on the symbols and trappings of big government under any circumstances and my comparative lack of concern about private funds being spent on what amounts, at some point, to mere luxury consumption. Inasmuch as we have made the president, any president, the head of state, I might take issue with Mr. Velleman’s terming this or any other inauguration celebration as one “in the name of the president,” and I might point out that many of the expensive ticket purchasers believe themselves to be doing more than merely participating in a frivolous or gaudy party, but those are minor points.

What interests me, insofar as I can put on my disinterested analyst hat about such things, is how we deal as moral agents with massive disasters (unprecedented or not), on the one hand, and the quotidian and widespread (in the sense of both large scale and diffused) death and misery of humankind with which we are always confronted, on the other. To what extent should the enormity of these great but infrequent natural disasters be weighted in our moral calculus differently from the latter sort?

We can try to make sense of this difference in our capacities as armchair psychologists, I suppose. I believe Hume and certainly others have noted that propinquity and affiliation intensify our concerns and vice versa. But is this a rational distinction?

Two other interesting points, more problematic in terms of Mr. Velleman’s desire (which I share) to avoid as much partisan division in these sorts of things as possible, are (1) what is the morally appropriate level of contribution to alleviate such suffering (a matter of proportionality) and (2) how is that aid best effected?

Because it will more likely lead to axe grinding (mine and others) of the sort we are trying to avoid, I’ll touch only lightly on the second question. Still, one of the recurring disputes at this site is pretty much always going to be: should something be done privately or through the aegis (and in some respects coercive power) of the state? At a party last night, a friend observed that the administration probably realized belatedly that the first $35 million figure it floated for tsunami aid relief is “about what we spend in a few hours in Iraq.” Fair enough, and I did not (you will be proud of me) make the standard libertarian reply that defense spending (however misguided any of us may think this defense spending is) and humanitarian relief (however worthy we may think it is) are simply two different things. (And, yes, I know the arguments that humanitarian relief is a form of defense spending.) The point is only that we can legitimately disagree about more or less proper ways to achieve any objective, including humanitarian relief. Indeed, I note approvingly that the blog authors have linked to private humanitarian aid organizations, and I will even acknowledge that it need not always be an “either / or” situation.

I will, however, make one note about that ‘false dichotomy.’ I believe there are many Americans who have come to believe, however ‘rich’ they may be, that they have fulfilled whatever moral obligation they may feel to the problems of the world (and their country and neighborhood) simply by paying their taxes. I think this is a bad thing for two reasons. First, because involuntary taxes are not the moral equivalent of voluntary charitable contributions. Second, because the prevalent attitude that “the government should take care of it” is all too often an abdication of personal responsibility as an autonomous moral agent.

The question of proportionality – that is, to what extent we are called upon to do without any luxuries to assist those in need, is a much more perplexing matter. Yes, we can always find glaring examples of gaudy excess in the face of human suffering. But there is a real slippery slope problem here if we acknowledge at all that there is something in fact immoral about indulging in X when we could be contributing to Y, and the outraged cries that “we should be doing more” are no help. How much more? What, if anything, is the formula?

I ask this in good faith. I have no answer personally and I’m not trying to set a trap here. I would be happy to hear even from the most radical egalitarians what they think the answer is, and why.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | Jan 1, 2005 10:10:28 AM

Posted by: noah

In the heat of a moment we see how banal the discussion becomes. I submit there is is no person on the planet that would not like to help. Problem is that we all know that any aid we offer is likely to be hijacked.

Posted by: noah | Jan 1, 2005 10:19:59 AM

Posted by: JennyD

Yeah. Let's see how many of the millions of dollars actually gets to the people who need it. I can't say I have a lot of faith in institutions like, say, the Indonesian government or the UN. Or even some charities.

We're all making a big show of generosity...but who is actually going do the work of getting money to victims? Writing a check is nice, but it's not some kind of moral badge of honor. In fact, not writing a check and taking on some of the legwork is probably much more important.

Posted by: JennyD | Jan 1, 2005 12:00:03 PM

Posted by: rtr

Who said the left is slow to pursue the kind of activism that raises grades a "full" point, from "C" to "B -" with targeted empathy? Granted, SAT-ACT verbal measures are kulturally "biased" (and "diversity" would be more than accounted for on that subjective “objective” basis alone). If only it was not of a "reductio" form showing the "objective" absurdity of spending others' money for subjective pettiness but a *learned* principled application of fundamentalist “Knowledge”. “K” is for Kant and kookie and that’s good enough for the Left.

It shows that practical change is well within range on a plethora of issues, that the illusion of power (for those that took “Power” humanitarian-sociology sequences instead of “Klassical” political thought sequences) and non-power reflected by elected Party status is far from exklusionary. Korporate welfare kan be killed. Splitting the dividends between tax relief and need amelioration is not only pragmatically preferable but rhetorically sound. But then again it does not take account of the “A” grade engineering brilliance that not only associates extremist Hollywood activist factions with the general left but internationalist statements alleging stingy non-Karing moral values of the general amerikan.

“To be seen” recalls basic Machiavellian lessons. To sink or swim shows that intellectual Darwinism is alive and well, that Robert Frost analogies can work not just as commencement addresses but as after the fact inaugural frosting. Or did not stopping thinking about tomorrow take on an Alice in Wonderland never today but tomorrow form?

Look at not just the superficial “intellectual superiority” that Kolan Powel exhibits when standing next to Kofi Anonymous but also his application of Grace. It is better to be feared AND loved. The use of “juxtaposition” as the second word in a post just wont do. B-S-ing the essay questions is a well advanced art, so instead of +5 points “juxtapostion“ gets -5 points. And unfortunately use of the word “need” is -20 points. Wasn’t it Gordon Gekko who said “Need is good, need works, need clarifies...” Citing the NY Times is like citing Bill O’Reilly’s “Factor” with an obliviousness to credibility issues. Indeed, that is hard to swallow, but it emanates from a too easily refuted “Right” representatives one might find on the McNeil-Lehrer news hour, Academia, and other unfair and unbalanced leftist sources, and shows why not only this blog is necessary from a ideologically diversified culturalist separatist aspect from Academia, whatever its roots, Perspective, but a childish closing of one‘s eyes pretension to not be seen by others realization. In other words citing the NY Times is not that different from citing the belabored Socialist Worker, whether the characterization is fair or not. And it doesn’t even have a cultural clash entertainment value one could glean from watching O’Reilly interview hip hop lyricists. Sorry, but an Exodus explanation of abandonment from “mainstream” print and television media is in order.

Now before the Left is too ready to embrace Pat Buchanan as a Saint of Reason, let me explain why the conversation between left and libertarian is self-interestedly substantive, and not a “doomed“ rhetorical masturbation. The Libertarians decidedly prefer the Right. How the hell did that happen? If Divorce is emblematic of dysfunctional familial relations, I suppose one could weakly regard the left and libertarian as child support enforcement. The tsunami relief links on this site link to *Private* non-government organizations. It’s time to abandon the backward economic prognostications. You want to see some extremely substantive smacking of the Evil, “capitalist” in the worst State protectionist sense, pharmaceutical industry in 2005? Well, let’s do it. It’s high time a Lobbyist class got their @ss handed to them like Dick Grasso was punted out on his @sso. It’s here on a silver platter, ready to be served to an intellectually united assault.

Happy New Year!

Posted by: rtr | Jan 1, 2005 12:19:29 PM

Posted by: Bill

I'm going to be accompanying high school DC visitors to the inaugural events and will mention this discussion.

Posted by: Bill | Jan 1, 2005 12:37:59 PM

Posted by: Bartlett

Here's what Josh Chafetz, not a flaming liberal, says:

"IN MY RADIO INTERVIEW Wednesday night, I said that I thought the Administration was being far too stingy in its pledge of aid to South Asian countries affected by the tsunamis. I'm very glad to see that the Administration has just increased its pledge by an order of magnitude. Still, I'm baffled as to why it was done this way -- it seems to me that it would have been a much more intelligent piece of public diplomacy to offer a large sum immediately. After all, it was clear immediately that an awful lot would be needed. I can't help but think that, once again, the Bush Administration has failed to make us look good in the eyes of the world, not because it didn't want to do something, but simply because it didn't present its actions in an intelligent way. And while I heartily applaud it for deciding to substantially increase its aid package, I wish it would think a bit more about presentation in the future."

Posted by: Bartlett | Jan 1, 2005 12:38:20 PM

Posted by: Sinister One

There will always be a struggles between the haves and the have-nots, and, for certain reasons, between the haves and the haves and the have-nots and the have-nots. We, as citizens of the United States who haunt blogs, are decidedly all haves. We are arguing with eachother about how we, as haves, can do right by the have-nots and our own consciences. Thus, DA, I don't think that we will ever achieve useful formulae that will satisfy everyone, nor even a strict egalitarian. The have-nots, particularly those who have recently been demoted even further down the scale to victims of true tragedy, have far too little for us to realistically help. Also, we have far too much for our sense of social intertia to ever be reconciled with our social conscience. What I think is the useful aspect of Professor Velleman's post as well as this discussion on the whole is that the recent disaster has given a good reason to be conscientious, each of us from the President down to bloggers. To answer Velleman, I don't think the groundswell has to be enormous opposition to the big party, though that would be entertaining and, likely, ineffective, but to fiscal irresponsibility on the whole, from Christmas presents and gas guzzling to tax cuts and campaign excess. Left and right need not, and I assert ought not, continue to pour money and resources into superfluous movies, indulgent vacations, and quagmire wars. Left and right have been guilty of these sins and we, as haves, could keep arguing with eachother about it or own up to our bullshit. I, for one, am owning up. But I would expect our leaders, whether they are Bush OR Kerry OR Clinton OR Nader OR Sharpton OR Hussein OR the Queen of England, to do the same. That many of them likely will not demonstrates one of their chief inadequacies as our leaders, and left and right can certainly rally around pointing out and refusing to ignore or condone such faults of character. People like Bush might not scale back, but they certainly don't have to be re-elected. If we insist that we are responsible haves, then we ought not to be represented by those so dissimilar.

Posted by: Sinister One | Jan 1, 2005 12:48:41 PM

Posted by: Chris

While the evil Americans enjoy the Cat of Nine Tails across our backs the rest of the world is going swimming.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2973743

Posted by: Chris | Jan 1, 2005 1:40:33 PM

Posted by: sierra

Good grief, Chris. That story reminds me of a recent radio interview with a tourist who said she "hadn't heard anything from that town that starts with a P." [Phuket]

Posted by: sierra | Jan 1, 2005 1:57:27 PM

Post a comment