Cynical? Vouz? Perish the thought.

Realistic, now that I'd agree with.

The point is, will they raise more money by performing, or giving? If they truly care about something other than their careers, they'll do both. Some have, thereby shaking my faith in the shallowness of the entertainment world. But only a very, very few.

I won't criticise even the hypocrites who are there just to boost their flagging image though. If the money comes, it's all good.

You and your Republican pals screamed bloody murder when the generosity of wealthy nations as a class was called into question by a UN official (never mind that the United States has since increased its contribution ten-fold, all but proving that the criticism was valid as to the U.S.'s announced initial contribution). Now you think its acceptable to question the generosity of those who would donate their valuable talents to raise funds. Clearly, your bad mood has not dissipated since election day. Just as plainly, you also have an agenda which does not have the well-being of the victims as its focus.

"You and your Republican pals..."

Really, rd? Show me where I said anything of the sort.

rdelephant, Tell me how is it the US is constantly berated, told they're not the World's Policemen by the same people now screaming bloody murder because the World's Policemen didn't answer the 911 on the first ring?

Maybe the rest of the world measures charity in terms of government dollars - in the US it is largely a voluntary affair performed by individuals - and it dwarfs anything the impoverished nations of Europe can scrape up.

While we're at it, would you like to guess how much it costs to operate the USS Lincoln battle group and the USS Bonhomme Richard for an hour? How about 30 Seahawk helicopters for a 12-hour day (+crew)? Where is the French aircraft carrier? The Russian? The Chinese? No, it's a given that we're there - but it's never enough, we have to listen to Eurosnots sniff sniff the pettiness of the contributions from their lofty UN perches. Where are the UN troops? Skiing with Kofi Annan? Down at Delmonico's having a NY strip?

I would say anyone who's using this disaster as a springboard for their partisan whining has "an agenda which does not have the well-being of the victims as its focus." That would include you.

Open your wallets and close your mouths, folks. This is what we do best.

rdelephant: You're playing the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" game. If we hadn't given anything more, you'd be the one screaming bloody murder. Now that we (or rather, our government) has given more, you take that as an implicit admission of guilt. Fine. If we're guilty either way, let's prove them right. Let's be stingy. Give us our money back and screw you.

Hey, here's an additional cynical thought. Phuket has some of the best beaches in the world. The celebrities know this area. It has extra special meaning to them.

But, I don't really think that is it. I think that we all get swept up in this feeling that we have to do something. I don't just question the celebrities, I question all of us. The mass outpouring of support, as everyone tries to outdo everyone else by demonstrating how sincerely we CARE and want to help. And, we don't just say it. We put our money where our mouths are.

A few people do question, but are quickly criticized for their lack of feeling.

But, what is the reality? The reality is that there are people suffering the world over. There is currently more money being donated to Tsunami-effected areas than the infrastructure for aid can support. NPR this morning ran a piece about charities asking people to donate to their general funds because they already have enough to cover their relief operations, but are suffering in other areas. Case in point, Doctors Without Borders (http://www.doctorswithoutborders-usa.org/donate/index.cfm?msource=AZD0408H1001) has a plea to donate to their general fund.

The same happened in Florida after the hurricanes. 30% of the money donated to help the Florida hurricane victims has not been spent. FEMA is now giving out money that is being used for things unrelated to the hurricanes themseles.

Celebrities holding telethons is an obvious manifestation of our mass physchosis. Speaking of which, these grand events rarely end up transferring much actual aid to the needy.

I don't mean to say that people shouldn't be giving. It does say something about human nature that people are so touched that they want to give. But, if we really want to stop suffering, then how about intervening in Darfur where "never again" is being proven a lie once more? Where is the celebrity outpouring for the denizens of North Korea, whose existance brings new meaning to the term Orwellian? For that matter, where was the outpouring for the people of Iraq--and where is the support for their current plight, and wishes that their experiment in freedom and representative government goes well? We are very selective in what brings forth our collective sympathies. Perhaps we enjoy the collective nature of efforts in which everyone is giving. . . But, my advice is to select those charities that you support and give to their general funds. If you trust the charity, trust them to spread the money wisely.

(never mind that the United States has since increased its contribution ten-fold, all but proving that the criticism was valid as to the U.S.'s announced initial contribution).

So I assume you have not yet figured out what that initial contribution was about and you have not yet realized that Bush and Co. were very busy jumping into action, organizing a core group, assessing the potential extent of the tragedy, authorizing the Pentagon, approving USAID relief, arranging for coordination with the affected countries, identifying military launch points... etc.. etc...

Instead, you're stuck on Bush's initial announcement of contribution was not adequate, and you still don't understand what was involved in his actual initial contribution.

Must be miserble to be so negative all the time rde.

You guys are too much. A Republican administration can apparently do no wrong with you. I am sure that if we were still giving only $35 billion you would all still be making the same arguments. I am glad that the Administration woke up and realized the extent of the crisis, but the initial response was wholly inadequate. You can put lipstick on a pig ....

rde, your own words contradict you. You admit that it was an INITIAL allocation. You know that will expose your argument as without basis, so you then attack us personally. This in itself is another indicator that you have no leg to stand on, and you know it.

Or, to put it from a different direction: You're a piece of work, too, in that the Republican Party can do no right. See my comment above, if you care.

Gus, Gus, Gus. Did you not read the part where I said that I was glad that the Administration woke up and realized the extent of the crisis ??? Is that a criticism ? No, it is not. And if you think I would have criticized Bush for giving too much had he offered the 350 billion (or even 500 billion) right out of the box, then you are sadly mistaken. You, on the other hand, cannot seem to admit that Bush lowballed our contribution initially and only came through with a reasonable amount AFTER the criticism from that hated U.N. official.

As I said, you can dress it up all you want, it was not one of Bush's finest moments. All's well that ends well, but do try to get over your reflexive defense of the indefensible.

rde: It isn't that the Administration woke up and realized. Nobody knew. There was nothing to wake up from. The initial pledge was based on the information available at the time. That it would get worse was a given, but there was no point in over-committing until more info came in. You, on the other hand, accept it as an implicit admission of guilt that the US ponied up after the idiot Egelund made his stupid remarks. Why can't you admit at least that much?

Oh yeah, right. The Bush administration was right, only it turned out they were wrong (gee, where have I heard that before). The UN official's remarks were idiotic, only they proved "prophetic" within about 48 hours. Once again you prove my point.

No, you're proving mine, going all the way back to your very first comment on this thread. Guilty, guilty, guilty no matter what. Of course, this won't stop you.

In the meantime, you blur the line between "mistaken" and "unsure" in order to spin my words into something I didn't say. And you can't admit your presumption of guilt, or that Michele never said what you accuse her of, or that you're putting words into my mouth. Face it, you've exposed yourself once again.

Not that I really wanted to comment on this thread, but since this one has garnered more than one comment, I might as well put it here.

I've about had it for expressing myself on CP. For calling our Turncoat Marine (Mahmoud) on his blatant use of the tenents of his supposed faith, my comments get deleted, by none other than the Poster, Michele. So be it. rdelephant and his kind can use the fine line of criticism, even to the point of calling the President a Liar at every opportunity, but I call a lyin' coward a lyin' coward, and my comments are deleted.

You run a nice shop here, Michele. Too bad it's all just window-dressing.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: