Tsunami Toll Jumps To 114,000

[dream_labyrinth]

Tsunami Toll Jumps To 114,000

They found people alive in a hotel after two days.
A 13 year old girl in India survived floating around on the water for two days, before being washed to the shore on her home island.

Among all those who died, the ones who lived are so much more of a surprise.

So much money has been promised, I hope it'll be paid also.
On a second try, Bush managed to promise more money than what he spends for his inaugration. How nice of him. His first try was about half of that sum, I have heard.

Comments

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

I'm honestly a little torn on the issue, personally. Should we help? Of course--it was a terrible disaster. But should we pay for the entire thing, seeing as it was a natural disaster?

I know it sounds callous, but the basic truth is, it's not our country, it's not our problem. I realize there are human beings with a lot of need--and we should help to ensure they receive food and medical attention. Rebuilding, unfortunately, is not something that we should be tasked with. Cold, perhaps, but it's their country and they should be responsible for at least part of the tab.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

One problem with the first theory is that Muslim countries will hate us regardless of what we do or do not. The hatred is too engrained ("Well, they may have helped rebuild some Muslim homes, but they still support Israel."). Additionally, Muslims are, despite what many people think, a very seriously divided religious group--ask any Arab Muslim about what they have donated to their Muslim brothers, and I think you'll see the realities of what it means. US image does nothing to counteract that.

From the humanitarian standpoint, just how much is enough? Should the US feed every starving person in the world? Should we provide counsellors for their psychological needs? At what point do you actually give enough? I think we should offer medical support, absolutely. Food, and other basic necessities to ensure that people do not die from malnutrition or disease. But houses, shopping malls, workplaces, hotels--this is not our problem. I don't think we should be saddled with the problems of the world simply because 'we' as Americans happen to be better off.

I hate to sound incredibly callous, but there is a degree of personal responsibility involved, and also the acceptance of risk. If my home burns to the ground taking every possesion I have, and I have no insurance--who pays for my new car so I can get to work? Who buys me back a computer and other luxuries? Who will foot the bill for me to build a new home--and you can't build it back to the original state, because building codes and needs change--so it would likely cost more. Should someone else pay the extra taxes on the house if it is appraised at a greater value than what I'd had before? What if for some reason I was laid off work at the same time--should someone get me a job with the same pay and benefits? Help can only go so far, I don't believe in blank checks--and money will never bring back their loved ones, it will not erase the damage done, and it will not put things back to 'normal'. Ever.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

I think part of the problem with governments giving money is that this money will be taken away from the purposes it was intended for.
It was paid in taxes by the people to do something within the country, not to be donated to others. People are willing to donate, but they don't like others to decide how much they donate.
In essence, the money now spend in Asia will likely lack in the budgets of the countries that donated it.
(Though that brings us back to the fact that money doesn't really exist as long as you don't go to your bank and draw the cash. It isn't as if those sums really exist anywhere. And also to the fact that those donations might very well do some good to the economy in the countries the money came from.)

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

Heh, if I ever figure out the secret to deficeit spending, I'll let you know.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

No problem. I know all about that. I live in a town that has a deficit of something like 17 million Euros. Not that it stops us from planning to build essentials like a tennis court, as I have just heard from my Mom. And this is a town with something like 1600 inhabitants, probably 2000.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

"I wouldn't advocate a blank check."

Perhaps then you could tell me what would be enough? How much money to completely satisfy the sense of moral outrage people of those who say not enough has been sent to the victims? What conditions and standards should be met before we say "The world is done with this place where so many lives were lost?" At what point can we walk away knowing that every moral obligation has been met without the slightest pang of guilt?

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

You're comparing apples and oranges. If there is no specific number or at least monetary range; and failing that you cannot provide with at least modest detail what kind of repairs should be completed and done for these people, then it really is irrelevant how much is sent.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

There is a problem with priorities, though. Sending less to emergency relief than what is used for the inauguration makes it look like the big show is more important than human life.

Of course it would be good to have some numbers to work with, like how much it costs to provide the homeless with housing (or tents - would that be "tenting" *g*) and fresh water and food and medication. But at this point in time we don't even know how many people are affected. The death toll still rises and there is still the danger of new tidal waves. The money that is sent does not only have a monetary value, but it lso shows that people do care.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

As I believe Bush noted, the $35 million is just the beginning. At this point, we still don't have firm numbers on casualties, let alone costs. These things simply take time.

And you may want to note, too, that Bill Gates is worth some $46 billion dollars. He could send a couple billion and never notice it gone. Simply because you have money does not mean you are obligated to spend it.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

Of course, nobody is obligated to do anything. A country would have a political interest in the stability of other regions more than Bill Gates might, though.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

Not to be blunt, but most people couldn't hope to find Sri Lanka on a map, even if they knew which hemisphere it was in. None of the affected countries are so politically important that they warrant any US concern. The people are poor so they are not economically important. They are not strategically important. They are not close enough to the US to be any kind of immigration threat.

As callous as it sounds, these people are not significant in the national role of things. It is only through human feelings that they have any worth whatsoever. But a nation does not run on feeling, it runs on the bottom line, on business. How many business would want to invest in an area as unstable as this one?

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

I don't thnk Indonesia or Thailand is all that unimportant. I can't really back that up with facts right now, though, so maybe it's just a feeling and wrong at that.
Which place is strategically important seems hard to say these days. It isn't as if the enemy is just east of the Iron Curtain like they used to be.
And the instability of the region does not seem to be a hindrance to the companies investing in Iraq. That region is much more unstable, as it is due to political reasons, not natural ones (which might turn into political reasons if nothing is done to improve the situation).

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

Iraq is a very strategic location for us, it is close to both oil and Israel. Having a second allied state besides Israel would be of tremendous important in the middle east. What resources does the US receive from Indonesia and Thailand?

Cheap labor. And if the people there remain poor and needy, the labor only gets cheaper. Sad, but a fact of life about capitalism is that for you to succeed, someone else is required to fail.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

Though if the people are sick and starving and quite upset about not receiving any help, they might not be very willing to work for anybody.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the Americans or any other nation should pay for he complete rebuilding.
Though mean as it may sound, as there aren't really any Indonesian or Sri Lankan (or any other affected country's) companies to employ for rebuilding, the money other countries pay might very well be used for contracts with companies in those countries.
Right now though, the money that has been donated by individuals and by countries - as far as I can see - will be used for emergency relief. And if you'd have all those people starving and getting ugly diseases from bad water and whatnot, you might have them at oyur doorstep sooner than you want, so that could be another incentive to pay to keep them away, so to speak.

[altonwings.livejournal.com]

That's all anyone can reasonably ask for--emergency relief. We still have people who are homeless after the multitude of hurricanes in Florida this year. At the risk of sounding selfish, why should we extend more help to a foreign contry than we provide for our own citizens?

I agree that it was a terrible, horrible thing to happen. Ultimately, however, we can only offer some aid while they get some plans in place for what they will do, and life goes on. It would be different if it was at the very least a colony of the US, but part of the risk of being your own private country means shoulding the burden when something bad happens.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

A lot of the help does and will come from private onors. I think that is the better way, they can decide how much they can and want to give. (Incidentally, that's true for victims of the hurricanes in Floria, too. My brother and me plan to help our snowbird friends repair the roof of their Florida home.)

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

Yes, somewhat. I think that is the whole idea behind any humanitarian help. It isn't as if most politicians are really struck by the religiously or otherwise induced wish to help people.

[jonthedull.livejournal.com]

I'm sure some how Bush will subcontract the releif work to Haliburton. Either that or all his rich friends will have their companied buy up all the destroyed land and buildings for pennies on the dollar, fix them, then sell them back at a cost that the original pepople living there won't be able to afford.

[dream-labyrinth.livejournal.com]

Wel, as mean as it sounds, Haliburton is not just the management, there are people working for the company who will profit from the contracts as well. ;-)
Though you're right, of course. The way those contracts are given is a shame.