On Dec 30, 2004, at 10:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patricia in Wales) wrote:
I can't believe that the greatest natural disaster to have hit the earth in
"modern" times, at least, is not deemed worthy of much coverage by your media.
Oh, it's covered, it's covered... Gory sights sell well...
I try to bury at least part of my head in the sand, and I'm still aware of it. Of today's NYTimes A (front/news) section, most was devoted to it. Including the fact that, currently, the most pressing need/most requested item is not food or even fresh water, but body bags (that's enough to bury the rest of my head as deeply in the sand as I can)
While the British government has donated 15 million GBP immediately, with more to come, I think, the British people have also donated 5 million GBP by lunchtime today and that sum will continue to rise. I assume the same is happening in many other countries. But, presumably, not in yours because its not newsworthy enough.
Here too, there's been an overwhelming response both from the government and from individuals/corporations. Though, as the NYTimes pointed out, in dribs and drabs over the past couple of days...
US's original commitment was $15 mil; only after being accused of stinginess by UN, did US up it to the 35 mil that Alice mentioned. Which, if anyone is interested in comparisons, is the same amount that has been designated for the celebration of the Preseidential Inauguration in January. "Obscene" doesn't begin to describe it, IMO.
The accusation of stinginess was not based on net number of dollars contributed - US has always been and still is one of the biggest if not the biggest relief aid contributor - but on the proportion of the gross national income. Which, in the case of US, is *a quarter of a single percent*; people shaky in "matters mathematical" (like myself), seeing .25, often think it's quarter of the whole pie. Not so.
Other countries contribute between 2 and 10% (I suppose Catholics still tithe <g>)
The adjusted amount "35 mil for starters" included private donations - the more I give, to independent institutions like Doctors W/O Borders or Unicef (DH asked who I gave to and decided to give twice as much to two others - Mercy Corps and Care; he doesn't like to be skirt-led <g>) the less the government will feel constrained to give.
The "35mil for starters" (or, in the case of UK's "with more to come") term is misleading in the extreme. Ask Iran (who had a devastating earthquake almost exactly a year ago), and you'll find out that there was a lot of "political promising" going on. The money that was given right away (like what we - all the little ants - are giving now) helped them survive. But they're still surviving in plastic tents because the promised "after starters" money never materialised. Individuals tear their hearts out in one heroic gesture and have nothing left to give a year later. The governments promise the moon, deliver the cheese, and hope nobody will notice/remember a few months later...
Vicki wrote:
the missing warning system which might have saved many
was not in place due to an estimated cost of $27 million. What a pity that the
donations which are forthcoming after the disaster far in excess of this
amount couldn't have been made available earlier to save many lives.
Sense of irony (or, indeed, sense of humour) is not a most notable characteristic of the present administration (or, indeed, Republicans as a whole; I know only two who see beyond the "cream cake in the face, slip on a banana peel" kind of joke). Of course, there were "mitigating cirrcumstances"... Some warnings (of earthquake, not the follow-up tsunami which, apparently, nobody had foreseen) - received from the *Pacific* sensors - had been sent out. To the US military bases. Reaching anyone else in position of responsibility proved to be in the "difficult-to-impossible" range, due to the remoteness, time of the year, time of the week...
The current disaster may not end up being the worst in respect of lives lost *immediately* (millions are without shelter, or food, or water, even if burying the dead immediately is not as much of a priority as many of us think), but it certainly is the most scattered one, involving the most countries - not only those which were hit directly, but those whose citizens were vacationing there (my stepson #1 couldn't afford to go deep-sea diving in SE Asia this year, and came here instead, with underwater photos taken during his last trip. I fed him Polish - fat and starchy - and it'll be a long time before he can go diving anywhere <g>). Part of the "global appeal" of this disaster is - as Yvonne subtly suggested (without saying outright) - that so many people from the West - with their digital cameras, and their cell-phones, and their laptops - were involved in it. Otherwise, it would have been just numbers; inexact ones, at that...
Oh, if anyone's in a need of "cheering up"... The next disaster may get a bigger coverage and, possibly, less outpouring of international goodwill than this one, if it happens sooner than we think...:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami.shtml
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Gee- Gees%20(revised).txt
--
Tamara P Duvall http://t-n-lace.net/
Lexington, Virginia, USA (Formerly of Warsaw, Poland)
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
