Wednesday, December 29, 2004

More American Stinginess


I'm thankful we are "so stingy" to so many in this world.

More importantly, with the UN coming to the rescue, we can all sit back and relax now. After all, there would never be any theft or graft in any UN program designed to help the poor and suffering.

Sorry, my sarcasm is dripping only because I'm weary of the same shameless folks worrying more about keeping score to show that the Socialist European governments give more than the US and micromanaging feel good photo ops (note the article does not mention who is generating "complaints" -- why? Because the "complaints" actually are "repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence" -- I for one, prefer a President of action, rather than "I feel your pain" words and lip biting) while our President is "biking and strolling around his ranch" while the earth's rotation is altered.

Here's another interesting proposal.

Yet another, although the $1 Billion likely to be provided by the US government is a tangible effect of prayer and reflection by our leaders.

Lastly, we cannot forget to mention a sampling of an AP hatchet job (so many to choose from, so little time) that provides the choice "so stingy" quote. Note, however, that the hatchet is in the form of how we should really be counting our "Look at me and how much I give!" beans:

Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.

Such figures were what prompted Jan Egeland – the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator and former head of the Norwegian Red Cross – to challenge the giving of rich nations.

"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really.... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become."

Setting aside the snide obnoxiousness of the elite UN's Egeland, as noted earlier, the most common reason I can think of why the US does not accept the percentage of GDP standard is that it does not account for all that the US government provides for free (e.g. GPS satellites mentioned earlier, or our military's support of relief efforts).

But more importantly, stop and think for a moment about where other money and support in the form of food, shelter and supplies not to mention the time of volunteers of professionals and others comes from in America -- churches, civic organizations and NGOs such as World Vision, etc.

All of this leaves me amazed and asking: Why are such presumably "smart" people at the UN (such as Egeland) so flat out stupid?

(The answer is left as an exercise to the reader.)