For those of you with money - DPChallenge Forums

10/26/2005 08:13:51 AM · #1

Rich world 'failing' on quake aid

Donate.

That's all.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

10/26/2005 08:52:53 AM · #2

Bad news entry to link to. What kind of Commie crap is that article?

Originally posted by article:

"It said the US, Japan, Germany and Italy had given less than their "fair share" as large economies."

"Governments meeting in Geneva... must put their hands in their pockets and pay their fair share. The public will be shocked that so many rich governments have given so little," he said.

It's a flipping DONATION. It's CHARITY. This is the moral equivalent of the homeless guy standing on the street corner asking us for money. What is a "fair" share to give them? Who are they to ask for money in such a manner?

I'm appalled that someone would say it's "fair" to give them aid. It's each country's own responsibility to take care of their own - what's next, World Welfare?

I think we have enough problems with Wilma and Katrina and homelessness and joblessness and our economy and education and literacy to worry about. I think we all "donated" quite enough to Katrina victims to appease our sense of "doing something good." Anything people do to help people halfway across the Earth should be considered BONUS not flipping REQUIRED!

M

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 08:53:09.

loz1

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

10/26/2005 09:15:34 AM · #3

Maybe the govn. could slap a ten cent tax on fuel to cover it. They have to pay for it somehow don't they?

10/26/2005 09:36:10 AM · #4

I think I'm going to be sick.

10/26/2005 09:42:23 AM · #5

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I think I'm going to be sick.

Then at least we had the same reaction. ;)

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

10/26/2005 09:52:29 AM · #6

Originally posted by mavrik:

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
I think I'm going to be sick.

Then at least we had the same reaction. ;)

Do you not realize that world leaders of the UN have agreed to develop a pot of 1 billion dollars for emergencies such as this one and that it isn't even 20% filled yet despite their commitment and agreement to it?

Also, if you donate to appease your sense of 'doing something good' then you've got problems. How about donating to prevent the loss of 50,000 more lives before the homeless freeze to death in Pakistan? I don't care what you do or don't donate but I do care about the comments you made below that may affect other people's urge to do something.

That's fine, if you believe Americans have 'enough problems' and don't have money to donate then don't do so...but the difference in media coverage and relief efforts that I find between the Katrina deal (which killed 1000 or so) and this earthquake (which has killed at least 50,000) is disgusting.

It's the same attitude as I saw on CNN last week when the meteorologist proclaimed that there may be a possibility that Wilma may head east and slam into Cuba "which would be great news for Florida residents".

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

10/26/2005 09:54:10 AM · #7

Originally posted by mavrik:

I think we all "donated" quite enough to Katrina victims to appease our sense of "doing something good." M

I thought donating to charity was about providing support to those who need it, no strings attached. Not about making ourselves feel good.

I agree that charitable donation should be a personal decision - there's no set amount that one should be obliged to donate - but that doesn't mean that others can't express their opinion on our generosity (or lack of it).

10/26/2005 10:07:49 AM · #8

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

The UN is fairly worthless. I argue that we should just quit it and either start it over with some teeth or quit pretending it matters.

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Also, if you donate to appease your sense of 'doing something good' then you've got problems. How about donating to prevent the loss of 50,000 more lives before the homeless freeze to death in Pakistan?

It's not MY contention that we should donate to do good. It's my contention that calling our donation not our "fair share" makes it sound like we have something we're required to do to meet our burden. My intent with that phrase was to point out what that article is saying - not that we should donate to save lives, but that we should donate because we haven't donated enough.

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I don't care what you do or don't donate but I do care about the comments you made below that may affect other people's urge to do something.

If someone hears my argument and then decides I'm right and doesn't donate, that's somehow wrong? What happened to letting people make their own decisions? I live in America - we have a combative society. You want us to donate - tell me why without any of this "it's fair" stuff. That's bull. My "fair share" of relief to Pakistan is zero.

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

the difference in media coverage and relief efforts that I find between the Katrina deal (which killed 1000 or so) and this earthquake (which has killed at least 50,000) is disgusting.

I agree - there's almost nothing on PTV about Katrina - what the hell is wrong with them - don't they know it's a major story?? Even GEO.tv doesn't have much on it about Katrina. What in the world?!??!

Why is it our responsibility to show much news of Pakistan? Why is it their job to show much news of Katrina?

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

10/26/2005 10:18:05 AM · #9

This thread originally had nothing to do with the problem of America (in a general sense) insulating itself from understanding the rest of the world but it is quickly becoming an example of just that.

Neuferland

Google Pixel 2

10/26/2005 10:23:01 AM · #10

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

What about the homeless freezing in our own country. What about the elderly and low income families that are going to freeze (to death for some of them) this coming winter because of the high cost of heating fuel and such? What about us?

I don't give to get a sense of doing something good, I give because despite how hard my life is I know it's better than most of the world. But I give at home first, we can't be expected to take care of the rest of the world when we can't even take care of our own.

Deannda
We aren't insulating ourselves, we're trying to take care of ourselves first so we CAN take care of others

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

10/26/2005 10:39:31 AM · #11

What is not right is the bullying for donations. Everyone has their own agenda as to how they allocate money for charity and that is their right. For me, it's not to jump at every crisis and disaster as they come up but to provide steady monthly donations to use where the need is most. Reaction rather than proaction (?) actually costs more to administer and therefore less money gets to those in need.

petrakka

10/26/2005 10:39:58 AM · #12

i agree with maverick. if you can donate thats great, but if i have money and it comes between something like an urgent need for my immediate family and a disaster overseas, I'm sorry I'm givin it alll to the family. I love how the disasters get all the money when there's equally devastating things going on every day, but they don't get the press, because they happen every day.

start small.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

10/26/2005 10:46:02 AM · #13

Originally posted by petrakka:

if it comes between something like an urgent need for my immediate family and a disaster overseas, I'm sorry I'm givin it alll to the family

Me too, and I think this goes for most of us. It's simply human instinct to put your own loved ones before strangers, however altruistic you might be.

10/26/2005 10:48:18 AM · #14

I completely agree, there is crap going on every day and I never ever urge people to donate to a specific 'disaster of the week' but this one is such an exception because of the immediate lives that could be saved and also because of the sparse press coverage it's receiving.

As for North Americans (including us Canadians) insulating themselves from the world it is definitely a very real problem. I'm not talking about donations (as I agree, there is very real need 'at home') but rather about the desire to know what's going on in the world.

Rich countries in Europe and North America will exploit the poor economies on the other side of the world all they can so to accuse Oxfam of 'bullying' for donations is ludicrous.

10/26/2005 10:52:22 AM · #15

Originally posted by petrakka:

I love how the disasters get all the money when there's equally devastating things going on every day, but they don't get the press, because they happen every day.

start small.

I completely agree with this...my frustration with mavrik's attitude is that he seems only to care if it happens on American soil.

10/26/2005 10:59:23 AM · #16

No I care about what happened in Pakistan - but someone else said the right word - bullying. I think it's ridiculous to call someone out for NOT contributing.

That's like during the Katrina print donation if we'd have called out the Icelanders who didn't donate their print sales (and quite a few of them did not). If I said in the forums "so and so didn't donate their prints!" wouldn't that be wrong?! Wouldn't that get deleted or at the very least pounced on as being an asshole thing to do? That's EXACTLY what "fair share" sounds like to me.

I agree we should donate to causes - especially ones at home. Not only, but especially. Fix OUR problems too. Especially before demanding relief from us and calling us out in public.

10/26/2005 11:01:12 AM · #17

And this guy calls us a "rich government" with a trillion dollar debt! lol

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/26/2005 11:32:55 AM · #18

Mavrik, I hear what you're saying about 'bullying' but we're talking about commitments that have already been made and a government that is very very involved in the business of other countries.

Anyway, this thread is useless now as it's been dumped into "Rant". I regret linking to the communist article.

Message edited by author 2005-10-26 11:36:04.

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/26/2005 11:46:18 AM · #19

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

This thread originally had nothing to do with the problem of America (in a general sense) insulating itself from understanding the rest of the world but it is quickly becoming an example of just that.

Damn Canadians...

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/26/2005 12:34:33 PM · #20

There are several million worthy causes for donating money. Many of them rank much higher on my priority list then Pakistan. I can't give money to everyone that needs it.

10/26/2005 12:43:14 PM · #21

Originally posted by louddog:

There are several million worthy causes for donating money. Many of them rank much higher on my priority list then Pakistan. I can't give money to everyone that needs it.

It's so strange how nobody responded this way to threads that others started about Katrina, "The Tsunami", Multiple Sclerosis fundraisers, "I don't have enough money to renew my membership", "My camera is busted", etc.

There are definitely several million worthy causes...It's just strange that this one seems to be on everyone's ignore list, be it the media or the public or governments.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/26/2005 12:46:24 PM · #22

You hit the nail on the head with the tsunami though.

Do you REALLY think we'd raise the same amount of money for New Orleans next year if this happened again? Or would it be significantly less?

I honestly believe coverage wouldn't be as intense, donations wouldn't be as intense. We JUST sent money to Pakistan like last year. TONS of money. Now they want us to send billions MORE?

No no...they demand it. It's fair. ;)

M

Brent_Ward

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

10/26/2005 12:55:28 PM · #23

Originally posted by mavrik:

Doesn't half of Pakistan want to blow us up as well?

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/26/2005 12:56:06 PM · #24

Originally posted by mavrik:

Bad news entry to link to. What kind of Commie crap is that article?

Originally posted by article:
"It said the US, Japan, Germany and Italy had given less than their "fair share" as large economies."
"Governments meeting in Geneva... must put their hands in their pockets and pay their fair share. The public will be shocked that so many rich governments have given so little," he said.

It's a flipping DONATION. It's CHARITY. This is the moral equivalent of the homeless guy standing on the street corner asking us for money. What is a "fair" share to give them? Who are they to ask for money in such a manner?

I'm appalled that someone would say it's "fair" to give them aid. It's each country's own responsibility to take care of their own - what's next, World Welfare?

I think we have enough problems with Wilma and Katrina and homelessness and joblessness and our economy and education and literacy to worry about. I think we all "donated" quite enough to Katrina victims to appease our sense of "doing something good." Anything people do to help people halfway across the Earth should be considered BONUS not flipping REQUIRED!

M

Interesting (to say the least) that you would call an organization that is devoted to helping PEOPLE deal with poverty, provide relief, and end suffering, communist, just because they used the word "fair." Let's all hire lawyers to dissect why Oxfam using the phrase "fair share" is so unfair, that would certainly be very productive in helping people.

If you're so worried about world welfare then I think you should rail against corporate welfare as well, since corporations have gotten far more money and help than those unfortunate enough to be born into poverty.

Sheesh!