Paul F. Heller: 'Relief disaster'
Thursday, December 30 @ 09:41:46 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Paul F. Heller, Heller Mountain

Far from here, bulldozers are ripping open the earth. The holes they make will be filled quickly with over 75,000 bodies, with more washing ashore each day. The real problems, stemming from the diseases that go along with public decomposition, are on the way.

Not far from here, the president of the United States relaxes on his comfortable perch in Texas, having offered up a total of $35 million in aid toward a region that will need a hell of a lot more money than that. The initial pledge was for just $15 million, prompting a U.N. relief official to suggest that Western countries are being "stingy". That crack ruffled the feathers of lame duck Secretary of State Colin Powell, so another $20 million (accompanied by pocket lint) was offered.


The relief official, one Jan Egeland, then claimed to have been "misinterpreted" about his stinginess comment. What he meant, he clarified, was that Western aid in general toward worldwide disaster relief has been on the downslope over the past few years. The U.N. would like to see wealthy donor nations pledging a total of .7 (zero point seven) percent of their national economies to help the less fortunate. The U.S., with $2.4 billion in overall donations in the past year, has given .2 (zero point two) percent.


While the United States is certainly under no contract to be the world's doctor (or gravedigger), it does seem that $35 million is a thin slice in response to the worst earthquake-related catastrophe in the last hundred years.


Pouting Powell, suddenly echoing John Kerry, says that help is on the way. From this American's standpoint, a lot more should be, lest we lose even more global respect - if that's possible after our ham-fisted attempts at diplomacy of late. In contrast to the current paralysis of assistance, last year, the state of Florida had received $5 billion in relief funds, five billion dollars, before their hurricane season was even halfway through. But that was during an election cycle, and in a battleground state.


Where is the money? Well, maybe there is no money. The Bush administration has been borrowing to float its budgets for three straight years now. In the Clinton era, there seemed to be no bounds to the surpluses overflowing the treasury boxes, and so the last president might have been more able (certainly more willing) to help out than the current one. But there's more to lending a helping hand than simply opening one's wallet. Where are the troops, the Army Corps of Engineers? Tied down in Iraq, that's where, revisiting decades-old mass graves while fresh ones are being dug in Southern Asia.

So humanity suffers while the president runs his chainsaw for the benefit of bored reporters. The government spends a billion dollars a week making war, yet pledges the equivalent of a half-year's salary for Congress (benefits not included) for a region that will require an unspeakable amount of aid in the immediate future. But then, this was never a president who had his priorities straight. $480 billion a year in defense spending, for instance, doesn't make a lot of sense when you're running an annual budget deficit of roughly the same amount. Something's got to give, but it won't be us.


The war on terror is consuming the American taxpayer the way cancer consumes a patient. It has reached the point where legitimate causes have come forward with hat in hand, and we have to turn them down. For those who wear their Christianity on their sleeves when it suits their political purposes, the Republican-dominated government hasn't a thread of shame left to their name. How many lives have terrorists taken in the last century? Nowhere near 60,000 - and that toll will likely double when the final horrific tally makes itself available to the world.


I'm not going to pretend that any amount of scolding will shake anything loose from an uppity simpleton like George W. Bush, whose upcoming inauguration will cost just as much as we have offered those in dire need. Obviously, some form of mental deficiency does not allow him to feel the suffering of others. He and his equally ill neoconservative ilk have long since proven that point with their relentless political manipulation of 9/11.

I have faith, though, in my fellow Americans, most of whom are willing to help out in small increments. I'm sure we'd all do more, if only we had the Clinton economy back in our hands. All we need is information, and we'll do what we can. And if we have souls, if we have souls, we'll wish our representatives in government had done more.

Link:
Reprinted from Heller Mountain:
http://www.hellermountain.com/h_122904.html

Catherine

it does seem that $35 million is a thin slice in response to the worst earthquake-related catastrophe in the last hundred years.


Catherine, It seems that you are one of those blame America first people that have no interest in looking at the facts.


America has always donated more generously than any other country on the planet....You might want to check your post it is now at 350 million dollars and will only go up. Perhaps if the U.N. had not stolen 22 BILLION (that's with a B) dollars in the oil for food scandal they might have some more money for the tsunami victims. Also, we are fighting a war on terror that the dumbocrats didn't have the courage to fight and that cost us money too. At some point people are going to have to learn to be self reliant. How many countries helped us when four major hurricanes went through Florida. That is correct.... zero.

Oh and by the way sweet pea, it was the 104th congress lead by the Republicans that balanced the budget and created the surpluses with the " Contract with America ".........Not slick willy....He only tried to take credit for it.

Like Bill O'Rielly says," No spin"

When I see the name Bill O'Reilly several things come to mind. No spin is definitely not one of those things. Do you actually watch FOX News Marine Sniper? If so, why?

Evil Poet,

I used to watch CNN until they stopped being a news org that I could trust. The most trusted name in news....yea right!!
I have watched Cnn,Abc,Nbc,Cbs,Npr, the Ny. Times and L.A. Times and countless others that are just so left leaning that it sickens me.


Take the 2004 Elections for instance .I watched both Fox News and CNN for my fair election results. CNN refused to concede that bush was ahead until Nov 3, and they had no choice......On the other hand Fox picked Nov 2, Election night for Bush.


And countless other examples Chris Mathis.......Hardball .....unless he is interviewing a Dumbocrat then he changes the name to softball.

Put it this way .....years of watching!!!!

Marine Sniper,

I see. Thanks for answering my question, much appreciated. Except for an occasional movie or documentary, I don't watch TV or listen to radio at all. I find both to be extremely annoying.

Evil Poet,

Not watching T.V. or radio is probably a good thing ...........My problem is that I like to be connected to the world.

If my unit is deployed I want to know who, what, when and why so I can motivate my boys to the real deal.

Many times we are deployed way before the media gets a whiff and we laugh as they try to decipher what the hell really happened.