« Gay Marriage ‘Rights’ | Home | In Defense of Internment »
Politicizing Tsunami Relief
By Matt Margolis | January 2, 2005
Since initial aid packages for tsunami relief were dubbed “stingy,” the politicization of tsunami relief has become even more childish and partisan. Over the past week, I’ve heard all kinds of things from people who have chosen to take a natural disaster and forge it into political ammunition against the Left’s favorite target: George W. Bush.
In various places I heard people suggest that Bush inauguration should be cancelled, and all the money donated for it ought to be sent to Asia as aid money. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing really, but Bush’s adversaries have found something else to be critical of and for them, that’s all that matters.
Why has focus been on nixing the inauguration? Is the motivation philanthropic or partisan? I would suggest the latter.
While many people felt they should bring in the New Year holding vigil for the victims, it was never suggested that big New Years celebrations across the country, particularly in Times Square in New York City, be cancelled, and have the money budgeted for those events go to tsunami relief.
John Kerry ended his failed campaign with approximately 15 million dollars left unspent. I have not heard of any of his supporters demand that he donate the money for tsunami relief. That money instead will still go to his yet-to-be-formed PAC. (On that note, does anyone really believe that if Kerry had won in November that there would be any discussion at all about cancelling his inauguration?)
Left wing groups planning to organize protests and counter-inaugural activities could devote their time, energy and money to tsunami relief.
The Democratic Party, is to be reimbursed for their expenses for funding the recounts in the Washington State gubernatorial race. Is anyone demanding they take that money and donate it?
George Soros? He could easily donate as much of his fortune for tsunami relief as he did to oust President Bush. Yet, Soros’s Open Society Insitute, described as a philanthropic organization, says nothing on its entire website about tsunami relief. I also have been unable to locate any story that reports of any donation whatsoever by billionaire George Soros for tsunami relief.
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. Criticism motivated by partisan politics is putting a big stain on this entire issue. If relief was really the issue regarding cancelling the inauguration, I wouldn’t have had to write this.
UPDATE: Donate via Amazon.com here.
UPDATE: Jeff Jarvis points to some blogs that compare the money pledge to the money being spent on the Inauguration. He makes this point:
Could we do more to help the victims of the tsunami? We could never do enough.
What’s the point of comparing all these tragedies except, each in its own way, to exploit them to make a political point?
There is one equivalency that matters: human suffering and the need to help.
UPDATE: David Limbaugh discusses this issue in his column “Exploiting A Tragedy“
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
January 2nd, 2005 at 6:25 pm
POWER-RUBES
This is too funny. Nick Coleman writes an op-ed in the Star Tribune attacking the Reich Whinge dimwits at Powerline. Predictably they get their J Crew knickers all twisted up and respond, not once, not twice, but five times in two days. What’s more hilariously funny about it is that the two rubes who write for the site are a lawyer and a banker, so you can assume they have attempted to become educated. Yet, as we all know, they’re still dullwitted Rubes who can’t spot a troll even when their triple-wide asses are slapped by one. Even funnier is the fact that all of the Reich Whinging blogosphere has blindly rushed in to swallow Mr. Coleman’s bait. Is there any doubt that all Reich Whingers really are pathetic rubes?
Congratulations to Nick Coleman for a wildly successful troll. You’ve got them all wailing with impotent rage. Huzzah!
January 2nd, 2005 at 6:49 pm
Robert - have fun tomorrow. Your high school starts up again Monday doesn’t it?
January 2nd, 2005 at 7:48 pm
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. Criticism motivated by partisan politics is putting a big stain on this entire issue.
Thanks for making it more “stained.” What a silly little man.
January 2nd, 2005 at 7:50 pm
Robert - have fun tomorrow. Your high school starts up again Monday doesn’t it?
Kahn, you have fun tomorrow, too. The playgrounds will be in full swing. Don’t forget to remove your license plate.
January 2nd, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Cancel the Inauguration??!! You’re kidding me, right? Where did this come from?
George Bush was elected President of the most powerful nation the world has ever known. This is a momentous occasion and should be celebrated as such. All the world deserves to join in the celebration.
Look, I feel as bad as the next person about the Tsunami, but I just don’t see what this all buys us now, especially since it looks a lot like Bush is just upping the ante because other countries ridiculed the initial (very generous) offer. He needs to get a little spine and stand up for principles…the US does more for countries like that on a daily basis than all other’s combined. Is it our job to save the world?
He should have left the initial offer as it stood and come back with an enumeration of all the good the US does rather than increasing the money. He could also come back with the kind of oppo info provided in this post by Matt.
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:02 pm
Dale,
I’m sorry - did you think Robert was adding something to the debate other than the same derision he was accusing conservatives of?
Come to think of it, do you ever contribute anything?
January 3rd, 2005 at 10:07 am
Thanks for making it more “stained.” What a silly little man.
Dale, if you think that, then you are missing the point of my entry. My point is certain people are taking a selfless act (giving charity) and using it as political ammunition. Some people have suggested that the Inauguration should be cancelled, but are not willing themselves to make a proportionally equivalent sacrifice, and are not suggesting other people who are in a better position to contribute to make similar sacrifices.
I think the people who suggest that the inauguration be cancelled so all the money donated to tsunami relief aren’t doing so out of concern for the victims, but because they want something else to criticize the president for.
January 3rd, 2005 at 2:31 pm
Hmm, oddly enough, all your criticism is of lefties exploiting this. Why don’t you go read Paul’s post over at Wizbang, perhaps the most absurd post ever, saying that liberals don’t care about people, because if you counted the number of posts on the tsunamis by certain conservative blogs to the number of posts on the tsunamis from a certain random number of liberal blogs, the conservatives win; hence, liberals love tsunamis. Some logic, and some politicization of this tragedy. Gee, your post itself could be seen as politicizing this tragedy. . . . but you wouldn’t do that; would you?
January 3rd, 2005 at 4:13 pm
Gee, your post itself could be seen as politicizing this tragedy. . . . but you wouldn’t do that; would you?
Look who’s talking. Donated yet?
January 3rd, 2005 at 5:35 pm
“Look who’s talking. Donated yet?”
As a matter of fact, yes. But as Jesus said: “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” - MATTHEW 6:1
In other words, the point of my donations was to help people, not to make my self look good before others.
January 3rd, 2005 at 9:26 pm
I think that I recently saw on Jeff Jarvis’ weblog that he referred to himself as a liberal… His support of liberal internationalism, with regard to the Iraq war, and with regard to his recent post on the tsunami and Iraq (which is linked to in this entry), shows his support of a left-wing, statist, utopian philosophy (which I’ve written and commented about many times before). Many liberals and Democrats supported the Iraq war, because it is consistent with their globalist, statist, and interventionist ideologies.
January 4th, 2005 at 4:40 pm
“Many liberals and Democrats supported the Iraq war, because it is consistent with their globalist, statist, and interventionist ideologies.”
So what — what’s your point?
January 7th, 2005 at 7:59 am
You know, Matt, part of the problem with Republican policies is that they’ve been cast in either-or absolutist simplicity. Either we prematurely invade Iraq or we do nothing. Either we privative Social Security or we do nothing. Your article shows the same simplistic attitude.
The truth is that we liberals ARE planning nationwide protests against Bush on January 20 AND working to help out tsunami survivors at the same time. You see, in the liberal world, we can do more than one thing at a time.
At Irregular Times, for instance, we have created a special section of tsunami-related products, and are donating 150% of our after-tax profits on the sales of these items to help the people out around the Indian Ocean. Liberals everywhere are doing things like this, and it’s extremely dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.
January 10th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
It’s the Inaugural *BALL* they want to cut back on, dimwit. You know, that BIG 40 MILLION DOLLAR PARTY. Not the Inaugural - the Inaugural BALL.