Sandra Bullock donates $1 million to Red Cross

[bsnyder]

Exactly. But, the UN sure has shown great symbolism. It's primarliy the US, the Aussies, and perhaps Singapore.

I found a great new blog that's having a field day over all the UN's symbolism.

Just a sample for you:

Well, dear friends, we're now into the tenth day of the tsunami crisis and in this battered corner of Asia, the UN is nowhere to be seen -- unless you count at meetings, in five-star hotels, and holding press conferences.

Aussies and Yanks continue to carry the overwhelming bulk of the burden, but some other fine folks also have jumped in: e.g., the New Zealanders have provided C-130 lift and an excellent and much-needed potable water distribution system; the Singaporeans have provided great helo support; the Indians have a hospital ship taking position off Sumatra. Spain and Netherlands have sent aircraft with supplies.

The UN continues to send its best product, bureaucrats. Just today the city's Embassies got a letter from the local UN representative requesting a meeting for "Ms. Margareeta Wahlstrom, United Nations Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator and the Secretary-General's Special Coordinator for Humanitarian Assistance in Tsunami-afected countries." Wow! Put that on a business card! And she must be really, really special because she has the word "coordinator" twice in her title!

The letter, in typically modest UN style, goes on to explain that "Ms. Wahlstrom's main task will be to provide leadership and support to the international relief effort. She will undertake high-level consultations with the concerned governments in order to facilitate the delivery of international assistance." Oh, and she'll be visiting from January 4-5.

Once, again, a hearty Diplomadic "WOW!" She's going to do all that in two days! The Australians and we have been feeding and otherwise helping tens-of-thousands of people stay alive for the past ten days, and still have a long, long way to go, but she's going to wrap the whole thing up in a couple of days of meetings. Thank goodness she's here to provide the poor lost Aussies and Yanks with leadership. The Diplomad bows in awe to such power and wisdom. The letter is signed, by the way, by the same UN official who suggested a couple of days back that the Australian and US air traffic controllers in Aceh should don UN blue (see our post of January 2.)

More here:

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/

 

[momof2inPA]

We are currently supplying more aid and supplies than any other country. What nation was the first to send it's military to search for surviors and deliver supplies? What nation is currently on the ground actually doing the work? I think our actions have show our substance.

I really don't see how toning down the inauguration ceremony will alleviate the issues the tsunami victims are suffering. But, if you think symbolism will lessen homelessness, disease and suffering, that's fine.

We are not supplying more aid per capita than all other countries, not even close.

Early reports put France on the ground and in the area before other Western countries.

Holding a big expensive party while a huge part of the world suffers is in extremely poor taste, but party on. Whoop it up and forget about the pain and suffering that money could help ease, if that's what you wish, George Bush. Maybe someone will bring some pretty ponies.

 

[snoopy]

Holding a big expensive party while a huge part of the world suffers is in extremely poor taste, but party on. Whoop it up and forget about the pain and suffering that money could help ease, if that's what you wish, George Bush. Maybe someone will bring some pretty ponies.

All the ladies will have to ride side saddle, what with those expensive evening digs.

(Trust me, I was at the last inauguration festivities...those ladies in Texas know how to do it up, BIG time! The thought of that on ponies has given me my laugh for the day, well timed and well needed, thanks for the laugh Mom! )

 

[phorsenuf]

Holding a big expensive party while a huge part of the world suffers is in extremely poor taste, but party on. Whoop it up and forget about the pain and suffering that money could help ease, if that's what you wish, George Bush. Maybe someone will bring some pretty ponies.

Is it really just his decision though? He could say lets call the whole thing of but what would happen with that money is anyones guess. Its not his to decide what to do with. It was budgeted for a specific reason and I would guess it would be up to the house and congress to make that decision as well. The money (which is the bulk of it I believe) is corporate contributions so it would revert back to them.

 

[snoopy]

Is it really just his decision though? He could say lets call the whole thing of but what would happen with that money is anyones guess. Its not his to decide what to do with. It was budgeted for a specific reason and I would guess it would be up to the house and congress to make that decision as well. The money (which is the bulk of it I believe) is corporate contributions so it would revert back to them.

I think you are right, phorsenuf....the idea is lovely, but I'm not sure it could actually happen. The festivities are privately funded.

 

[momof2inPA]

Is it really just his decision though? He could say lets call the whole thing of but what would happen with that money is anyones guess. Its not his to decide what to do with. It was budgeted for a specific reason and I would guess it would be up to the house and congress to make that decision as well. The money (which is the bulk of it I believe) is corporate contributions so it would revert back to them.

It's absolutely his call. He has political capital (influence), and he can spend it any way he chooses, for good or wastefully. He also has plenty of influence over his flock err I mean followers.

 

[dmadman43]

We are not supplying more aid per capita than all other countries, not even close.

Early reports put France on the ground and in the area before other Western countries.

Holding a big expensive party while a huge part of the world suffers is in extremely poor taste, but party on. Whoop it up and forget about the pain and suffering that money could help ease, if that's what you wish, George Bush. Maybe someone will bring some pretty ponies.

I'm quite sure the money will still be flowing in during the inauguration. I'm also quite sure our military will be leading the way in ensure work is actually getting done over there while the inauguration is going on.

Should we also cancel the Super Bowl? The Academy Awards? The Emmy's? I mean, shouldn't those rich celebreties be donating the money they would spend on the Oscars? Should the studios be donation the money they would spend on lobbying for Oscar votes? How many events do we cancel and for how long? Okay, we have it your way. We cancel the inaugural celebrations. Then what? What about those workers that will lose money because of it? What about the businesses that will lose money because of it. Yep, let's fire all those people set to work the inauguration. Two weeks notice is plenty, don't you think? More people on the unemployment line, I say! They'll get over it, I'm sure.

I didn't realize per capita was now the requirement. When did that happen?

Frankly, I'd much rather see us get rid of many of the social govt pet projects that would then free up more money for aid. Wouldn't you agree that would have a larger long term impact than a one time cancellation of an event that has already been paid for by private funds?

You do realize someone it taking that inaugural money home and will pump it back into the economy thousands of ways, thus likely giving people more discretionary income, perhaps to spend on charity.

 

[swilphil]

Should we also cancel the Super Bowl? The Academy Awards? The Emmy's? I mean, shouldn't those rich celebreties be donating the money they would spend on the Oscars? Should the studios be donation the money they would spend on lobbying for Oscar votes? How many events do we cancel and for how long? Okay, we have it your way. We cancel the inaugural celebrations. Then what? What about those workers that will lose money because of it? What about the businesses that will lose money because of it. Yep, let's fire all those people set to work the inauguration. Two weeks notice is plenty, don't you think? More people on the unemployment line, I say! They'll get over it, I'm sure.

Sure, cancel them all. Life will go on here without those things. Remember the inauguration is only once every four years, so I doubt there will be massive layouts if it doesn't take place. I sincerely doubt it could totally be cancelled anyway, but many of the parties surrounding it could easily be turned into casual affairs instead of black tie formals.

 

[dmadman43]

Sure, cancel them all. Life will go on here without those things. Remember the inauguration is only once every four years, so I doubt there will be massive layouts if it doesn't take place. I sincerely doubt it could totally be cancelled anyway, but many of the parties surrounding it could easily be turned into casual affairs instead of black tie formals.

I never said massive layoffs. I said there would be people put out of work. But, hey, it's not that many, right? We don't need to care about the unemployed now. Where have disaster victims to worry about.

You seriously think that symbolic gesture would make a difference to someone in Sri Lanka tyring to get a roof over their head? Seriously? I mean, think it through to it's logical conclusion. Tell me how it helps on Sri Lankan, cuz frankly I'm having serious trouble following the logic here. The money has already been donated and likely spent. Plans have already been made and people hired to work the events. What does "scaled back" mean? Cancel the food orders and take money out of those businesses hands?

And relief aid will go on with those things.

 

[Microcell]

I am pretty sure Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn left the country after Bush was elected

Is that a promise? Why didn't they take Tim Robbins with them?

 

[swilphil]

I suggested instead of having a $50 million dollar inauguration (though I think it's around $60 million) scale it back to a $10 million dollar inauguration. You can have a pretty good party for $10 million. Instead of caviar and champagne, have chicken wings and beer--or whatever. I seriously doubt very many people would lose their jobs at all because of it. Yes, it would mean some businesses won't make as much profit.

Giving $40 million to Sri Lanka isn't symbolic. It will buy food, medicine, drinking water, and shelter. How is that symbolism? Do you really even know what symbolism is?

 

[Microcell]

Is it really just his decision though? He could say lets call the whole thing of but what would happen with that money is anyones guess. Its not his to decide what to do with. It was budgeted for a specific reason and I would guess it would be up to the house and congress to make that decision as well. The money (which is the bulk of it I believe) is corporate contributions so it would revert back to them.

Exactly!

 

[ToriLammy]

From the news:

BERLIN (Reuters) - Formula One world champion Michael Schumacher is to donate $10 million (euros) to help the victims of the South Asian tsunami, his manager Willi Weber said on Tuesday.
The donation from Schumacher was announced by Weber on a German television fundraising drive that on Tuesday evening received more than 34 million euros in pledges.

"It's so unfathomable and horrible what happened to so many people," Schumacher, who turned 36 on Monday, said in comments on his Web Site. "One cannot simply blind it out. We're suffering with them."

The official death toll from the Asian tsunami on December 26 has climbed to around 150,000, with millions left homeless, hungry and threatened by disease.

Good for him. Guess US celebrities aren't the only generous ones.

 

[Charade]

I am pretty sure Alec Baldwin and Sean Penn left the country after Bush was elected

Link please.

 

[dmadman43]

I suggested instead of having a $50 million dollar inauguration (though I think it's around $60 million) scale it back to a $10 million dollar inauguration. You can have a pretty good party for $10 million. Instead of caviar and champagne, have chicken wings and beer--or whatever. I seriously doubt very many people would lose their jobs at all because of it. Yes, it would mean some businesses won't make as much profit.

Giving $40 million to Sri Lanka isn't symbolic. It will buy food, medicine, drinking water, and shelter. How is that symbolism? Do you really even know what symbolism is?

1. the money is not the President's to give or decide how it should be spent
2. the money, at the is point, has likely already been spent, so the $40MM would have to come from somewhere else, thus symbolic.


It's always easy to spend other people's money, isn't it?

 

[dmadman43]

Is it really just his decision though? He could say lets call the whole thing of but what would happen with that money is anyones guess. Its not his to decide what to do with. It was budgeted for a specific reason and I would guess it would be up to the house and congress to make that decision as well. The money (which is the bulk of it I believe) is corporate contributions so it would revert back to them.

The President cannot spend money, only Congress can. The President can only submit a budget. Congress only allocates $1 million for the event. Since no Goverment money is involved, the President can't re-allocate it to fund disaster relief. He sent the Navy to do that task. It's not getting a lot of press coverage because actually doing something benefitial is not as newsworthy as sending cash to the UN.