New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 29, 2004

America dissed, Osama in the mix, and Netflix hits, in Reason Express.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Grey Lady Calls for a 187… | Main | New at Reason →

See all 10 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|12.29.04 @ 12:54PM|#

Here's Englend's quote, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."

What does Reason Express make of a Norwegian saying that "we" in "Western Nations" should be more generous? That the United States is being picked on. Odd.

drf|12.29.04 @ 1:00PM|#

hey joe!

i think this is the genesis, or at least the next day version... http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041229-121821-3403r.htm

the discussion of the exact remarks are at the bottom. and i'd like to call to your attention that the particular newspaper definitely approaches topics such as the un from a fixed position. am looking for more sources on this story. stay tuned :)

drf|12.29.04 @ 1:13PM|#

hey joe!

more, this time from cnn (also approaches the un from a fixed position. have abandoned trying to find unfixed position vis a vis the un)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/un.tsunami/

from the article:

In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, Egeland called for a major international response -- and went so far as to call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general.

"If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of the gross national income, I think that is stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous."

The U.S. government expects to spend $15 million in its initial response to the disaster, the State Department said Monday. The United States' overall foreign aid commitment is around 0.2 percent of its gross national product.

(in comparison with other nations, i guess you could call that "stingy", but i'd say the western world's farm and textile subsidies and protectionism more stingy and more damaging. however, the implicature is quite clear that he is singling out, through his quantitative comparison, the us)

of course the free republic has a breathless account.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309187/posts

kos has the same interpretation, sort of

http://aethern.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/28/32352/410

even the canadians get involved, citing critics of "north american" stinginess...
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1104182657868_18/?hub=TopStories

|12.29.04 @ 1:40PM|#

What's being overlooked, by both Englend and the vast majority of commentators, is that the figures Englend (and, again, most others) are quoting are solely for *government provided* aide. When you factor in the millions of dollars of private charity, including the nearly 2million raised in, what, a day and a half, through purely private means, you find that generosity is far from lacking.
And when you factor in the 'in kind' donations, such as the 60% [claimed] of emergency food supply stocks provided by the US, the notion that we are somehow "stingy" with our aide is beyond laughable -- it is contemptible. And it bids fair the question "OK, so what have *you* done?"

regards,
Shirley Knott

|12.29.04 @ 1:45PM|#

Not to mention, the differences in amounts he cites are less than a rounding errorn on a single year's federal deficit in this country. The tax comment was stupid.

I'm not saying Englend's comments were entirely on the mark, Shirely, just objecting to the distorted, self-serving reaction to them. There are so many good grounds on which to bash what he said, it's annoying to see stuff made up!

drf|12.29.04 @ 1:49PM|#

"Not to mention, the differences in amounts he cites are less than a rounding errorn on a single year's federal deficit in this country"

joe - he takes the actual value and divides it by the GDP - rounding errors don't matter here.

and "There are so many good grounds on which to bash what he said, it's annoying to see stuff made up!"

exactly! it's funny how often people turn to "emotional truths" and shoot themselves in the foot when sticking to the facts suffice. i know many bush bashers who resort to making stuff up (presumably it works for the other side, too, but i don't know many conservatives who actually like bush)

you're having a busy day here :) cheers and keep it up!

drf

|12.29.04 @ 2:17PM|#

drf, I was referring to another comment in which Englend suggested that people in the West be taxed more, to provide the resources needed for the relief. But since tripling the initial amount would equal 1/1000 of this year's deficit, the issue of taxation isn't really relevant.

drf|12.29.04 @ 2:20PM|#

thanks, joe - yeah that'd be a toughie to measure.

one (of many) thing the danes are all holier than thou about is they actually follow the un ideal of giving 1% of gdp to foreign aid.

of course, if it's not public, nobody would do it there. including helping out.

and i've looked at the tax comment. you're right: there is even more to dump on him. no need to MSU (make shit up)...

cheers,
drf

|12.29.04 @ 6:27PM|#

It would be nice if somebody who works for Reason provided a link in which the English guy actually says "U.S" and "stingy" in the same sentence.

|12.30.04 @ 9:58AM|#

leo, they can't, because he doesn't. He says "the West" or "western countries" are stingy. And the world-haters can't get their mojo on if the US of A is lumped in with France and Canada.