In the New York Post, John Poderetz writes that "opinion leaders" are using the tsunami disaster as "little more than cheap debate fodder about the nature and character of the United States, its president and its citizens."

 

I haven't seen any criticism of the character of the citizens of the United States, who by all accounts are responding generously. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any criticism of the nation of the United States, although I'm sure there's some of that floating around somewhere, because there always is. 

 

All of the criticism I have seen has been aimed squarely at President Bush. Mr. Poderetz should keep that straight.   

 

The righties have their panties in a twist because some of us had the nerve to criticize Bush's reaction to the tsunami disaster. But we are criticizing Bush because he is behaving badly. Were he to behave well, we would not criticize him.

 

Seems simple enough to me.

 

On the other side of the blogosphere the righties are tripping all over themselves making excuses for the Preznit. I mean, we liberated Iraq and all (aside: as if), and nobody gives us credit for that, huh? And the UN is corrupt, and Kofi Annan is a poopy head. You get the picture.

 

The Los Angeles Times points out that yesterday's pledge of $350 million "marked the fourth consecutive day in which the Bush administration has widened its response to the Asian catastrophe amid criticism that the U.S. reacted to the burgeoning humanitarian crisis with too little and too late."

 

This matters. As Kos wrote, "While better late than never, we lost a golden opportunity to score a huge PR victory in the world stage, and, with the largest muslim nation in the world (Indonesia)."

The New York Times noticed that Bush didn't show up for his customary New Year's Eve visit with reporters at the Crawford coffee shop.

The most recent news story I've seen says the tsunami killed 123,171 people in 11 countries in southern Asia and East Africa, but of course the real number will never be known. Massive relief efforts are underway, but it seems some areas are still hard to reach.

 

|

 

Wednesday's appearance by the president was his first since the tsunami struck Sunday. Bush spoke out a day after a White House spokesman deflected repeated questions about why the vacationing president, devoting much of his time to bicycling and clearing brush, had not been more assertive in the wake of such a massive tragedy.

Allies and critics of Bush said Wednesday that the administration had bungled its response to the tragedy, missing a chance to display good will at a time that the United States is facing opposition abroad to the war in Iraq. Much of that opposition comes from the Muslim world, and several of the countries affected by the tsunami have large Muslim populations.

"This was a golden opportunity for President Bush to speak to the victims of the tsunami and the Muslim world by showing care and compassion," said David Phillips, a former senior adviser to the State Department under Bush and President Clinton and now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Instead the U.S. is on the defensive, trying to explain its approach."

Bush is an MBA, so he knows very well the difference between absolute numbers and per capita ones. Let's see, Australia offered US $27 million in aid for victims of the tsunami. Australia's population is about 20 million. Its gross domestic product is about $500 billion per year. Surely anyone can see that Australia's $27 million is far more per person than Bush's $35 million. Australia's works out to $1.35 per person. The US contribution as it now stands is about 9 cents per person.

... critics noted that the U.S. aid so far is about the equivalent of what the United States spends in seven hours for its military operations in Iraq. "We spend $35 million before breakfast every day in Iraq," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The usual U.S. contribution during major disasters is 25 to 33 percent of total international aid, according to J. Brian Atwood, a former USAID administrator. So far, the U.S. contribution is 13 percent of the $270 million in international aid that has been pledged, the United Nations said Wednesday.

Spain has pledged $68 million, almost twice what the United States has contributed so far. Japan has pledged $30 million, Britain $29 million, Australia $27.6 million, Germany $27 million, France $20.5 million and Denmark $15.5 million, the United Nations reported.

Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.

As the death toll surpassed 50,000 with no sign of abating, the U.S. Agency for International Development added $20 million to an earlier pledge of $15 million to provide relief, and the Pentagon dispatched an aircraft carrier and other military assets to the region. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in morning television appearances, chafed at a top U.N. aid official's comment on Monday that wealthy countries were being stingy with aid. "The United States is not stingy," Powell said on CNN.

Although U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland yesterday withdrew his earlier comment, domestic criticism of Bush continued to rise. Skeptics said the initial aid sums -- as well as Bush's decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy -- showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia. [emphasis added]

Having been clued in that he's supposed to at least pretend he cares, His Majesty has ordered ses courtiers to orchestrate some caring-type activities.

After a day of repeated inquiries from reporters about his public absence, Bush late yesterday afternoon announced plans to hold a National Security Council meeting by teleconference to discuss several issues, including the tsunami, followed by a short public statement.

But if you keep reading, it becomes clear that what really bit his royal butt is the fact that our most recent actual President, Bill Clinton, talked about the tsunami disaster during a BBC interview and had the nerve to offer an opinion about it -- apparently, that it was real awful -- while His Brattiness in Texas was blowing it off. And the the Court of Bush II was royally pissed.

Many Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy. "Actions speak louder than words," a top Bush aide said, describing the president's view of his appropriate role.

(Actions like pledging, initially, a paltry $15 billion million while the celebration the Boy King is planning for himself will cost more than twice that? What "action" does he plan to take, other than offering money and words? Is he going to go to Asia himself and actually, dare I say it, soil the royal hands by getting involved? Of course not. If actions speak louder than words, The Brat has been awfully quiet.)  

 

In other words, there was a leadership void, and by offering a comment on the disaster Bill Clinton couldn't help but step into it. So now The Brat is pissed, and now he's going to start going through the motions of being an actual leader.

 

This, of course, is just part of a pattern. After September 11 The Brat had to hide out on Air Force One for several hours before he could pull himself together (or sober up?) and act like a president.  More than a year ago he had to be coaxed into addressing the nation after a particularly bloody day in Iraq (not as bloody as the days have been since, of course). And do you remember The Blackout of August 2003? I wrote at the time

It took him four hours to bring himself to speak to the nation after the Blackout began, and then he could do so only on tape. (Drunk or stupid? We report -- you decide.) After this week's bombing that killed at least 20 UN workers, Bush's keepers managed to get him off the golf course, into a suit and tie, and in front of cameras a bit faster. The keepers are learning, it seems.

Of course, he would have been a lot quicker if he'd been able to wear a quasi-military costume and prance around in front of a few thousand screaming groupies.

 

Anyway, it wasn't just peasants grumbling. Says the WaPo article --

Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

There was an international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. "It's kind of freaky," a senior career official said.

"It's kind of freaky" -- pretty much the entire history of King George II.

Gelb said what appears to be a grudging increase in effort sends the wrong message, at a time when dollar totals matter less than a clear statement about U.S. intentions. Noting that the disaster occurred at a time when large numbers of people in many nations -- especially Muslim ones such as Indonesia -- object to U.S. policies in Iraq, he said Bush was missing an opportunity to demonstrate American benevolence.

"People do watch and see what we do," he said. "Here's an opportunity to remind people of the good we do, and he [Bush] can do it without changing his policy on Iraq or terrorism."

Yes, obviously, and the fact that Bush didn't immediately realize that is proof, once again, that he doesn't give a shit about anything but himself. Finally,

Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.

Interesting.

 

Another Update: Quoting Juan Cole (emphasis added):

 

As John F. Harris and Robin Wright of the Washington Post cannily note, US President George W. Bush has missed an important opportunity to reach out to the Muslims of Indonesia. The Bush administration at first pledged a paltry $15 million, a mysteriously chintzy response to what was obviously an enormous calamity. Bush himself remained on vacation, and now has reluctantly agreed to a meeting of the National Security Council by video conference. If Bush were a statesman, he would have flown to Jakarta and announced his solidarity with the Muslims of Indonesia (which has suffered at least 40,000 dead and rising).

Indeed, the worst-hit area of Indonesia is Aceh, the center of a Muslim separatist movement, and a gesture to Aceh from the US at this moment might have meant a lot in US-Muslim public relations. Bin Laden and Zawahiri sniffed around Aceh in hopes of recruiting operatives there, being experts in fishing in troubled waters. Doesn't the US want to outflank al-Qaeda? As it is, the president of the United States is invisible and on vacation (unlike several European heads of state), and could think of nothing better to do than announce a paltry pledge. As Harris and Wright rightly say, the rest of the world treated the US much better than this after September 11.

Is this president interested only in killing people, but can’t be bothered when given the chance to help save them?  His morally callous parsimony in the face of this, the greatest natural disaster in modern history, seems determined to give the rest of that world exactly that impression.  George W. Bush shames our nation with large talk and small deeds; with his want of character and smallness of spirit.  To help, go here.

Many hard-to-measure factors may have contributed to the drop, such as more effective use of birth control or an upsurge of Mississippi women getting abortions in other states. But activists on both sides believe the strict laws and community pressure have had a significant impact, along with the efforts by anti-abortion groups to publicize the checkered legal backgrounds of some abortion providers.

Though many states have laws restricting abortion, Mississippi has striven to lead the pack. For example, it recently enacted the nation's most sweeping "conscience clause," allowing any health-care provider to refuse to provide any abortion-related service, including emergency referrals.

Mississippi is one of only two states, along with North Dakota, requiring consent of both parents before a minor can get an abortion. It is one of two states, along with Texas, requiring that women seeking abortions be told, in contradiction of National Cancer Institute findings, that abortion might increase their risk of breast cancer. [Associated Press]

In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Workshop participants reviewed existing population-based, clinical, and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings, titled Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report .

 

Anti-choice activists have been so successful in Mississippi that the executive director of Pro-Life Mississippi says she's no longer working to change state abortion laws. All the legislation she wanted has been enacted. Now the anti-choicers are targeting the remaining clinic, in Jackson, by asserting that one of the three doctors working there has vision problems.

 

Here's another accomplishment: According to the Children's Defense Fund, 27 percent of the children of Mississippi live in poverty. This is the highest child poverty rate of all the 50 states. I take it the Mississippi state legislature hasn't had time to get to this problem yet. 

 

Although fewer abortions are performed in Mississippi, it is not necessarily true that the women of Mississippi are getting fewer abortions.

"Some Mississippi women drive across the state line to get abortions, but the poorest of the poor are either having the kids or getting a back-alley abortion," said Larry Rodick, who heads Planned Parenthood's Alabama office. "Some of those women probably end up getting sick and dying, though we'll never know because they don't put it on the death certificate." [AP, ibid.]

On the other hand, according to Alan Guttmacher (see Table 2), Mississippi leads the nation in the rate of babies born to teenagers, age 15-19. Number one! From this I infer that the abortion clinic picketers have been successful in intimidating lots of unmarried 15-year-olds to carry their pregnancies to term.

 

(The evil, liberal, un-American Massachusetts, home of the lowest divorce rates in the nation, is way down the ranking list of teen birth rates, at number 47, followed by Vermont and North Dakota at 48 and 49. New Hampshire was number 50.) 

 

Remarkable state, Mississippi. It stands as a shining beacon of regression, showing us where the values voters want to take us. However, I'd prefer to go somewhere else, thanks. 

 

Update: Liberal Oasis post, highly recommended. 

 

|

 

President Bush exchanged gifts with his family at Camp David yesterday, posed for photographs with Marines, and issued a Christmas day radio address urging Americans to care for the sick, the elderly and the poor. ...

 

"Many of our fellow Americans still suffer from the effects of illness or poverty, others fight cruel addictions, or cope with division in their families, or grieve the loss of a loved one," he said in his weekly radio address.

"Christmastime reminds each of us that we have a duty to our fellow citizens, that we are called to love our neighbor just as we would like to be loved ourselves," he added. "By volunteering our time and talents where they are needed most, we help heal the sick, comfort those who suffer, and bring hope to those who despair, one heart and one soul at a time." [Washington Post]

Translation: You people are on your own.

Now, I could follow up this quote with links to no end of articles on how wages are going down and the cost of health care is going up; on the increasing numbers of Americans without health insurance; on the destruction of Social Security; on the tax burden Bush is dumping on young people; etc.

The rightie philosophy of government seems to be that government is bad and wasteful, so people should not look to government for help, and instead look to the private sector or charity.

To which I ask, why is there government at all?

The Bushies think that government exists to protect the wealth and power of the wealthy and powerful. The rest of us are just pawns to be manipulated to that end.

When Bush cronies -- Big Pharma, Big Oil, cattle barons, whatever -- want something from government, they get it next day. The rest of us get lectures about self-reliance.

So, I ask again, why is there government? I guess it depends on the form of government. For example, a monarchy exists to secure the wealth and power of the monarch, right?

In the case of a democratic republic, here's a clue --

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This seems to say that our government was established to benefit We, the People. It is a means by which We, the People enact policies to provide ourselves with economic and social stability. Having economic and social stability means that we can earn a living, save money, be secure in our homes, enjoy the benefits of infrastructure (bridges, electricity, postal services, etc.) , etc. etc. 

We Americans are so used to stability that we think it's a given, like air. But in fact, the stability we enjoy was created by the hard work of our ancestors and the (mostly wise) policies and programs they established by means of government. 

Most of the domestic policies and programs the righties oppose --from workplace safety regulations, food and drug regulations, anti-trust laws, Social Security and Medicare, public schools, etc. -- were created not out of some sense of "do-goodism" but in response to situations that were causing instability. It benefits all of us to live in a literate and vaccinated society, to be able to buy food and medications that are (nearly always) safe to consume, that savings accounts are insured, and that the value of our money is reasonabily constant, just for a few examples. 

The Bush Administration is all about taking risk. It's about creating a riskier, less stabilized society on the chance that at least some of us will strike it rich. What happens to those who don't ... well, we don't want to think about that. 

If you want to know where the Bushies are leading us, read this article by Condi's smarter sister cousin, Constance Rice:

In Brazil's favelas, murder is the leading cause of death for 10-year-olds. In these urban hyper-barrios, police patrol in helicopter gunships. Any delusion of crime prevention gave way to containment and suppression long ago. At night, black children hide from both rogue cops and gang members; the rich venture from their fortress homes nearby only in armored vehicles or private planes. In the midst of Rio de Janeiro's splendor, favelas are at a tipping point — on the way to joining Mogadishu as wholly failed "feral" cities, engulfed by gangs, black markets, rapacious crime and dysfunction.   

It's a fine thing to volunteer to help the sick and poor, but I'd rather live in a country where everyone has access to health care and the poor can find jobs that pay a living wage. And if Bush's destablizing policies are allowed to go forward, the day will come when we'll have more sick and poor than we have volunteers.