OT - The Greatest Disaster the World Has Ever Known.

~~~~And I'll disagree with both of you, although I respect and care
about
you both. There are many, many worthwhile charities, religious based
and secular who are coming to the aid of the people in Indonesia. I
have not heard of one charity who is even considering the religion of
the victim when dispensing aid.~~~~
What? ---Kathy, no one said otherwise.

~~~~Arondelle, exercising her right to disagree, decides that VJ is
wrong, and not so subtly talks about how it is prejudiced (or racist,
I can't remember) to not give money to Islamic charities~~~

What? No she didn't. If you're going to write a lengthy argument, you
need to research it better so you report the facts.

~~~~Arondelle, exercising her right to disagree, decides that VJ is
wrong, and not so subtly talks about how it is prejudiced (or racist,
I can't remember) to not give money to Islamic charities~~~

What? No she didn't. If you're going to write a lengthy argument, you
need to research it better so you report the facts.

Okay, Kathy, there are HUGE holes in your argument. Giant,
drive-a-Humvee-through-them gaping ragged holes. I'm out of here.
It's degenerating into a muck.

~~~~investigate before you commit, mostly.~~~~

Duh. True of any charitable giving, anytime. Never any question about
that.

Exactly how I feel, Kalera, thanks for saying this.
I have a zillion opinions, but I'm pretty much going to keep them to myself
to keep from blowing up.

--
Kandice Seeber
Air & Earth Designs
http://www.lampwork.net


I have simply marked this thread as read because it is far too emotional to
me; however, I wanted to give a big thanks to everyone who shares my belief
that giving and helping just because you can is part of that which feeds
our spirits.

--
-Kalera
http://www.beadwife.com
http://www.snipurl.com/kebay

Dr. Sooz wrote:
Kathy N-V wrote:
~~~~Arondelle, exercising her right to disagree, decides that VJ is
wrong, and not so subtly talks about how it is prejudiced (or racist,
I can't remember) to not give money to Islamic charities~~~

What? No she didn't. If you're going to write a lengthy argument, you
need to research it better so you report the facts.

What I said was: It is prejudiced to jump to the conclusion that Muslim
charities are fronts for terrorist money laundering. Period.

Arondelle
--
================================================== =========
To email me, empty the pond with a net

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 8:34:43 -0500, Arondelle wrote
(in message TLSBd.9088$1U6.5966@trnddc09):


What I said was: It is prejudiced to jump to the conclusion that Muslim
charities are fronts for terrorist money laundering. Period.


I certainly read a lot more than that simple statement in your long
postings, which I why I answered the way I did. I like and respect
you, and do not want to get into an argument with you which could
easily spin out of control, especially from my end. As Bob put it:
hot flashes, Prednisone and intense pain: not a good combination for
calm discussion.

I will say that my point of view as a mom of a child nearing draft
age makes me a lot less tolerant of the kind of nations we call
friends. I strongly believe that the US has a lot of relationship
repair to be done, but it isn't going to happen during this
administration. But I also believe that a lot of the countries doing
the loudest shouting should take a good look in the mirror
themselves.
Ineresting factoid: This morning's New York Times reports that Japan
has now sprung into the lead as the largest donor nation to the
disaster area, by upping their pledges to 500 million dollars. I
wonder if all these figures include donations by private citizens as
well as "official donations" by governments.

I also discovered that many of the pledges announced by various world
governments in the days following a disaster are never actually
fulfilled. A good deal of money gets tied up politically. Some
pledges require action on the part of the recipients before the money
is released, and those actions never take place. It would be
interesting to see how much of the billions being pledged actually
ends up getting to the disaster area and helping the victims. (Betcha
that precise figure doesn't get highly publicized, though)

Kathy N-V

Kathy N-V wrote:

know about the Christian terrorists as well. However, something no
one ever mentions is that the US does not officially export
terrorists to Islamic countries with the express purpose of killing
those who do not share the official US faith. (We don't have one,

Which government officially exports terrorists with the express purpose
of killing those who do not share *their* official faith? I'm just
curious, as your statement implies that someone does.
--
-Kalera
http://www.beadwife.com
http://www.snipurl.com/kebay

Kathy N-V wrote:

What you wrote doesn't actually seem to bear any relationship to the
dispute.

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 15:45:01 -0500, Dr. Sooz wrote
(in message .com):


She's right.


And I'll disagree with both of you, although I respect and care about
you both. There are many, many worthwhile charities, religious based
and secular who are coming to the aid of the people in Indonesia. I
have not heard of one charity who is even considering the religion of
the victim when dispensing aid.

VJ (who has a kid going to that part of the world, and quite soon,
too) posted a list of charities that the US Government says may be
suspicious, and all are Islamic based. None of them are openly
saying "We're the let's kill Americans charity," because that would
be stupid, but it's possible, even likely that one or more of these
Islamic based charities funds actions that kill Americans. As the mom
of a person who would be right in the crosshairs, VJ asks that people
think twice before giving money to such charities. (VJ's not saying
"demonize Muslims," or saying "don't help the victims," but simply to
think about which charity you prefer to use to transmit your
donation)

Arondelle, exercising her right to disagree, decides that VJ is
wrong, and not so subtly talks about how it is prejudiced (or racist,
I can't remember) to not give money to Islamic charities, because the
people receiving aid "might be more comfortable getting it from their
own faith."

VJ feels attacked, other people jump in, and it ends with Arondelle
pulling out the argument that "just because many terrorists are
Islamic, not all Islamic people are terrorists." Well, duh - and we
know about the Christian terrorists as well. However, something no
one ever mentions is that the US does not officially export
terrorists to Islamic countries with the express purpose of killing
those who do not share the official US faith. (We don't have one,
anyway. The majority of people here are at leat nominally Christian
or Jewish, but we have no state religion) Something that the vast
majority of Islamic countries are guilty of. Indonesia is officially
friendly to the US, but is also locked in a civil war with a faction
who is not at all friendly to the US, and the outcome of that war is
certainly not a sure thing. Besides, Indonesia's brand of
friendliness isn't exactly a what I'd expect of a friend. it's more
like "less of an enemy than other places." (Or "we only hate the US a
little bit these days")

Over the past few days, there has been a real discussion of charity:
who gets it and why, the responsibilities of the givers, and where
else they might be spending money. The fact is that the US gives
more, in total dollars to overseas charity than any other donor
nation. It used to be Japan, but with the implosion of their
economy, that has changed. (With the state of the US economy, it may
well change here, too) We give very little in terms of our GDP,
while some other countries (most vocally Norway), give much larger
portions of their GDP, although the actual dollar figures are dwarfed
by the amounts given by the US.

What no one has mentioned is the responsibility of the recipients.
The Indonesian Minster of Tourism announced today that fewer than 10%
of all the resorts in the Phucket area were damaged in any way, and
that "Indonesia is open for tourist business." Indeed, many European
tourists (the backbone of the area economy) are returning for
vacations, and many aren't noticing anything wrong. Most likely,
this is because the Indonesian government has cleaned up the tourist
areas first.

One thing that shocked me was that this same Minister said that even
without foreign aid, only 0.3% of Indonesia's tourist dollars would
be lost because of the tsunami. It stands to reason then, that once
foreign aid is counted, that Indonesia, at least, will make money on
this horrific tragedy. Compare that to say, Florida, who saw four
tremendous hurricanes in one season. I heard of no foreign aid
dollars flowing into the US because of those natural disasters. (The
loss of life between the two places is incomparable - the US had a
warning system that saved countless lives. The Tsunami area did not)

Arondelle mentioned that the people receiving aid "might be more
comfortable getting it from their own faith." I'll come right out
and say, Tough! I think it's a GOOD thing that these Islamic people
aren't receiving all their aid from Islamic charities, and an even
better thing that the people see that some of their aid is coming
from Christians, Jews and even the hated US. If that makes them a
little uncomfortable, and makes them question the "news stories" that
are broadcast on Al Jazeera every day - Good! (Though I'm sure that
the stories will be twisted in some hideous way regardless - a bad
peanut butter sandwich will become "chemical warfare" by the time it
is broadcast.)

Americans are not demons, and the fact that rank and file Americans
have given far more than the disaster areas can even absorb tells a
lot about us as a people. I'm quite sure that many people here on
RCB gave, even people whose religious beliefs strongly conflict with
those of Islam. Because it's the right thing to do. Because even
all people of conscience see that suffering does not follow religious
boundries. It's not a popular stance to take, but being a Christian,
a Jew or an American does not automatically make you a bad guy.

If there were a charity that was even remotely suspected of funding a
"lets kill Manda fund," you would be right in thinking that I would
be shouting "Don't give these people money!" from the rooftops. Why
is what VJ doing anything different than that? Especially when there
are loads of charities who are under no such suspicion, and most have
much better records of giving high percentages of money to victims
and using minimal amounts of donations as "overhead"?

Now, for the responsibilities of those receiving aid: No one expects
or wants groveling, and anyone who does expect groveling is giving
for a lousy reason. But most people who give do expect that the
recipients to use the resources well, not to waste aid unnecessarily
(although I think most people realize that some aid will be wasted,
at least until infrastructure is back in place) and to show a modicum
of gratitude (even if not overt), and to think reasonably well of the
giver.

People don't like to have their gifts ignored or rubbed back in their
faces, and they would like to think that if the givers needed help
that they would be helped in return. Unfortunately, Americans have
become accustomed to just that kind of response to their generosity.
The main side effect of being universally hated is that giving
foreign aid has become politically unpopular in the US. As Americans
see their employment base move overseas and their standards of living
continue to erode, they are even less likely to want to give money to
people who, rightly or wrongly, are perceived as already benefitting
from American jobs.

I personally give a lot, both to individuals and to charities. Most
of my thoughts on givers and recipients is based on my personal
experience. I know that there are some people that don't even bother
to acknowledge my gift, not even to say that they received it.
(Sometimes I only know that my gift was received becasue my Paypal
balance went down. That stings) There are others who want to pay me
back in some way, even though I am always up front in saying that I
never want repayment - just help someone else who needs it down the
line. I've even had people cut off all contact entirely with me once
they received what they wanted; I can't even begin to fathom the
rationalization behind that.

So yeah, I have my own agenda when deciding on charity. I read a lot
of opinions from a lot of different places, and watch/read the news
from many viewpoints. I've traveled many places and had people tell
me that I can't be an American, because I'm too nice. I get looks of
disbelief when I tell people everywhere that I am about as average as
they come. To me, it is no mystery why a people who pay 1/3 of their
incomes to taxes, a major portion of which is spent overseas, is not
thrilled to be called selfish, cheap or evil.

I think it is a real statement about the goodness of ordinary
American people that they are willing to put aside all the insults
and the fear for their own children to dig deep and give their hard
earned money to help people through a horrendous natural disaster.
Even though some of those people would gladly take the money and then
kill the givers. Don't believe me? Well, a chunk of money is going
to Somalia, whose "victims" dragged the bodies of American servicemen
through the streets of Mogadishu.

Just my two cents, and I know it's not going to be a popular opinion,

Kathy N-V



--
-Kalera
http://www.beadwife.com
http://www.snipurl.com/kebay