Average Joes Showcase Tired Rhetoric.
Don't get me wrong, in a way they're amusing. I read my local paper's Letters to the Editior section almost everyday I read the paper, and that happens to be almost everyday. And before you think everyone in my state espouses the same political views I do, while our local daily did endorse John Kerry (in a manner I could only describe as kicking in screaming), they overwhelmingly endorsed Republicans in all state and local races in a ratio of like 19:2. So you take a chortle or three when they call this paper a liberal rag.
So, amid the tsunami reaction letters of a few days ago, besides the huge number of letters using the same old sentence of 'if this happened to us, would they do the same?', there were one or two letters to the editor that made me...well, cringe. Don't get me wrong, a letter to the editor has one of four effects on me if I care about the subject: I roll my eyes, agree with the author, laugh because the author has just blown smoke out of his ass, or I cringe because the author has displayed something, like a streaker dropping his raincoat, very distrubing indeed. The first, and I'm paraphrasing here, went something like this: we shouldn't send money to tsunami victims (but equipment and volunteers are ok) because these people are stealing our jobs because of their low wage factories and since some of the nations that were hit were Muslim, they might be using it to fuel terrorism.
The first argument, whilst true in the 'stealing our jobs', is highly ironic considering American companies are making the move. We've not politicked for higher wages in the world over in the UN too much lately, we've not put tariffs or hurt corporations who outsource for cheap labor, we've allowed these corporations to set up shop anywhere outside of the US, giving them our blessing in short, and we blame the other country responsible for the labor, instead of the corporation that shut down the plant and created the job loss. This is akin to taking out your gun, loading a bullet with it, and voluntarly shooting your foot, and then blaming the bullet for flying into your foot. We've done nothing to improve the situation, so we bitch about it when a force of nature wreck the shacks these people build on twenty cents a hour from a Wal-Mart manufacturer? Hell, I understand the fiscal responsibilty argument, and how we should be responsible in a decifit, but I don't understand this approach at all. These governments may be corrupt, yes, but our corporations are willingly profiting off of it. If they built plants here and no one moved in, there'd be no money for either the people or these corrupt governments. So, it seems that withholding aid in the form of money to sate this argument of 'losing jobs' ignores the fact of why the jobs are being lost in the first place: because someone somewhere is making a LOT of money. And most likely, that person's headquartered in this country. So, unless the solution is making the outsourcing companies pay the aid, this is punishing people who are trying and failing to get by for our greed. As for aid workers and equipment, that puts more onerous on their country feeding and maintaining things we brought them. If we give them the money, they can spend it to deal with the problem directly instead of third party.
The second argument...can I be honest here? If this had happened before 9.11.2001, this guy would've been seen as a paranoid kook. I'm not saying the governments of these countries are angelic and wouldn't hurt a fly OR that it couldn't, ever, ever happen. However, regardless of what government you think you're running, you don't borrow against other people's goodwill. In other words, it won't happen because if they got caught the US and almost every other country in the world would be down on them like a load of bricks. Plus, it'd be stupid. The whole world's watching you, and if you don't use every penny to restore your damaged areas (and lets face it, since a lot of third worlds use agriculture somewhere in their economy, it'd be stupid to have destroyed land you couldn't ever use) every bit of news media people from every where on the planet would report the shortfall in keeping track of spending. I think it's more resultant of paranoia, and I also believe we're getting to mindset that predominantely Muslim countries equals bad, which is a discourging stereotype to get into because that also tends to leak into stereotypes about the religion and the people as well.
The second letter...well, it was for giving funds to victims, but only because through this means, we can show we are better than Bin Laden. First of all, charity with a transparent motive stinks and everyone knows you're doing it for that reason. Secondly, it's sad that we need to even discuss having the mentality of getting out the message that we're better than Bin Laden. It should be obvious what we stand for with our actions and our principles. The fact that it was even suggested suggests to me that it means we've lost our way somewhere. Thirdly, those who aren't affliated with Bin Laden will appeciate the sentiment, those who favor the West will use this to solidify their argument, and those who favor Al Qaeda and Bin Laden will call this a form of manipulation anyway. If converts is what we want, we need to gain more goodwill than $35 million dollars.
It causes me despair, in a way. It's like people miss the point, and it frustrates me. If we decide to give charity or not, let it be for valid reasons, not petty grudges, out of fear, or a chance to convert someone to our point of view. Let it be because we're either tightening the belt so maybe we get through this, or because down deep, Americans are good giving people.
Discourgingly, the AWM/wolf dragon,
Sol