A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since these facts have been disputed here:

• Americans give 15 cents per day per person in official development assistance to poor countries. The average American spends four times that on soft drinks daily.
  
  In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.
  
  We gave 15 cents for every $100 of national income to poor countries. Denmark gave 84 cents, the Netherlands gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents, France gave 41 cents, and Greece gave 21 cents (that was the lowest share, beside our own).
  
  It is sometimes said that Americans make up for low official aid with private charitable donations. Nope. By OECD calculations, private donations add 6 cents a day to the official U.S. figure - meaning that we still give only 21 cents a day per person.

Nicholas Kristof in the NYT

And when you get halfway into one of your nightly $20 bottles of wine I bet this story causes you to go to a second.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think its more of a mixed bag than you suspect. (I also query whether lots of bloggers write about everything they or their colleagues do).

As an example (extreme I trust), have you read about the incidents involving the 1st Btn/41st Rgt. (Kansas unit)? There are recent articles (e.g., WaPo). Several soldiers charged with the murder of unarmed civilians based on their operations in Baghdad. ["Can I kill this one?"] (Some guilty pleas, hearings continue.)

S_A_M

I've heard stories both good and bad. I've heard about Hawkeye-like docs breaking military rules to treat civilians (our rules are that we only treat them if we caused the harm -- and being in the vicinity of Americans who are attacked only counts if it's our bullets that cause the harm, not the other folks' explosives). I've also heard about details to rebuild schools and similar missions (I'm told that these missions occupy much of the military's time in Afghanistan but very little in Iraq because of the danger of exposing ourselves while helping).

But it certainly sounds like whether official or unofficial, the idea that instilling terror is a useful tactic seems to have survived Abu Ghraib.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Americans only spend 60 cents a day on soft drinks? Fuck. I'm selling my Coke stock.

I'd sell it and buy Starbucks and anyone who makes smoothies.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So, Australia is now the top donor for Tsunami relief, , with the U.S. fourth (behind Germany and Japan as well). I actually have complete faith that we will utlimately be in the $2 billion club ($1 billion from government, $1 billion from private sources), and also think our military deployment may be some of the most effective short-term relief out there, and that's its probably more important to keep increasing that commitment than the pure dollar number.

But how much is this going to hurt other charities, as charitable budgets get raided rather than increased for this disaster?

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's pretty clear that the law doesn't criminalize what Novak did. Agree that he is a miserable hack, and that we would all be better off if he were incarcerated.

Actually, I recall pretty distinctly from various second and third hand sources at the time the plame thing first came out that, in fact, the law does criminalize it. The law doesn't just apply to G servants, but anyone who makes public the identity of an intelligence agent, regardless of the source of their knowledge. In fact, I recall that breaking the law was cited as the main reason the other tipped journalists didn't publish the story (well, that and the usual "liberal bias" stuff). However, I haven't done any primary research on the matter, I'm just going by my memory of the hearsay from the Geo Stef./Tim Russert/NYT/etc. crowd from some months ago, plus some half-assed follow-up I did at the time, that left me with the distinct impression that what Novak did, even if he thought that the tipper was tipping everyone in town and it would be on the front page of the International Herald Tribune very soon, was criminal.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Actually, I recall pretty distinctly from various second and third hand sources at the time the plame thing first came out that, in fact, the law does criminalize it. .

Is there something more than an intent requirement that exonerates it? I assume Novak reasonably believed that Plame's identity was already public, such that further disemination wouldn't be a crime.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Actually, I recall pretty distinctly from various second and third hand sources at the time the plame thing first came out that, in fact, the law does criminalize it. The law doesn't just apply to G servants, but anyone who makes public the identity of an intelligence agent, regardless of the source of their knowledge. In fact, I recall that breaking the law was cited as the main reason the other tipped journalists didn't publish the story (well, that and the usual "liberal bias" stuff). However, I haven't done any primary research on the matter, I'm just going by my memory of the hearsay from the Geo Stef./Tim Russert/NYT/etc. crowd from some months ago, plus some half-assed follow-up I did at the time, that left me with the distinct impression that what Novak did, even if he thought that the tipper was tipping everyone in town and it would be on the front page of the International Herald Tribune very soon, was criminal.

In the dim recesses of my mind, I recall a requirement that the disclosure be for bad purpose, or some such wording. I think Novak skates on that basis. Plus, I remember reading that, since it came out that Plame DID provide the rec to get Wilson the slot, and that both he and she were lying to the public about that, and that her status as a CIA employee was central to that thesis, it would be that much harder to show "bad purpose" on anyone's part, (refuting a lie aimed at the Prez's reputation is nobler than outing for revenge), making any prosecution problematic.

But then, I drink.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, Australia is now the top donor for Tsunami relief, , with the U.S. fourth (behind Germany and Japan as well). I actually have complete faith that we will utlimately be in the $2 billion club ($1 billion from government, $1 billion from private sources), and also think our military deployment may be some of the most effective short-term relief out there, and that's its probably more important to keep increasing that commitment than the pure dollar number.

But how much is this going to hurt other charities, as charitable budgets get raided rather than increased for this disaster?

Probably a fair amount, but probably less than you'd guess. I'd wager it will hurt retail sales more. I know I haven't felt the same about shopping - the whole thing gives new teeth to the old saw "do you really need a new hat when there are millions of starving, dying children in Asia?"

It makes sense that Aus. is a huge donor - instability and/or refugees in Indonesia are a direct threat to their national security; they've been getting very involved in regional politics precisely because Indonesia is barely controlled chaos at the best of times and they regularly get boatloads of refugees & political aggitators on their shores (which they are increasingly turning back or dumping into holding camps). Japan is also usually a huge aid donor, which is strongly in their national interest given their proximity to rather a lot of larger, very poor countries that they cannot afford to see descend into anarchy. And, the Japanese do seem to feel a duty to fund international efforts at high rates since they (historically since WWII) have offered no military support for much of anything, having basically no military. When somebody else has covered your national defense for 50+ years, you find you have some extra cash for that sort of thing.

I'd also bet the cost of US military deployment alone will go way, way over the 2 bil mark. Private US donations will probably far outstrip the G's cash aid in the short term, but not in the long term, the public being too fickle for follow-through.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But how much is this going to hurt other charities, as charitable budgets get raided rather than increased for this disaster?

Nearly every radio report I heard in the first few days afterwards had some Australian military guy working to get supplies into Southeast Asia.

My understanding is that the money allocated by the government so far was taken from the general world relief fund, so money that would have gone to Sudanese refugees, for example, is going to tsunamni relief instead. Obviously, choices have to be made about every dollar spent out of the federal government. I've heard a few reports from US soldiers saying that they feel very good about flying supplies in for relief work. I think the number I heard was $2m a day for that sort of support, and I'm pretty sure that it's not part of the allocated $350M. I wouldn't be surprised if debt relief will also be part of the total package, since other countries are doing that too.

Powell really seemed shocked at the damage.

Also, the Doctors Without Borders say they have enough money specifically for tsunami relief, and they'd like people to give to them generally so they can use it for other work they do or to give money to other relief organizations.

http://www.doctorswithoutborders-usa.org/donate/

A Special Note Regarding Donations for South Asia Disaster Relief
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has received an extraordinary outpouring of support for the people of South Asia and we are extremely grateful. As you know, it is very important to MSF that we use your contribution as you intend it to be used. This is why we want to let you know that at this time, MSF estimates that we have received sufficient funds for our currently foreseen emergency response in South Asia.

Right now, thanks to the generosity of our supporters, our teams are on the ground providing assistance to people affected by this disaster and carrying out multiple assessments in the region in order to determine how MSF can provide the most effective aid to those in need. We will continue to assess our financial needs as the scope of our operations in the affected areas becomes clearer over the coming days.

We kindly request that you contribute to our general Emergency Relief Fund, which is enabling our quick response to the current disaster in South Asia as well as humanitarian needs in war-torn Darfur, Sudan, and elsewhere in the over 70 countries where MSF is working around the world. The Emergency Relief Fund provides a resource for MSF to draw upon immediately when a crisis occurs, allowing a quick response to events where the speed of our response is crucial to saving lives.

I think they're trying to avoid the situtation that the Red Cross found itself in after 9/11, when they tried to use donated money for non-9/11 causes.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is there something more than an intent requirement that exonerates it? I assume Novak reasonably believed that Plame's identity was already public, such that further disemination wouldn't be a crime.

I recalled that it was an intent-free crime, and was the sort of thing that you could actually fall foul of accidentally. Which, while the idea that you could go to jail by disseminating idle cocktail party chatter is alarming, is perhaps not inappropriate given the deadly seriousness with which the secrecy of these people's activities needs to be protected.

But Bilmore remembers differently. He drinks, I drink, I'll bet you drink, none of us is reliable; I guess someone better check it out lest we all get wasted and land ourselves in jail with that idle cocktail party chatter someday.

BR(definitely been at a number of cocktail parties where I was informed "you should meet your fellow countryman Sam, he's your government's local spook" before being introduced to someone, though often the warning was rendered unnecessary by the fellow's Florsheim shoes and rep tie)C

[bilmore]

Originally posted by bilmore
In the dim recesses of my mind . . .

Dimmer than I thought.

" . . . . knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, . . . ."

So, there was a requirement that the discloser know that the government was "taking affirmative measures to conceal" the persons's ID - but that's short of a "bad acts" requirement.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I recalled that it was an intent-free crime

After an incomplete google effort, more than one person suggests the following is the relevant statute:

50 USC 421

The person needs to have authorized access and disclose intentionally.

(see here for more discussion, from what may be an interested group)

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since these facts have been disputed here:

• Americans give 15 cents per day per person in official development assistance to poor countries. The average American spends four times that on soft drinks daily.
  
  In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, we increased such assistance by one-fifth, for President Bush has actually been much better about helping poor countries than President Clinton was. But as a share of our economy, our contribution still left us ranked dead last among 22 top donor countries.
  
  We gave 15 cents for every $100 of national income to poor countries. Denmark gave 84 cents, the Netherlands gave 80 cents, Belgium gave 60 cents, France gave 41 cents, and Greece gave 21 cents (that was the lowest share, beside our own).
  
  It is sometimes said that Americans make up for low official aid with private charitable donations. Nope. By OECD calculations, private donations add 6 cents a day to the official U.S. figure - meaning that we still give only 21 cents a day per person.

Nicholas Kristof in the NYT

A few things here:

First, I think the article says these figures are only for aid given outside the context of a big disaster. If all aid was included I wonder how the figures would add up.

Second, if my little income is being pooled with the otherworldly income of Hollywood types and sports figures in this country I'm not surprised that the cents per $100 is so low. What I'd really like to see is a comparison of contributions for different tax brackets among countries.

Third, it doesn't bother me that we spend so much on soft drinks. It shows we are a wealthy nation. We might have less to give if more of our dollars were siphoned out for the government to dole out to foreign countries. And we might give less privately. This stuff is really basic.

Fourth, there is so much aid that is not hard cash being given by Americans in foreign countries.

Fifth, non-tax deductible donations are probably not being included in the figures. Example: support for foreign orphanages is not tax deductible but adoptive parents nevertheless shell out several thousand dollars per adoption just for the orphanage (which may or may not be misused by the orphanage director). In fact, most orphanages in Viet Nam are (sadly) keeping children there until Americans can once again adopt from VN, rather than give the children to families in France, Italy and Denmark, the other countries that adopt from VN. Orphanage donations from European countries are so much lower that the orphanage is better off financially waiting for the Americans to show up, with thousands in fees, giving out $100 bills to the caretakers like it's monopoly money. Americans feel such an obligation later on, too. Most end up continuing to send huge amounts of money forever. There are entire orphanages, and even small communities in third world countries being fully supported by the non-tax-deductible funds of Americans.

Six, the article suggests Americans are foolish for worrying their money will be thrown away in foreign countries. They have reason to worry. Most people I know prefer to go with an arrangement where a trustworthy person in the country gets the cash and goes and buys things to be delivered to the recipient. Even then, there's a risk of the goods being taken and sold on the black market. Interesting that the author brought up Cambodia. I will eventually be posting about an upcoming expose being aired on TV, currently being filmed in Cambodia. A shocking look about aid not reaching the recipient.

VM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Plus, I remember reading that, since it came out that Plame DID provide the rec to get Wilson the slot, and that both he and she were lying to the public about that, and that her status as a CIA employee was central to that thesis, it would be that much harder to show "bad purpose" on anyone's part, (refuting a lie aimed at the Prez's reputation is nobler than outing for revenge), making any prosecution problematic.

While you may have read this, it is wrong. Moreover, Plame wasn't saying anything "to the public" about any of this, so defenestrating her cannot be justified on that score.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While you may have read this, it is wrong.

Which part? Wilson told interviewers/reporters that his wife had no part in getting him the slot. The investigation later revealed that she did, in fact, provide the main recommendation for his selection. Presumably, her rec had weight because of her position. While this point does not bear directly on the believability of Wilson's main points re: yellowcake, they were a part of the whole package that made it clear that he held no real concern for truth.

Moreover, Plame wasn't saying anything "to the public" about any of this, so defenestrating her cannot be justified on that score.

Are you so certain she even had a fenester to begin with?