Yet another reason to tell the UN to fuck itself

[Relbeek Einre]

What you're both missing (either by not reading or by being deliberately obtuse) is that he's approaching stinginess from a different angle... namely, that self-interest isn't a bad thing. What we would normally think of as "stingy" -- unreasonable levels of self-interest at the expense of others in need -- is a different animal.

He used the word differently than we are used to hearing it. You can choose to sneer at me about it, Chants, but your counterargument falls apart if you note that little detail.

Which, I suppose, is why you ignored it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Beek...really.. take another look at Ddrak's post. He is indeed saying that if we don't part with every nickel not used for basic survival, until everyone else on the face of the earth is equal to one another, we are stingy. Chairman Mao would be proud of Ddrak, I'm sure.

Whether or not that's a valid statement is not the point. Chants has the interpretation of Ddrak's post right.

[Relbeek Einre]

Yes he is, Embar. And he's also saying that HE's stingy by that definition, and that this is not a bad thing.

Chants' argument flows from the premise that Ddrak is saying that this IS a bad thing, which is false.

[Riggen]

Oh I don't think either of us missed that angle Relbeek. I know I "got" it and if you'd read my reply to Ddrak you'd understand that. But that doesn't change the fact that he took the premise to its extreme.

Is it really all that important a point anyway? When the conversation devolves into who said what it's probably time to move on.

[Chants Evensong]

Whether Ddrak thinks it is a good thing or bad thing is not relevant to me. I just think his argument is wrong. Failing to part with what one does not need for survival does make someone stingy, not by any definition of the word. And stinginess does not drive a capitalistic economy; enlightened self-interest does. Stinginess is actually a drag on a capitalistic economy. Enlightened self-interest leads to the the type accumlation of wealth that makes generosity possible, something quite different from stinginess.

[Partha]

And stinginess does not drive a capitalistic economy; enlightened self-interest does. Stinginess is actually a drag on a capitalistic economy. Enlightened self-interest leads to the the type accumlation of wealth that makes generosity possible, something quite different from stinginess.

Then I would ask if you think the current American economy acts from enlightened self-interest or stinginess. Because, quite frankly, when I look at the data, the former is used to justify the latter.

[Relbeek Einre]

A) I agree with Partha.

B) Chants, Ddrak is not defining stinginess the same way you are, based on your last post. Again, the differences between you are more semantic than substantiative. You seemed to have a better grasp on the gist of his post in your first reply to it.

[Chants Evensong]

Partha,

Enlightened self-interest drives the American economy. If your data show otherwise, then it is either incomeplete or you are misinterpreting it.

Relbeek,

The key question is not whether Ddrak and I define stinginess the same way. It is whether Egeland and Ddrak do.

[Relbeek Einre]

I'd say they don't. But you're muddying the waters.

[Partha]

Chants, one example: Wal-Mart.

Their practices do not lead to better lives for their workers. They consider 28 hour work weeks to be 'full-time' employment. Their health care provisions are stiff enough that more than half of the workers in the company do not participate. They offer lower wages relative to unionized grocery workers. They claim that such practices would be detrimental to their business.

The funny thing is, they managed to offer enough in dividends to provide the 5 members of the Walton family that control 40% of the stock 900 million dollars. 52 cents a share for each of the 1.7+ billion shares they control.

That is stinginess disguised as 'economic self-interest'.

[Riggen]

Relbeek, don't you mean watering the mud?

[Relbeek Einre]

Nice wag, Riggen.

[Riggen]

/bow

[Relbeek Einre]

Add a cup of water to a bucket of mud and you get more mud.

Addd a handful of mud to a bucket of water and you get more mud.

Thus it is on the Internet.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And stinginess does not drive a capitalistic economy; enlightened self-interest does. Stinginess is actually a drag on a capitalistic economy. Enlightened self-interest leads to the the type accumlation of wealth that makes generosity possible, something quite different from stinginess.

Then I would ask if you think the current American economy acts from enlightened self-interest or stinginess. Because, quite frankly, when I look at the data, the former is used to justify the latter.

Economies don't have enlightenment. They aren't sentient. Economies are a process. People participating in the economies can become enlightended though. IT's not the economy that writes a check to a relief organization, its individuals and people who run corporations.

Chants is trying to tell you that if everyone was as Ddrak suggested, there would be no "extra" for helping others, since any "extra" would have already distributed.

[Relbeek Einre]

Not to drag us back on topic but

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/tsunam ... index.html

Bush does something else smart - he taps better Presidents than himself to help get aid to the stricken region.

[Chants Evensong]

Actually, noting that Ddrak and Egeland are using the term "stingy" in very different ways helps to clarify the debate.

Certainly Mr. Egegland does not beleive that countries are stingy unless they devote to charity every dollar beyond what they need for survival. By stingy, he means uncharitable.

Ddrak, on the other hand, sees stinginess as some sort of virtue, much like Gordon Gecko's "greed is good" ethic.

I see Ddrak's over all point to be nothing more than a ruse, a play on words intended primarily to stifle criticism being leveled against the UN and Mr. Egeland. Accoring to him, we are hypocrites if we take offense to Egeland's stingy comment because we are all, according to his rather novel definition of the word, stingy. But since they are using the term in very different ways, the argument fails.

Mr. Egeland deserves our critcism. We are a generous nation and a generous people.

Bruse Bartlett has a good editorial at Townhall.com about the stingy debacle. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/bruc ... 1231.shtml

On another note, some people in the State Department see themselves as shouldering most of the burden of providing aid and are pissed by what they see as a tepid UN response.

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2005/01/ ... watch.html

Being fair to the UN, just because some of these State Department workers have not seen much of a UN presense does not necessarily mean that they are not there. But thier descriptions of what the US has done, as well as our coalition partners, certainly puts the lie to those nonsense assertions that the US response was slow, tepid and weak.

[Relbeek Einre]

Mr. Egeland deserves our critcism. We are a generous nation and a generous people.

We deserved Mr. Egeland's criticism. At the time he made the statement, we had pledged all of $15 million. Shortly after he made the statemen, we'd pledged $35 million - that's about a quarter of, say, the amount spent on the RNC.

Even conservatives like Chris Wallace of FOX News said Bush was a day late and a dollar short on his initial response to the tsunami disaster, and missed a unique diplomatic opportunity. And he was, and he did. Your own citations show it, Chants.

Even today, our pledges of support are not leading the way - Japan's pledged substantially more. And for christ's sakes, if we have $8.8 billion unaccounted for slush fund dollars spent in Iraq, we can cough up a few hundred million more.

But the story is not Egeland's frustrated remarks during the worst crisis the UN has faced in over a generation. The story is the vitriolic and vindictive response of Bush (who did publicly criticize Egeland) and his allies at a time when they'd pledged a paltry, insulting, "stingy" amount. Egeland is a great humanitarian with an impressive and unimpeachable resume and for the Bush administration and its political allies to make so much hay, making mabout a single word uttered by this man, even to the point of smearing the entire UN with it in an effort to discredit it at a time when its infrastructure and resources are needed the most, shows the essential pettiness and mean-spiritedness of these neocons.

[Sindarre]

I really only donate to one charity. A group that is working on Crohn's disease. I give to them because I have a close friend who has the disease. So anyhow one day there was knock on the door and there was a nice gentleman who wanted to talk to me. He showed me my W2 forms, my dish network bill, my everquest charges over the last half a decade, and my contributions to his organization. He then informed me how insulting that amount was. How paltry it is in comparison to what I earn. He told me what a stingy tightwad I was and inferred strongly I obviously don't care about people.

You can call it what you want. You can show me his wonderful resume and carp about how he is only trying to help people. I call it fucking rude. And if the people I donated to ever really did show up on my doorstep and acted like... well Relbeek.. I would promply tell them to get lost. I don't want a thank you, or a gold star, or a brick with my name on it as part of a sidewalk somewhere. I like the fact that they take what they get from their much more respectful donation drives and try to help my friend and others like her instead of jumping in front of camera's to insult good people.

I consider relief packages like this money WELL spent and am happy to see my tax dollars go to it. I am happy that we continue to ramp up our support as the crisis continues to grow. I am happy that Relbeek and the left from the outset jumped down the throat of Kofi Annan who in a scandelous fashion stayed on vacation during the beginning of this crisis. It shows how fair minded they are in their critizism.

[Partha]

Kofi Annan was on vacation. So was George Bush. So was Tony Blair, for that matter, and he stayed on his vacation as well.

And as far as rude, the king of rude fundraising is still Bob Geldof.