Some of the SUV's and pickups have fog lights that are much brighter than the headlights. I flash my lights at them, but they just flash me back as if to say, "duhhh, my lights are not on bright. Why you flashing me? (drool)."
Flash your foglights at them instead. That does work occasionally. I'm also annoyed by the dweebs who drive around with their foglights on when it's not even slightly foggy.
The true answer is always "I don't know" - but the person who has studied the available evidence will say - "the available evidence points to this or that conlusion". It does not mean that that conclusion is true, only that the available evidence points to it. When more evidence becomes available, the pointed at conclusion will change to more accurately reflect the available evidence.
I've often found the best way to describe a scientist is by comparing them to a detective. A vast number of people go "Ahhh, I get it" once you give them that analogy.
Maybe he mentioned percentages to rebut claims of insufficient percentage.
Maybe he mentioned them because he doesn't donate to ease the sufferings of others, but to raise his own status.
In any event, his logic is flawed. A single individual's generosity can not redeem an entire country's general stinginess.
How should I address you?
How about "fuckstick?"
Can't blame me for telling the truth. You and your ilk proclaim the USA's great worth to the world - "World Police", "Benevolent Providers", "Bringers of Democracy" - but the reality is so harshly different. The US is called stingy by the UN, by truly charitable organisations, and by the facts and figures. Yet your response is to call me a "fuckstick". Why? For pointing out the harsh truth? That the US isn't as wonderful as you keep telling us?
The reality is that you don't like being told the truth. Wake up. The rest of the world doesn't buy the US spin anymore. Only the US sheeple seem to believe it now.
Isn't saying "my country is better because it donated more than your country" a "holier-than-thou" attitude?
Well France and the Netherlands aren't my country. I was only responding to somebody who was claiming the US donated the most. I was responding to point out they did not. That's right, I didn't start this thread, I'm just responding to dickheads who keep claiming "U-S-A, WE ARE THE BEST".
Is it so difficult for others to say "yeah, but the private donations more than offset the perceived lack of federal donations?"
What you've just written is the official US government explanation of their failure to meet ODA obligations. I linked to an essay pointing out the flaws with private donations:
international charities often declare income from the entire world as originating from the US
tend to go to a few "sexy" causes like "save the whales", neglecting other causes with real needs
aren't always beneficial (eg, the Gates Foundation is often criticised for big spending with little actual benefit)
often have ulterior motives (eg, the Gates donation of $400 million in Microsoft software to India)
often came in the form of loans and bonds; the 1998 figures showed that over 70% of "private donations" would have to be repaid by the recipients!
Now those aren't points I've invented here to further the "anti-American hatred". Those are points taken from the essay, from the OECD, from UNICEF, and from the UN.
And ultimately the private donations are plain irrelevant. In 1970 there was an agreement that certain countries would meet an ODA obligation of 0.7% of GDP. Only 4 countries currently meet that obligation. The US is not one of them. To explain away their failure to meet their obligation the US government invents spin like "private donations" and "but we are so much bigger so we give so much more". The sheeple repeat the US government mantra and apparently believe it! Surely you are more wary of anything the US government says, especially given their recent comments on WMD.
So, if you have never been face-to-face with someone, you can't call them by their first name, even if you know it?
This is Leon. He's a fundamentalist and a creationist and he's been following me around Slashdot for ages. He doesn't use my first name to be friendly. If you don't know the background here then I advise you BUTT OUT.
What charities do you donate to, then? Every charity has an ideology, of one sort or another.
I still donate to those charities. I just find the extolment of their ideology to be distasteful. I consider it a form of opportunism. I don't let that turn me off the charity, though. It does turn me off the ideology.
The best comment in this thread was YrWrstNtmr when he said "This is not an international dick-waving contest to see who can 'contribute' the most. How about we just help them, OK?".
... seeing as I've never met you, I'd rather you didn't address me by first name. Use my nick as is the custom for blogs.
...and be defensive to the detriment of the strength of your arguments
That is true, but it really annoys me when Yanks get this holier-than-thou attitude. It's so entirely undeserved almost all of the time.
In this case I think the evidence is pretty clear cut. The US isn't living up to their ODA obligation. Yet instead of admitting this simple indisputable fact we get a bunch of apologists making excuses. Is it so difficult for a single Yank to say "yeah, you're right, our government doesn't do enough to help other countries". What is the big deal to Americans?
I'd criticise my government in a heartbeat. I think you'd do the same. That's the Australian way:-)
Do you have enough of your own background/contacts to comment creatively?
My only comment is that I don't donate to charities based on their secular or religious backgrounds. I think any charity that proclaims its ideology is doing so for political reasons and I find that distasteful.
That is likely because your government takes your money so you don't get to decide what to do with it. The US leaves the money in the hands of the citizens... who donate more privately than your government does.
No, they still don't. See other posts. You can keep telling yourself "we're more generous, we're more generous" but repetition doesn't make it true. You're still a stingy lot.
The government - yes. the individuals - no. Next time try reading the preceeding posts first. If you add the private donations of citizens within countries to the government donations made by those countries, then the US is not stingy in the slightest. It ends up outdoing all the European countries, for example.
No, it still doesn't. Including private flows it seems the Netherlands tops the list, beating the US by a factor of 1.8x.
See my other posts for the darker side of private flows. They include investments and loans by companies. Not benevolent acts, but ways of gaining a foothold in a foreign country without paying US taxes. The majority of private flows are from this insidious form of "charity".
"The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations."
European population: 729,966,641
Sure. Off by a factor of 2.5. It's fairer than the earlier comparisons that you Americans were making where there were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference in population size. I didn't say it was equal. I said it was fairer.
American private funding is roughly $28-$30 billion which is about 70% of the European funding with the US again only have about 48% of the population.
American's, on average, donate 2% of their income to charity (both domestic and international), or roughly ~$800 per person. The figures for 2003 are at roughly $236 billion.
I don't know where you're getting your figures from. They're in disagreement with OECD.
I agree with the private flow of $30 billion and the ODA flow of $16 billion for the US. That's $46 billion or about $150 per head. About the same as UK, France and Australia and less than the Scandanavian countries. That is in agreement with everything else I've read.
So where did this $236 billion figure come from? That looks to me like the total WORLD figure for private flows. You're not perhaps counting the whole WORLD's private flows just for the US, are you?
And, once again, that figure only counts money/aid given. It does not count military humanitarian expenditures, of which the US does a ton of, and most importantly it does not cover private donations, most of which are not in the form of large donations from Gates (which gain the most headlines), but in small, individual donations, which carry no crazy conspiratorial connections.
Oh yes, let's look at private flows. They're an interesting lot.
The OECD lumps them all together as a single private flow for the world. Presumably because the nature of international charities makes it far too difficult to tell which country actually funded which charities. The OECD won't even provide private flow figures for most countries. The US and Japan seem to be the only countries with private flow figures and their own governments had to supply the figures. Maybe because US and Japan rank 22nd and 21st on the list of stingiest countries by ODA of GDP and they need some form of positive spin.
But what is very interesting is what counts as private flow. The OECD points out that bonds and bank loans count as private flows. Those figures are for 1998 (it's incredibly difficult to find recent figures) but they show that of the $234 billion of private flows for the entire world, $156 billion was "strings attached" investment. Loans and bonds. Not charity.
So I'm deeply suspicious of anybody quoting "private donations" to try and dig the US out of its stingy hole. The US agreed in 1970 to provide 0.7% of GDP as ODA. They're currently providing a mere 0.14%. The US government is spinning that they provide 3x as much foreign aid if you factor in private donations. But as we've seen - from these figures above and my earlier example of the $400 million "donation" of Microsoft software to India - those donations don't seem to be entirely charitable.
As for this disaster, yes, I sent more than the average person will contribute, but once again, the U.S. will give far more total aid in public and private assistance than any other country, including yours.
Yeah no shit, because you've got 15x as many people in your country. But my country still donates twice as much per person as yours.
My guess; you didn't contribute anything for this disaster, give little or nothing the rest of the year, and hang out on/. just to fractionally raise the misery index of other people.
My guess is you're in your mother's basement, you have pimples, and you've never donated a dime in your life.
As I said earlier, my donations are private. I refuse to discuss which charities I donate to or how much I donate. Not even with my closest friends or relatives. I consider it more private than who I vote for.
But you got that bit right about hanging out on/. to raise the misery index of other people.
Old and dated mean the same thing, so you repeat yourself. I wrote the years anyway so there was no chance for confusion. Your accusation of "just plain wrong" is simply a lie. The figures are not wrong. You just don't like the way I presented them because you agree that the US ODA figures are terrible and you want to discuss US private donations instead. Accusing my figures of being "just plain wrong" is dishonest of you.
Clearly you haven't read my other post
Actually I haven't yet, I was reading some other stuff.
And, btw, the current numbers for ODA funding are:
Australia - $1.2 Billion [oecd.org]
France - $7.3 Billion [oecd.org]
US - $16.2 Billion [oecd.org]
Alright. If you want a figure fight, you've got one.
Looking at total ODA the US only beats other countries because of its huge population. The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations.
Yes, private aid is greater - apparently the US citizens are nicer than the US government - but read further into that same article. The problem with private donations is special interests.
"Private donations, especially large philanthropic donations and business givings, can be subject to political/ideological or economic end-goals and/or subject to special interest. A vivid example of this is in health issues around the world. Amazingly large donations by foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are impressive, but the underlying causes of the problems are not addressed, which require political solutions."
And further...
"As another example, Bill Gates announced in November 2002 a massive donation of $100 million to India over ten years to fight AIDS there. It was big news and very welcome by many. Yet, at the same time he made that donation, he was making another larger donation -- over $400 million, over three years -- to increase support for Microsoft's software development suite of applications and its platform, in competition with Linux and other rivals. Thomas Green, in a somewhat cynical article, questions who really benefits, saying "And being a monster MS [Microsoft] shareholder himself, a 'Big Win' in India will enrich him [Bill Gates] personally, perhaps well in excess of the $100 million he's donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here." (Emphasis is original.)"
That's one of the larger problems with private donations; they're not necessarily charitable.
What a fucking loon you are. You want it both ways. "Americans are stingy pricks!" Then when someone refutes your bullshit, "You have to brag about your charity!"
Oh yeah, I was really refuted. The facts show that Americans contributed $23 per person on average. An anonymous coward claims to have an income of half a million dollars (yet still reads/.) and claims to donate 500x the average. This anonymous coward somehow thinks that his fantastic generosity means Americans aren't stingy.
So I take it you don't get this half-million dollar income for being intelligent, because your logic sucks.
When you are attacked, you defend. When attacked by someone who is clearly an idiot, facts and numbers sometime help.
An anonymous coward claiming to have a half-million dollar income is now a fact? Get real! I think the odds are rather good that was simply an anonymous liar.
I provided the facts and figures earlier. The US donates less per person than France, and significantly less in total than just the Scandanavian countries.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Idiot, indeed. You just don't like hearing the truth.
..from Philadelphia, and last night I sent $5,000 to the Red Cross for their International Response program. Today, I'm sending $2,500 to Doctors Without Borders and (just to be a selfish American prick) $1,750 to sponsor training for a guide dog puppy at Southeastern Guide Dogs in Florida.
Don't you love how Americans have to TELL everybody how much they donated. Felling a little bit of guilt there, eh?
That's almost 2% of my 2004 income.
So fuck you, you piece of shit. What have you done for humanity lately?
I donate, but I don't feel the need to let everybody know how much. It stops being charity for OTHERS and starts being all about YOU.
2%. So you make $462,500 per year. You're living in the lap of luxury yet you donate such a piddling amount. Then you feel the need to crow about it and abuse others for not being as "charitable" as you.
Typical American. Does 2% of your half-million dollars per year buy some temporary relief from your guilt?
$35000000 - amount committed to help victims
100000 - conservative death toll
= $350 - spent to aid each victim
It's even more shameful looked at this way.
$35,000,000 - amount committed to help victims
350,000,000 - rough estimate of US population
= 10c spent per US citizen on the relief effort
10c. 10 lousy fucking cents.
Not that I'm any less ashamed to be Australian. Our government's contribution was 50c per person. Yet our government just spent a couple of billion on a war-submarine that doesn't work.
Then why don't you tell that asshat at the UN to quit bitching at the "Western", aka the US, nations for not donating money.
Awww, poor little persecuted American. We're all crying rivers of tears over here.
Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid. That's one quarter of what France donates! How does it feel to be stingier than France.
Let's look at the figures. With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997. That's a mere $23 per person. You stingy fuckers. Even Australia came in at twice that. And we're all bastards compared to the Norway who contributed a whopping $311 per person in foreign aid in 1998.
Bunch of selfish whiney "me me me" Americans with their non-stop martyr complex. Give me a break.
*For the record I gave less than $100 to the Red Cross yesterday. Should/Could have given much more.
If every American gave as much as you did then you'd have collectively raised $30 billion for the relief effort. The UN is estimating they'll only need $5 billion in total.
The problem isn't with you, so don't feel guilty. The problem is with the billions of people worldwide who will donate nothing.
At the risk of sounding socialist (I'm sure I just caused a few Americans to faint from shock) this is why we have mandatory taxes and government aid. Because left to ourselves, we're all a bunch of selfish pricks.
Windows even goes so far as to call it's program Shared Source, which means you can look, but you cannot touch.
Look, but don't touch.
Touch, but don't taste.
Taste, but don't swallow.
Hrm, if Bill Gates is the devil, as I have now undoubtedly proven, does that mean Ballmer is the person who gets spread-eagled naked in front of me to tempt me into a life of sin.
Oh my god, I've just gone blind, and I think I threw up a little, help, help...
They finally release a sub-$500 Mac.
What is the Slashdot response?
"Meh, well it's cheaper but you know... I can get a cheaper box from WalMart so blah blah blah"
Whinypants.
You're kidding, right? I admit I'm browsing at +3 but I haven't seen a single negative comment yet. So if there are "whinypants" amongst us they are being moderated into oblivion.
People either have ancidotal stories of how Macs don't play nice with Windows (which was never really true)
Yes it was very much true. I still have nightmares about the student room with MacoS 7.1 machines trying and failing to interoperate with Windows NT *shudder*.
MacOS X 10.3 is dreamy with a Windows network though. Very impressive. Glad to see that Steve was smart enough to dump that POS MacOS codebase and simply relabel NEXT.
Remember, it's not MacOS you're spooging over, it's NEXT.
Slashdot Mirror
Flash your foglights at them instead. That does work occasionally. I'm also annoyed by the dweebs who drive around with their foglights on when it's not even slightly foggy.
I've often found the best way to describe a scientist is by comparing them to a detective. A vast number of people go "Ahhh, I get it" once you give them that analogy.
Maybe he mentioned them because he doesn't donate to ease the sufferings of others, but to raise his own status.
In any event, his logic is flawed. A single individual's generosity can not redeem an entire country's general stinginess.
Can't blame me for telling the truth. You and your ilk proclaim the USA's great worth to the world - "World Police", "Benevolent Providers", "Bringers of Democracy" - but the reality is so harshly different. The US is called stingy by the UN, by truly charitable organisations, and by the facts and figures. Yet your response is to call me a "fuckstick". Why? For pointing out the harsh truth? That the US isn't as wonderful as you keep telling us?
The reality is that you don't like being told the truth. Wake up. The rest of the world doesn't buy the US spin anymore. Only the US sheeple seem to believe it now.
Well France and the Netherlands aren't my country. I was only responding to somebody who was claiming the US donated the most. I was responding to point out they did not. That's right, I didn't start this thread, I'm just responding to dickheads who keep claiming "U-S-A, WE ARE THE BEST".
What you've just written is the official US government explanation of their failure to meet ODA obligations. I linked to an essay pointing out the flaws with private donations:
Now those aren't points I've invented here to further the "anti-American hatred". Those are points taken from the essay, from the OECD, from UNICEF, and from the UN.
And ultimately the private donations are plain irrelevant. In 1970 there was an agreement that certain countries would meet an ODA obligation of 0.7% of GDP. Only 4 countries currently meet that obligation. The US is not one of them. To explain away their failure to meet their obligation the US government invents spin like "private donations" and "but we are so much bigger so we give so much more". The sheeple repeat the US government mantra and apparently believe it! Surely you are more wary of anything the US government says, especially given their recent comments on WMD.
This is Leon. He's a fundamentalist and a creationist and he's been following me around Slashdot for ages. He doesn't use my first name to be friendly. If you don't know the background here then I advise you BUTT OUT.
What is "that'? How does "that" insult them? Spell it out for me.
What do you think I am arguing? What do you think I am wearing on my sleeve?
I still donate to those charities. I just find the extolment of their ideology to be distasteful. I consider it a form of opportunism. I don't let that turn me off the charity, though. It does turn me off the ideology.
I wholeheartedly agree.
... seeing as I've never met you, I'd rather you didn't address me by first name. Use my nick as is the custom for blogs.
That is true, but it really annoys me when Yanks get this holier-than-thou attitude. It's so entirely undeserved almost all of the time.
In this case I think the evidence is pretty clear cut. The US isn't living up to their ODA obligation. Yet instead of admitting this simple indisputable fact we get a bunch of apologists making excuses. Is it so difficult for a single Yank to say "yeah, you're right, our government doesn't do enough to help other countries". What is the big deal to Americans?
I'd criticise my government in a heartbeat. I think you'd do the same. That's the Australian way :-)
My only comment is that I don't donate to charities based on their secular or religious backgrounds. I think any charity that proclaims its ideology is doing so for political reasons and I find that distasteful.
No, they still don't. See other posts. You can keep telling yourself "we're more generous, we're more generous" but repetition doesn't make it true. You're still a stingy lot.
No, it still doesn't. Including private flows it seems the Netherlands tops the list, beating the US by a factor of 1.8x.
See my other posts for the darker side of private flows. They include investments and loans by companies. Not benevolent acts, but ways of gaining a foothold in a foreign country without paying US taxes. The majority of private flows are from this insidious form of "charity".
Sure. Off by a factor of 2.5. It's fairer than the earlier comparisons that you Americans were making where there were ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE difference in population size. I didn't say it was equal. I said it was fairer.
I don't know where you're getting your figures from. They're in disagreement with OECD.
I agree with the private flow of $30 billion and the ODA flow of $16 billion for the US. That's $46 billion or about $150 per head. About the same as UK, France and Australia and less than the Scandanavian countries. That is in agreement with everything else I've read.
So where did this $236 billion figure come from? That looks to me like the total WORLD figure for private flows. You're not perhaps counting the whole WORLD's private flows just for the US, are you?
Oh yes, let's look at private flows. They're an interesting lot.
The OECD lumps them all together as a single private flow for the world. Presumably because the nature of international charities makes it far too difficult to tell which country actually funded which charities. The OECD won't even provide private flow figures for most countries. The US and Japan seem to be the only countries with private flow figures and their own governments had to supply the figures. Maybe because US and Japan rank 22nd and 21st on the list of stingiest countries by ODA of GDP and they need some form of positive spin.
But what is very interesting is what counts as private flow. The OECD points out that bonds and bank loans count as private flows. Those figures are for 1998 (it's incredibly difficult to find recent figures) but they show that of the $234 billion of private flows for the entire world, $156 billion was "strings attached" investment. Loans and bonds. Not charity.
So I'm deeply suspicious of anybody quoting "private donations" to try and dig the US out of its stingy hole. The US agreed in 1970 to provide 0.7% of GDP as ODA. They're currently providing a mere 0.14%. The US government is spinning that they provide 3x as much foreign aid if you factor in private donations. But as we've seen - from these figures above and my earlier example of the $400 million "donation" of Microsoft software to India - those donations don't seem to be entirely charitable.
Your turn.
Yeah no shit, because you've got 15x as many people in your country. But my country still donates twice as much per person as yours.
My guess is you're in your mother's basement, you have pimples, and you've never donated a dime in your life.
As I said earlier, my donations are private. I refuse to discuss which charities I donate to or how much I donate. Not even with my closest friends or relatives. I consider it more private than who I vote for.
But you got that bit right about hanging out on /. to raise the misery index of other people.
Old and dated mean the same thing, so you repeat yourself. I wrote the years anyway so there was no chance for confusion. Your accusation of "just plain wrong" is simply a lie. The figures are not wrong. You just don't like the way I presented them because you agree that the US ODA figures are terrible and you want to discuss US private donations instead. Accusing my figures of being "just plain wrong" is dishonest of you.
Actually I haven't yet, I was reading some other stuff.
Alright. If you want a figure fight, you've got one.
Here is a rather good article on ODA by country. You'll see USA has the stingiest "1st world" government offering with only 0.14% of GDP.
Looking at total ODA the US only beats other countries because of its huge population. The European total absolutely dwarfs the USA total and is a fairer comparison for populations.
Yes, private aid is greater - apparently the US citizens are nicer than the US government - but read further into that same article. The problem with private donations is special interests.
And further...
That's one of the larger problems with private donations; they're not necessarily charitable.
Your turn.
Oh yeah, I was really refuted. The facts show that Americans contributed $23 per person on average. An anonymous coward claims to have an income of half a million dollars (yet still reads /.) and claims to donate 500x the average. This anonymous coward somehow thinks that his fantastic generosity means Americans aren't stingy.
So I take it you don't get this half-million dollar income for being intelligent, because your logic sucks.
An anonymous coward claiming to have a half-million dollar income is now a fact? Get real! I think the odds are rather good that was simply an anonymous liar.
I provided the facts and figures earlier. The US donates less per person than France, and significantly less in total than just the Scandanavian countries.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Idiot, indeed. You just don't like hearing the truth.
Don't you love how Americans have to TELL everybody how much they donated. Felling a little bit of guilt there, eh?
I donate, but I don't feel the need to let everybody know how much. It stops being charity for OTHERS and starts being all about YOU.
2%. So you make $462,500 per year. You're living in the lap of luxury yet you donate such a piddling amount. Then you feel the need to crow about it and abuse others for not being as "charitable" as you.
Typical American. Does 2% of your half-million dollars per year buy some temporary relief from your guilt?
You do not. You are out-generoused by FRANCE for christsake. See other comments to this article.
Stop telling yourself lies. You are starting to believe your own propaganda.
It's even more shameful looked at this way.
10c. 10 lousy fucking cents.
Not that I'm any less ashamed to be Australian. Our government's contribution was 50c per person. Yet our government just spent a couple of billion on a war-submarine that doesn't work.
Awww, poor little persecuted American. We're all crying rivers of tears over here.
Like hell! USA contributes 0.1% of income to foreign aid. That's one quarter of what France donates! How does it feel to be stingier than France.
Let's look at the figures. With 300 million people you donated ODA $6.9 billion in foreign aid in 1997. That's a mere $23 per person. You stingy fuckers. Even Australia came in at twice that. And we're all bastards compared to the Norway who contributed a whopping $311 per person in foreign aid in 1998.
Bunch of selfish whiney "me me me" Americans with their non-stop martyr complex. Give me a break.
If every American gave as much as you did then you'd have collectively raised $30 billion for the relief effort. The UN is estimating they'll only need $5 billion in total.
The problem isn't with you, so don't feel guilty. The problem is with the billions of people worldwide who will donate nothing.
At the risk of sounding socialist (I'm sure I just caused a few Americans to faint from shock) this is why we have mandatory taxes and government aid. Because left to ourselves, we're all a bunch of selfish pricks.
Yourself excluded, of course ;-)
Look, but don't touch.
Touch, but don't taste.
Taste, but don't swallow.
Hrm, if Bill Gates is the devil, as I have now undoubtedly proven, does that mean Ballmer is the person who gets spread-eagled naked in front of me to tempt me into a life of sin.
Oh my god, I've just gone blind, and I think I threw up a little, help, help...
That's exactly what I mean. Welcome to my point.
You're kidding, right? I admit I'm browsing at +3 but I haven't seen a single negative comment yet. So if there are "whinypants" amongst us they are being moderated into oblivion.
Yes it was very much true. I still have nightmares about the student room with MacoS 7.1 machines trying and failing to interoperate with Windows NT *shudder*.
MacOS X 10.3 is dreamy with a Windows network though. Very impressive. Glad to see that Steve was smart enough to dump that POS MacOS codebase and simply relabel NEXT.
Remember, it's not MacOS you're spooging over, it's NEXT.
Obviously "everyone" did not say that.
Why wouldn't a PDA from Apple be the same?