The Silicon Mind

Find everything here. And maybe some stuff in between.

SM's Popular:
Antonio on Religion and Exclusivity.
Michael on Small Arms.
Antonio, Michael Belinsky, Mike Maio

Friday, December 31, 2004

A Humanitarian State?

The NYT released an editorial bashing the United States' commitment to aiding the tsunami relief and reconstruction efforts. While the NYT Editorial Board was very critical of US's commitment to humanitarian relief, it neglected to mention the corporate contributions, listed below (source):

Pfizer Inc. - $10m and $25 worth of drugs
Coca-Cola Co. - $10m
ExxonMobil Corp. - $5m
Citigroup Inc. - $3m
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - $3m
Merck and Co. Inc. - $3m
Johnson & Johnson - $2m
Abbott Laboratories Inc. - $2m
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. - $1m and $4m in antibiotics
Nike, Intel, American Express Co., General Electric Co. and First Data Corp. - $1m each
Wal-Mart Foundation Inc. - $2m

I doubt the New York Times contributed much to the relief effort, for all their Bush bashing.


Blogger Antonio said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, though, but the point of the article was that, as a national government, the US didn't contribute much. Private individuals and corporations are a different matter altogether. They make their own decisions, get their own income, etc.

The US, on the other hand, spends shitloads of money on military spending and, as we see, virtually none on aid. It's precisely here that we see the US attitude towards other nations. If they're a threat, kill 'em. If they aren't, ignore them. Entirely. Even when they need help. What individual people do doesn't really matter here, it's the government's attitude that's at issue, I think. And that attitude is a really shitty one.

I also like the fact that they compared the US to the EU's spending, as opposed to, say, France. A much more appropriate comparison, I think.

7:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home