The Bush Administration estimates the value of one Mexican at under 37 cents.

November 6, 2007 at 3:07 pm (injustice, politics, racism) (, , , )

So huge amounts of Mexico are under water, as you probably know. This post at Feminste led me to this post by brownfemipower which very succinctly summarizes all the fucked up shit that is going down, like for example that the US is only giving $300,000 in aid for refugees. Three hundred thousand dollars? When we’re sending upwards of $50 million for a crackdown on the drug trade?

$300,000 for more than 800,000 refugees means less than $0.37 per drenched, homeless human being. That is some crazy, evil stuff.

Advertisements

14 Comments

  1. jonolan said,

    Those aren’t accurate figures. It doesn’t included any donation from the Department of Defense. I don’t know if the DoD made separate donations this time, but they did for the recent hurricanes. The 300K also doesn’t include money funneled through the Red Cross and other non-governmental organizations. Our government filters money into various charities to keep its name off the “gift”. It’s strange.

  2. Daisy said,

    Well, after some cursory googling to see if you’re correct, I think that, disturbingly enough, the figures are accurate. All I could find was information about aid provided last time a hurricane occurred, information about Plan Mexico, the program under which the $300,000 was allotted But if you find something that suggests otherwise, please send me the link and I’ll update the post.

  3. opit said,

    Before you hurry too far with eating crow, check out BlueBloggin’s take on the situation, which included what Mexico did for the US after Katrina.

  4. jonolan said,

    You may be right or close to it. though I know the US Government gives lots of money to the Red Cross and other charities. Whatever of that which was spent on this crisis wouldn’t be listed. It’s still going to be less than you want though.

  5. Daisy said,

    Opit, I’ll look for the most you’re mentioning in a few minutes and come back here with my take on it.

    Jonolan, it is possible that there’s some money being funneled into charities. If that’s happening, great. You’re right, though, that it is almost certainly less than I want. I’d like to see a US government that spends more money saving innocent people than it spends on killing them.

  6. Daisy said,

    Opit: indeed, the Mexican response to Katrina makes the US negligence all the more abhorrent. But why the reference to eating crow?

  7. opit said,

    It’s a euphamism regarding pride. “Eating crow” refers to retracting things you have said.
    Given the budget spent on destruction, I was a little upset to think you might consider you’d been too harsh : especially when we both should know that’s ridiculous.

  8. Daisy said,

    Yeah, I know the phrase. I was unsure of what you referencing, as I remain quite certain that, possible top secret Red Cross donations notwithstanding, the administration’s response is indefensible.

    I’m glad to see we agree. : )

  9. jonolan said,

    Opit,

    I said her numbers were inaccurate due to much of US aid not being given directly, but rather through various charities. She went off to research that. Why be upset about someone checking their facts? Or don’t facts matter any more? I get the impression that no number short of completely underwriting the relief and rebuild efforts would satisfy you.

    As it turned out, neither of us could find any hard numbers for aid specifically slated for the flood victims other than the stated 300K.

  10. opit said,

    Go for it. It wouldn’t be a patch on the death and destruction for which the US has been responsible.
    You had that coming. I am perfectly capable of stating what I mean without your implying the case you think it would be convenient – for you – that I make.
    Accuracy ? Don’t be ridiculous. You’ve just postulated that the government is doing something for which you cannot state any particulars.

  11. jonolan said,

    Opit,

    True – I could find no hard numbers and said so. That is part and parcel to trying to achieve accuracy. My hypothesis is, based on long standing practice, the US contributes more money than is actually reported because it filters much of that money through non-government organizations. I could not back up that hypothesis with hard data, so I made sure to say that – and said that Daisy’s original statistic may actually be correct :(

  12. Emily said,

    Opit and jonolan: I see no reason for either of you to harbor ill feelings toward the other because of anything said in this thread. Can we make amends for harsh tones and move on?

  13. opit said,

    Emily The thread is not any cause of hard feelings. Truly, if I sound gruff, it is because Daisy seemed to think her comments were not entirely appropriate because of some unsubstantiation hypothesis. That didn’t seem fair.
    Jonolan Same to you. I haven’t even researched the subject and make no estimates of its correctness – which would seem a waste of time since the pair of you have found no evidence for it.

  14. opit said,

    I’ll even offer a hint.
    If you think you might be on to something – the best crack at finding an informed opinion would be from the ex-Langley crowd. Larry Johnson’s NoQuarter would be a start on that.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: