Understanding Sarcasm

Published on January 3, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

Apparently, a few courses in reading comprehension are appropriate for some individuals on this blog site.

In a recent article, I wrote a very strongly worded essay about the foreign aid position in India, and was heavily chastised for it. Anyone who has read my articles and comments consistently over the months I have spent on joeuser should be readily able to see the intent of my words and the context in which they were written. I am NOT without compassion for those who have been hit by this disaster in India, by any stretch of the imagination.

I AM tired of the US being expected to make everything better by throwing money at it, especially when all that happens when we DO this is that our leaders get burned in effigy at their embassies and our flag gets spit on. We do NOT have the money to guarantee every man, woman and child on this planet a middle class existence, nor SHOULD we. What raised my hackles about this particular situation was that the implication was raised without a complete and vocal outcry from the UN that we were somehow "stingy" in the amount of money we were contributing, when we have given so much to so many over the years...

But I digress. This is not about foreign policy, this is about why I chose the words I did as I did in the stated article. I could sit down and write about twenty blogs about what I feel is wrong about this on all levels (including the irony of the liberals that expect me to feel like we need to subsidize an overpopulated portion of our planet while at the same time holding the view that we should kill the surplus population of children in utero), but that's not the point. The point was the issue was taken over my opening comment about India "winning the lottery".

The point was strongly worded, I grant you. But, the fact is, the majority of the people who were washed away in the floods will not be remembered, as we only care about the ones that had money (the most sickening response I got was "But HUNDREDS of TOURISTS were killed"...stating implicitly that the lives of those hundreds of tourists mattered more than the hundred plus THOUSAND poor and homeless that were subject to the same devastation...which is more sickening?). My response was also directed at the fact that I am sickened by the further implication that throwing money at the problem will remedy it (the fact is, the reason even ONE person considered our aid "stingy" is the fact that they won't be able to pay enough middlemen to PROFITEER off of this disaster...again, which is more sickening?).

So, before you take it upon yourselves to make value judgements upon me based on ONE article, taken OUT of context, evaluate the COMPLETE message and try to figure out (through the context of the works of one who has written 500+ readily available articles) where the person is coming from. In short, I apologize for nothing.

One final thought: where are all you folks when I write an article you AGREE with? You seem mighty content to let those die.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments

Myrrander

on Jan 03, 2005

I missed the article first time around, so I took the time to go read it. I suppose I'm one of those who think that I'd rather have billions spent on things like this as opposed to invading countries. Even $350,000,000 is far shy of what we've spent killing folks in the past year. Was $35 million "stingy?" Well, the British public alone has contributed over $90 million apart from what the Crown is giving, so I suppose the argument has merit. When the GOP is planning to spend $40 million on an inaugral festivities, $35 million for the biggest disaster in recent human history just seemed to be a bit niggardly.

I'm happy the government has upped what it's giving. Maybe we could drop a few less bombs on the kids of Iraq to make up the difference?

I see your point in the original article, and on some level, I agree with you. But if we're going to reserve the right to cause wars in order to "make the world safer," then we should also be willing to shoulder the responsibility of humanitarian aid to "make the world safer." Why should we be more eager to take lives than to help save them? You've given me some things to think about, though, so thanks.

Cheers.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 03, 2005

I suppose I'm one of those who think that I'd rather have billions spent on things like this as opposed to invading countries.

Now, here, we can definitely agree. And I think billions SHOULD be spent on aid to India. But not this way. Set up a bake sale and send the profits, and I'll buy 6 dozen of Aunt Edna's hard as rock brownies if that's what it takes to raise what's needed. Ask me for everything I can give to raise money, and I'll DO it. But I remain staunch in my thinking that giving should be voluntary rather than forced.

Myrrander

on Jan 03, 2005

giving should be voluntary rather than forced

Well, it looks like we agree all around. While I feel that there is a moral responsibility for man to help man, and while I feel like the government is a good intermediary for doing so, it certainly isn't *required* that any such thing be done. I also have enough good old American blood in me to get irritated any time some Euro-twit calls America "stingy." Makes me wonder why the hell we ever did anything like the Marshall Plan in the first place...

sirwalter

on Jan 03, 2005

Our country is the least stingy country in the world, in fact it seems we sometimes care more about other places in the world
than we do our own homeland. I am all for helping any people in need, it's the Godly thing to do, but we need to make sure our
on are taken care of first and foremost. With the elderly, the homeless, the disaster stricken people of our own country needing
help, I would not be offended if we didn't give any outside source a dime unless we had first taken care of the problems faced
right here in the USA. And as far as some foriegner calling us stingy, that just goes to prove that the more you help those kind of
people, the more they want. They'll never be satisfied with anything we do because the rest of the world has used us for a
crutch for so long anyway. Let them go broke giving all their money away and see how they feel. It will never happen.
Sir Walter

cactoblasta

on Jan 03, 2005

Perhaps in relative terms the US is stingy; after all in one night the Australian public themselves raised $60 million for the tsunami victims, and the US government, the embodiment of the hopes and desires of 200 million people, promised a mere $35 million. But it's largely irrelevent. I think the people of the mountainous regions of Aceh were happy to have even a 'stingy' US' helicopter land with food supplies, or to have even a 'stingy' US hospital ship anchor offshore for medivacs. There's always going to be someone complaining that others aren't doing enough; one has to wonder what exactly they are doing to fix the problem. Usually the answer is nothing.

Myrrander

on Jan 03, 2005

you make a good point cacto...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!