It was only a matter of time before someone blamed America for the tidal wave in South Asia.
Is anyone else getting tired of the way people demand handouts from the US government in the wake of tragedies? Charity is great -- and it has nothing whatever to do with the duties of governments. If a private school building burns down in NYC, do the administrators of that school go running to other private schools and demand assistance? (Well, nowadays, probably.)
NRO's Jim Boulet is irritated by the inability of left-wing humanitarians to just shut up and give:
Seems like liberals are all full of ideas on who should be giving money. Bonus-rich Wall Street brokers are a popular choice. The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins nominated America's football-playing colleges: "The big football schools should take all that ill-gotten Bowl Championship Series money, $14.3 million each, and send it to Phuket. Come on guys, feed the world."
Not one of these articles insisting upon enormous generosity by others has begun thusly: "While personally donating my own money to the relief effort, I had an idea ..." Too many liberals seem to believe charity should begin anywhere but from their own purse. Or as a smart man once defined liberalism as "where A meets with B to decide how much C will give to D."
Kind of reminds me of something that struck me deeply as a kid, long before I read Atlas Shrugged and got sucked into politics. I grew up in an east-coast suburb peopled with educated, left-wing professionals. In town was a huge charity organization that chose its division leader based on who donated the most each year.
For two years in a row, the leader of the "young physicians" division was a quiet, self-effacing Republican. Believe me, this man was of average means. He had a small bank account and, unlike his left-wing counterparts, a big heart.
I'm not endorsing huge charity-dispensing, least of all when you can't really afford it. Just thought that story was worth telling.