Hating Bush is no excuse for being misinformed

Below is a brief excerpt from a December 29 posting by Canadian rock star and compassion fascist Matthew Good. I have mixed feelings about Good because he is my favorite musician, but his ideoligy is a loathsome mix of anti-American and anti-capitalist bomb throwing.

"As of this moment, Bush's January inauguration will cost more than the aid being sent by the United States. Unlike 9/11, this disaster could not be avoided. No reckless policy decisions or covert
undertakings helped fuel the impetus for Sunday's disaster. I can only hope that this is not an indication of how we prize life, that some are worth more than others depending on geography." - Matthew Good

Good goes on to attack the U.S. for our level of giving and President Bush's decision to wait four days before making a public statement about the disaster. What he fails to point out is that the Bush inauguration is privately funded. He also ignores the fact that Bush was out well ahead of U.N. secretary-General Kofi Annan in addressing the issue. He also appears to be ignorant about America's compassion, both public and private. In 2003, the U.S. government accounted for 40% of all international disaster relief. Private donations from individual Americans and U.S. corporations accounted for almost 50% of all charitable giving worldwide. In this current disaster, all public donations now total almost 500 million dollars, but private giving is double that figure. The vast majority of those private donations...you guessed it, Americans. In fact, Americans historically give a higher percentage of their income to charity than any other country in the world. So when high-minded socialist want to use human suffering to score political points against Us, remember who is first to answer the call of those that suffer. Good also seems to ignore another important point about charitable giving and that is that a far greater percentage of private donations reach those in need than public money because there is less corruption and inefficiencies in the private sector. So rather than slamming Bush because he wasn't the first to the sink hole to pour money into, he should do what he has, in fairness, done; encourage his 3 million readers a month to donate directly to the NGO's most equipped and prepared to service the victims rather than taking cheap shots because he doesn't like President Bush or the 60 million Americans that put him back in office.