Denmark tops list of best global nations; U.S. is 12th

By Nora Boustany
THE WASHINGTON POST

September 3, 2005

WASHINGTON – Which are the most generous countries? Not necessarily the very largest or wealthiest ones, the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy magazine report.

Denmark ranked at the top of the list as a model global country, according to the 2005 Commitment to Development Index released Tuesday by the two institutions.

They rated 21 developed nations with respect to a number of government policies affecting developing countries.

Germany ranked 7th and Britain 10th.

The United States was 12th, and Japan ranked last.

The index rated countries not only in terms of how much they give but also according to policies related to trade, investment, migration, environment and security.

Nancy Birdsall, president of the center, said the index highlights the contradictions between what rich countries say about their efforts to eradicate poverty and what they actually do.

"The purpose of the index was to create a conversation in rich countries about what it means to be a global citizen," Moises Naim, editor and publisher of Foreign Policy, said in a telephone interview.

"We are not just talking about aid volumes; we are also asking questions about whether this aid is going to tyrants and corrupt dictators," Naim said.

He suggested that peacekeeping can do little good if the same countries providing peacekeeping are also exporting weapons.

"There is this paradox," he said. "Today weapons sales to poor countries have achieved a five-year peak. The magical beauty of this index is that it captures all this. It is not just 'show me the money,' but about the quality of what is given."

Highlights of the report are published in the September/October issue of Foreign Policy.

One surprise is the inverse correlation between church attendance and aid, indicating that preaching and practicing do not necessarily go together.

---

me@rescam.org

---

Account frozen...

WHY DIDN'T YOU DEPLOY THE BUSES DURING THE MANDATORY EVACUATION, MAYOR?...

Louisiana disaster plan, pg 13, para 5 , dated 01/00

'The primary means of hurricane evacuation will be personal vehicles. School and municipal buses, government-owned vehicles and vehicles provided by volunteer agencies may be used to provide transportation for individuals who lack transportation and require assistance in evacuating'...

BBC News, Monday, 5 September 2005, 06:58 GMT:
Amidst the horror, American broadcast journalism just might have grown its spine back, thanks to Katrina.

National politics reporters and anchors here come largely from the same race and class as the people they are supposed to be holding to account.

They live in the same suburbs, go to the same parties, and they are in debt to the same huge business interests.

Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states.

It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush administration.

---

BBC News, Monday, 5 September 2005, 06:58 GMT:


Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states.

It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush administration.

The Last two comments are really misleading and full of Bull. Corporations has a limit on how much money they can contribute to a party or individual. If the Bush admin spin doctors were so great I suspect the the presidents approval ratings would be much Higher.....

---

George W Bush seems to be preciding over the worst period in American history, Coincidence or a BUSHfire?

---

If the Bush admin spin doctors were so great I suspect the the presidents approval ratings would be much Higher.....

Were the election this year instead of last year we'd be saying Hello President Kerry.

George W Bush seems to be preciding over the worst period in American history, Coincidence or a BUSHfire?

Coincidence.

---

BBC News, Monday, 5 September 2005, 06:58 GMT:


Giant corporations own the networks, and Washington politicians rely on them and their executives to fund their re-election campaigns across the 50 states.

It is a perfect recipe for a timid and self-censoring journalistic culture that is no match for the masterfully aggressive spin-surgeons of the Bush administration.

The Last two comments are really misleading and full of Bull. Corporations has a limit on how much money they can contribute to a party or individual. If the Bush admin spin doctors were so great I suspect the the presidents approval ratings would be much Higher.....

They would be much lower is where the truth lies (sic).

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

Ugly politics. In time of tragedy, pull together – not apart

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

September 11, 2005

Never did we imagine we would find ourselves, on the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, looking back with nostalgia on any facet of that horrible chapter in U.S. history. But that's exactly how we feel now that the political establishment in and around Washington has been swept up in a bitter battle for partisan advantage, childish finger-pointing and – in the case of the hyperventilating chairman of the Democratic National Committee – general trash talking.

You may recall that, in the days after 9/11, there was, thank goodness, very little of that sort of thing. Then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other prominent Democrats lined up behind the commander-in-chief. In fact, who could forget the inspiring way in which members of Congress from both parties came together on the Capitol steps and spontaneously erupted into a rendition of "God Bless America"?

Oh, President Bush eventually got minor criticism for not rushing out the door of that Florida school upon hearing the news that two jetliners had crashed into the World Trade Center and a third plane had barreled into the Pentagon. Later, there were faint grumblings over the fact that Bush hadn't returned to the White House immediately following the event at the school and that the Secret Service had him circling the Washington air space for hours before allowing Air Force One to land.

But certainly, in terms of the political fallout for the president and the administration, there was nothing like what we've experienced in the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. First it was just Louisiana Democrats who were blasting away at the federal government, mostly to deflect from their own utter incompetence and lack of preparedness. But before long, their counterparts in Congress and in the national party were joining in the criticism. Politicians are like sharks. Once the blood was in the water – that is, once Democrats sensed that Bush might sustain some political damage because of his administration's response to Katrina – there was no stopping the attack.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said that, in responding to Katrina, Bush has been "oblivious" and "in denial." That's untrue and unfair. But it's also positively tame compared to what has spewed forth from Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who told members of the National Baptist Convention of America that Americans must "come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived (Katrina) and who did not."

First Lady Laura Bush called Dean's remarks "disgusting."

We quite agree. But on this somber fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, they're also a powerful and vivid reminder of how ugly things have become, how divisive and acrimonious our politics are at the moment and, most of all, how profoundly our political leaders have failed us as Americans struggle to deal with yet another national catastrophe.

Laura Bush may have called Dean's remarks "disgusting" but over here in England that's just how it appeared.

Ugly politics. In time of tragedy, pull together – not apart

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

September 11, 2005

Never did we imagine we would find ourselves, on the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, looking back with nostalgia on any facet of that horrible chapter in U.S. history. But that's exactly how we feel now that the political establishment in and around Washington has been swept up in a bitter battle for partisan advantage, childish finger-pointing and – in the case of the hyperventilating chairman of the Democratic National Committee – general trash talking.

You may recall that, in the days after 9/11, there was, thank goodness, very little of that sort of thing. Then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other prominent Democrats lined up behind the commander-in-chief. In fact, who could forget the inspiring way in which members of Congress from both parties came together on the Capitol steps and spontaneously erupted into a rendition of "God Bless America"?

Oh, President Bush eventually got minor criticism for not rushing out the door of that Florida school upon hearing the news that two jetliners had crashed into the World Trade Center and a third plane had barreled into the Pentagon. Later, there were faint grumblings over the fact that Bush hadn't returned to the White House immediately following the event at the school and that the Secret Service had him circling the Washington air space for hours before allowing Air Force One to land.

But certainly, in terms of the political fallout for the president and the administration, there was nothing like what we've experienced in the nearly two weeks since Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast. First it was just Louisiana Democrats who were blasting away at the federal government, mostly to deflect from their own utter incompetence and lack of preparedness. But before long, their counterparts in Congress and in the national party were joining in the criticism. Politicians are like sharks. Once the blood was in the water – that is, once Democrats sensed that Bush might sustain some political damage because of his administration's response to Katrina – there was no stopping the attack.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said that, in responding to Katrina, Bush has been "oblivious" and "in denial." That's untrue and unfair. But it's also positively tame compared to what has spewed forth from Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who told members of the National Baptist Convention of America that Americans must "come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived (Katrina) and who did not."

First Lady Laura Bush called Dean's remarks "disgusting."

We quite agree. But on this somber fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, they're also a powerful and vivid reminder of how ugly things have become, how divisive and acrimonious our politics are at the moment and, most of all, how profoundly our political leaders have failed us as Americans struggle to deal with yet another national catastrophe.

---

There are always special circumstances...

Laura Bush may have called Dean's remarks "disgusting" but over here in England that's just how it appeared.

If that's the way it appeared to you, perhaps that's the way you wanted it to appear. Look at the situation objectively: the city is about 70% black, so it stands to reason that images of stranded people would be largely of one race; the mayor of New Orleans, who did not order evacuation promptly and who did not make good use of assets under his control, is screaming at the Bush administration in an effort to deflect blame and save his political skin; the governor of Louisiana is not blameless either, and is deflecting blame from herself. There is more here than a failure of the Bush administration, though mistakes were certainly made at the federal level, too. But, when a rabid Democrat like Howard Dean makes a statement against Bush, you can swallow it whole, or examine it more closely.

CNN PRODUCERS TOLD ON-AIR GUESTS: GET ANGRY
Mon Sep 12 2005 12:42:11 ET

After weeks of intense Katrina coverage from the main press, LA TIMES guru and former CNN host Michael Kinsley divulges that CNN was coaching guests to artificially enhance emotions!

Kinsley writes:

"The TV news networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of the emotional straitjackets and express outrage. A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to 'get angry.'"

Developing...

The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed

Firefighter to Replace Brown As FEMA Chief

Laura Bush may have called Dean's remarks "disgusting" but over here in England that's just how it appeared.

If that's the way it appeared to you, perhaps that's the way you wanted it to appear. Look at the situation objectively: the city is about 70% black, so it stands to reason that images of stranded people would be largely of one race; the mayor of New Orleans, who did not order evacuation promptly and who did not make good use of assets under his control, is screaming at the Bush administration in an effort to deflect blame and save his political skin; the governor of Louisiana is not blameless either, and is deflecting blame from herself. There is more here than a failure of the Bush administration, though mistakes were certainly made at the federal level, too. But, when a rabid Democrat like Howard Dean makes a statement against Bush, you can swallow it whole, or examine it more closely.

Okay,
I accept I don't have the full understanding of your politics and it maybe you don't fully understand ours either but are you trying to say that it was a 70/30 split in terms of race/colour left behind? I am saying that in England it looked like 98% of the population left behind appeared to be coloured.
It may be that we have a biased media but really it did look like that. It just looked like they didn't have the means to evacuate. I'm sorry if you don't like that but that's what it looks like here!

---

There are always special circumstances...

Okay,
I accept I don't have the full understanding of your politics and it maybe you don't fully understand ours either but are you trying to say that it was a 70/30 split in terms of race/colour left behind? I am saying that in England it looked like 98% of the population left behind appeared to be coloured.
It may be that we have a biased media but really it did look like that. It just looked like they didn't have the means to evacuate. I'm sorry if you don't like that but that's what it looks like here!

What I'm trying to point out, is that Howard Dean's remarks were aimed at the president and the Republican administration, but that the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana were perhaps much more responsible for the failure of many to evacuate. What you saw on the news was rescue efforts by multiple agencies aimed at getting people out, no matter their color. Indeed, most of those being rescued were black, but the Bush administration did not have anything to do with the predominant race of who stayed behind and needed rescue.

You did not see anyone refused rescue services because they were black--and that is the clear implication behind Dean's statement. Isn't that what you imply seemed "disgusting" to you in England? Since the race of those needing rescue was not within the control of federal authorities, it was completely unfair of Dean to say, "skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived (Katrina) and who did not."

Okay,
I accept I don't have the full understanding of your politics and it maybe you don't fully understand ours either but are you trying to say that it was a 70/30 split in terms of race/colour left behind? I am saying that in England it looked like 98% of the population left behind appeared to be coloured.
It may be that we have a biased media but really it did look like that. It just looked like they didn't have the means to evacuate. I'm sorry if you don't like that but that's what it looks like here!

What I'm trying to point out, is that Howard Dean's remarks were aimed at the president and the Republican administration, but that the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana were perhaps much more responsible for the failure of many to evacuate. What you saw on the news was rescue efforts by multiple agencies aimed at getting people out, no matter their color. Indeed, most of those being rescued were black, but the Bush administration did not have anything to do with the predominant race of who stayed behind and needed rescue.

You did not see anyone refused rescue services because they were black--and that is the clear implication behind Dean's statement. Isn't that what you imply seemed "disgusting" to you in England? Since the race of those needing rescue was not within the control of federal authorities, it was completely unfair of Dean to say, "skin color, age and economics played a deadly role in who survived (Katrina) and who did not."

Circumstances and demographics.

---

Account frozen...