that title comes from leonardo dicaprio, from sunday's golden globes. obviously, he meant that we should keep contributing to the relief effort, but poor wording is poor wording. so, i'm going to assume that dicaprio loves disaster and wants more of it--he did, afterall, star in the most successful disaster movie yet. we must assume a fetishistic connection there: leo loves disaster and death just like mel gibson loves torture (see the mad max trilogy, braveheart and, obviously, the passion of the christ)

of course, leo isn't the only one talking about the tsunami. it would seem all the celebrities, big or small, are getting involved. hell, there's already been a network telethon. but, i'd like to point out a few statements from some government folks

first, there's condi rice, the devil on bush's shoulder (not to imply that there isn't a devil on the other shoulder, as well). at her confirmation hearing tuesday, she said "the tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the us government, but the heart of the american people. and i think it has paid great dividends for us." isn't the kind of attitude we try to save for private government meetings, not the televised ones? sure, it makes us look good to be all helpful, but aren't we supposed to at least pretend we're doing it out of the goodness of our hearts and the righteousness of the action? should be openly helping people to try to repair our worldy image of late? or, should we be helping people because those people need help and we've taken it upon ourselves as the most powerful and rich nation on the planet to act like a real big brother (and not that literary referenced one), supportive and understanding?

so, let's turn to colin powell. "i hope that as a result of our efforts, as a result of our helicopter pilots being seen by the citizens of indonesia helping them, that value system of ours will be reinforced," he said. he might have a point if, say, we'd postponed killing muslims at the same time we went off to save some from the destruction? but, as long as we continue shooting and exploding the so-called insurgents and terrorists in iraq, not to mention the numerous innocent bystanders, can we really try to win favor with the world by helping some other folks a few thousand miles farther east? isn't all just so obviously a PR campaign if we are so selective about it? if we really cared to help people, wouldn't we be helping the innocents in iraq as well? hell, wouldn't we have offered $350 million on the first chance, rather than the $15 million and $35 million we offered instead to the tsunami relief efforts?

if you're kicking a guy while he's down, is it really much of a gesture if you help his brother up at the same time?

and, if we think the world is so bad off, the starving, the poor, all those third world folks we try not to see on those commercials that plead for donations, just pennies a day and all that jazz, shouldn't we have already been donating money to help them, even before nature threw out a big fuck you to tens of thousands of coastal dwellers?

what's the point in being great and powerful if everybody beneath us hates us? what's the point in being great and powerful if all the lowly peons and plebes are going to die from before we can exploit them to make us some nikes?