Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #5 (part 3 of 3)

Rush Limbaugh, a conservative, received a lot of attention for saying that we it wasn't necessary to donate any more to Haiti.
He says we already support them enough by paying our taxes, and suggests that what happened has occured for reasons that should not be (do not need to be) supported.

The Wall Street Journal, considered conservative, supports the notion that ending foreign aid would help Haiti.
The article says that the support will end up leading to "more poverty, more corruption and less institutional capacity. It will benefit the well-connected at the expense of the truly needy..."

CNN appears to be supportive toward helping Haiti.
They hold the slogan of being "the most trusted news," and I assume they attempt to keep this stand by not taking sides on issues. I didn't see anything in this article read suggesting not supporting Haiti, though.

This article from Time draws on the emotional impact of the tragedy, and apparently is supportive of helping Haiti.


USA Today draws on the stats involved in the casualties that have occured, the poor conditions, how less support is present than was from the Katrina catastrophe, and the despiration of those affected leading to acts of despiration.


An article in The Nation (considered liberal or left-liberal) appears to cover more sides of the matter than the others I have read did, and concludes that the US response should also consider more long-term supportive aid, in addition to the current support given.


Another article by The Nation challenges the anti-support of Haiti notion, and concludes that under circumstances where so much "death and destruction" has come, not helping shouldn't be considered for any reason.


The Pueblo Chieftain has an article involving Puebloans helping out.


From what I read, the Earthquake in Haiti has caused a lot of damage and injury; more than commonly occurs in tragic events such as earthquakes or hurricanes. Supportive effort debates question the emotions and good will of others. There is also debate on whether or not giving support would cause more harm than good (i.e., support leading to less funds to support more people elsewhere in other ways). This incident has been all over the news, yet other catastrophes, at times, get little to no attention. This catastrophe, occuring in a country of poverty, does not appear to draw on any gains coming from supporting them, making it appear to be a good thing. It is argued that the support going to the country will end up in the hands of the privileged and not reach those who need it most. The exaggerated remarks by Limbaugh appear to have deeper-rooted notions at play than heard or read about on the surface. Of course, it also could be the case that making such remarks led to radio show hosts losing their jobs, like when Don Imus attempted to plead his case after losing his job for saying something (I am not sure if this is similar, but I did not really hear anything about underlying issues involved in the surface of this remark that lost him his job.). I do believe that certain natural disasters occurred in the Phillippines, not too long ago, and received little to no media attention. In a struggling economy, like the one we currently live in, where it is difficult to even pay ones own bills, I don't think 'not' looking toward the future of attempting to take care of oneself via giving money or other support one really does not have should be considered (nor even give up ones attempts at trying to live in ways that make them happy...like giving up a much needed vacation.) However, if capable of helping, then it does appear that Haiti is a place one can give it, where it is greatly needed, and has the potential of being given in ways that relate to the aid actually reaching the places it really needs to go.