I understand your frustration on this issue, and I'm sure that there's some truth to what you're saying. But by posting on this particular website, you make the tacit assumption that the readers are ignorant of these tragic global situations and that they neither want to help, nor have they actually donated money or another kind of service to those in need around the world. The truth is that you have no idea.

We're posting a lot about this particular situation on this website because we exist to discuss oil issues, and Katrina will certainly affect oil production. But that doesn't mean that the readers of this website are blind to other worldwide concerns, and I don't think anyone should make such assumptions about who we are and what we believe.

Surely it is only human to be more concerned for the welfare of fellow people closer to one's home. We cannot begrudge anyone for feeling this way.
Not so "surely" about that. Yes we can.
"Compassion fatigue" can easily overwhelm people hearing about tragedies on the other side of the earth, especially where we've got little or no ability to fix the cause of matters.  (What are we going to do about the government of Sudan arming raiders in Darfur, drop a nuke on Khartoum?)

It's a different matter when it's our own country, and we know people who have lived or still live in the area affected.  If the tragedy was preventable, we could have done something (as opposed to being unable to affect events); if not, it could have been us.

There is no comparison.

if you want to know what we should do about Darfur, here is a good set of actions to take.  (and dropping nukes isn't one of them.  from a fellow engineer-poet i would expect more).  take from International Crisis Group's July policy briefing:

"Equally flawed is the concept that the atrocities are
African-only problems that require African-only
solutions. The well-documented abuses that continue to
occur demand broader and more robust international
efforts aimed at enhancing the AU's ability to lead. In
view of the Sudanese government's abdication of its
sovereign duty and to the extent that the AU cannot
adequately protect Sudan's civilians, the broader
international community has a responsibility to do so.

Civilian protection needs to become the primary
objective. Crisis Group recommends the following
immediate steps, building on AU efforts, to deploy a
multinational military force with sufficient size,
operational capacity and mandate:

1) agree on a stronger mandate. The AU must
strengthen AMIS's (AU mission in Sudan) mandate to enable and
encourage it to undertake all necessary measures,
including offensive action, against any attacks or
threats to civilians and humanitarian operations,
whether from militias operating with the
government or from the rebels. Without a
stronger mandate, the ability of AMIS -- or any
other international force -- to provide
protection will remain extremely limited,
regardless of its size;

2) recognise that many more troops are needed.
12,000-15,000 should, in Crisis Group's estimate,
be on the ground now to protect villages against
further attack or destruction, displaced persons
(IDPs) against forced repatriation and
intimidation, and women from systematic rape
outside the camps, as well as to provide security
for humanitarian operations and neutralise the
government-supported militias that prey on
civilians;

3) support a much more rapid reinforcement of
AMIS. The current AU plan is to reach 7,731 --
including 1,560 civilian police -- by September
2005. The AU believes this relatively small
force could largely stabilise the situation and
that it might then need to go up to 12,300 by
the second quarter of 2006 in order also to
facilitate the eventual return of the displaced to
their homes. Crisis Group believes even the
latter number is at the low end of what is
required first to provide stability in a still lethal
situation, that these troops need to be appropriately
equipped, trained and of a quality to undertake
a dangerous civilian protection mission and that
the AU should consequently approve and
commence an immediate increase in AMIS to
12,000-plus highly ready personnel, to be incountry
within 60 days. The need for civilian
police is especially urgent;

4) provide strong, immediate international
support. To meet these objectives, the UN, EU
and NATO must offer the AU additional help
in force preparation, deployment, sustainment,
intelligence, command and control,
communications and tactical (day and night)
mobility, including the deployment of their own
assets and personnel to meet capability gaps as
needed;

5) develop a Bridging Force Option. If the AU
cannot meet these objectives -- numbers and
quality of troops, and time -- NATO should
work closely with the AU to deploy its own
bridging force and bring the total force up to
12,000 to 15,000 within 60 days and maintain it
at that level until the AU can perform the
mission entirely with its own personnel. The AU
should agree that until such time, its units would
come under command and control of the NATO
mission. The UN Security Council should
authorise the mission with a civilian protection
mandate but if it does not, the AU and NATO
would need to assume the responsibility and
agree on an appropriate mandate. If the
Sudanese government does not accept such a
mission, NATO and the AU would need to
prepare a much larger one to operate in a nonpermissive
environment; and

6) enforce the Security Council ban on offensive
military flights. The AU and NATO should
agree on enforcement measures to be applied if
Khartoum violates the prohibition in UN
Security Council Resolution 1591."

And all you have to do to help personally with the aftermath of Katrina is go to the Red Cross and donate blood, or even hop in the car with your chainsaw and gloves and start driving.

No comparison.

so u suggest i drive to NO from CA?  i admit it's easier to get to NO than Sudan, geographically and nationally, but both would take serious effort to help in person.

it's easy to personally help with the genocide in Darfur, call your senators and representatives and tell them to support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in discussion.  and donate to one of the many human rights organizations keeping people fleeing burning villages alive with essential water, food, and medical assistance.  

i plan on donating blood to ARC.  if you personally know people in the NO area, that changes things.  otherwise, the genocide in Darfur is currently much worse than Katrina in terms of the scope of human suffering, and we have ignored it for over a year.  not what i would call a humanitarian response by the US or the world.  

it's easy to personally help with the genocide in Darfur, call your senators and representatives and tell them to support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act in discussion.
You call that "helping personally"?  Leaving a message for a pol whose re-election prospects aren't going to be affected one bit by blowing me off?  Look up "activistism" for a definition of this sort of mentality.

Donating money to relief organizations isn't going to stop Khartoum from having an on-going massacre-fest.  People who send money there have little assurance that they will actually accomplish something.  But if you do something for the refugees from Katrina, the folks helped by your money are not going to have it all un-done the next week by a band of thugs sent by the government.  The help will actually help.

That's one reason why people give more for our own.

you can write to your senators/reps as well. that's better than calling. they can blow you off about anything that doesn't affect their reelection prospects, whether foreign or domestic.  you have no faith in making any sort of impact on them whatsoever, so activism to you is simply getting on the ground and personally helping people. Rwanda was a great example where people's letters did make a difference, though not enough, and more letters and calls should have been made.  the idea of "activistism" that activists are not thinking properly about pragmatic issues is contradicted by Rwanda at the very least.  

why would sending money to reputable human rights agencies doing humanitarian and intervention efforts in Sudan (or anywhere in the world) be less effective than doing so within our borders?  do you feel that sending money to relief agencies for the 2004 tsumani was also similarly corrupted and misallocated?  perhaps some of it was, but you can only depend on the organization to handle the funds appropriately (and not let corrupt governments steal them), whether domestic or foreign.  it's naive to think domestic funds are more often reliably and conscientiously used, while money used to end tyranny, oppression, and diaster overseas will most likely be wasted.  both have risks and must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

sending money will help with the humanitarian disaster in Darfur, but the politcal steps cannot and will not happen unless enough US citizens cry out loud enough to make the policy changes (increase AU ground forces, stronger AU mandate, UN support) or else.  when officials fear for their seats in Congress because people are outraged at their complacency, then they will stand up to change something.  you have just thrown up your hands, and said "i give up, genocide or not, i can't make a difference".  throwing in the towel before the game even started impies that "NEVER AGAIN" is meaningless.  

thanks for mentioning "activistism" to me.  after reading more about it, i do think it accurately reflects a problem within the guiding principles and vision of many activist groups (e.g. not looking at analysis and focusing too much on their group rather than the cause).  remaining aware and understanding of the deeper issues should be a part of activism and a way to make sure we know what the larger picture is about, and how we can make our goals into lasting reality.  i believe political lobbying can be a part of true, efficacious activism.  perhaps "regime change" is necessary in Sudan to stop the bleeding in Darfur.