January 06, 2004
AUSTRALIANS NOT SHALLOW, EVIL: CLAIM
Professional misery monger Hugh Mackay, whose view of human nature always inclines to the negative, last year had this to say:
We have taken our eye off the big picture. We don't want to know. We've shifted our gaze to the things we can understand and control - the minutiae of our personal lives ... we prefer TV programs about backyards to news and current affairs ... we have become more self-absorbed; we are obsessed with the idea of security ... we're more prejudiced and, correspondingly, less interested in information that might challenge those prejudices ... we have been destabilised by too many changes coming too quickly; we're tired of "issues", disappointed in our leaders and disturbed by our own sense of powerlessness ... we have taken refuge in the celebration of our ordinariness, our normality, our domesticity ... we're scared, so we've switched off.
According to incoming World Vision Australia boss Tim Costello, writing in the Sunday Herald Sun (no link), Hugh’s gloomy theory was exactly wrong:
Post the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there was an expectation that Australians would become more isolated. We were told people would turn inward, they would care less about global issues and instead focus on their families and close circle of friends.
There is now evidence that for scores of Australians nothing could be further from the truth. World Vision has found that since September 11 there has been a surge in giving to overseas aid organisations ... some 40 per cent of [World Vision’s] child sponsors have made their commitment since the attacks on New York and Washington.
So much for switching off. Interestingly, Costello says younger Australians now rate global poverty as a bigger issue than the environment; I’d like to know how many understand that trade (rather than charity or debt forgiveness) is the solution. Quite a few, I imagine.
Posted by Tim Blair at January 6, 2004 02:11 PM'we're scared, so we've switched off' - Hugh Mackay.
Despite leaving The Age many months ago, Hugh Mackay is still listed on its website as one of nine lead columnists. Could someone please switch him off?
Posted by: ilibcc at January 6, 2004 at 02:33 PMTrade is only part of the solution. Countries need stability too, which makes them a more attractive investment option. Debt forgiveness can play a part in achieving stability by leaving a government with more money to spend on health, education and whatever else may be important in keeping the population feeling relatively secure and happy. Charity can help in the same way too.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 6, 2004 at 02:33 PMWhen Hugh Mackay uses the word "we", he's invariably referring to someone other than himself. I always like to do a bit of pronoun substitution when reading his utterances. How does this sound:
"I have taken my eye off the big picture. I don't want to know. I've shifted my gaze to the things I can understand and control - the minutiae of my personal life ... I prefer TV programs about backyards to news and current affairs ... I have become more self-absorbed; I am obsessed with the idea of security ... I'm more prejudiced and, correspondingly, less interested in information that might challenge those prejudices ... I have been destabilised by too many changes coming too quickly; I'm tired of "issues", disappointed in our leaders and disturbed by my own sense of powerlessness ... I have taken refuge in the celebration of my ordinariness, my normality, my domesticity ... I'm scared, so I've switched off. "
Is that what you mean, Hugh?
Posted by: James at January 6, 2004 at 02:39 PMHugh said,
"Western nations have to match the war on terror with the war on poverty," Mr Costello said. "I find it unacceptable that the wealthiest nation in the world - America - gives less than 0.1 per cent of its GDP."
And Tim said,
I’d like to know how many understand that trade (rather than charity or debt forgiveness) is the solution.
And I ask:
Trade in what? We've destroyed the infrastructure of two countries in three years. Seems to me for what was spent in bombing the bejesus out of Afghanistan, the US could have bought a lot more Islamic good will by sending the equivalent dollar amount of charitable aid.
As evidenced by this piece on the USAF site.
"It was a bittersweet experience to say the least," Sydnor said. "On the one hand we are proud as Americans to provide assistance to the less fortunate, because that's part of our nature. But it also saddens us because of the poverty and conditions these fellow human beings live under. To see people so desperate for things that we take for granted is very humbling."
The only thing the government is supplying here however is the transportation.
Airmen here collect clothing, school supplies, basic food and household items donated from families, churches and civic organizations back home, and then travel throughout the region to make their deliveries.
It's kind of an Air Force Salvation Army unit. The adopt a village and deliver some US town's castoffs for the peasants to scratch over. The price of one DU bomb could have rebuilt the entire village and distributed new clothing in a dignified manner to everyone.
Terrorism is not a nation and you can't destroy the topography of entire countries to stop it. And trade policies that favor corporate interests over the common welfare of the indigineous populations are not going to hinder the recruiting drive for the jihad either.
just looking for solutions,
Posted by: Last One Speaks at January 6, 2004 at 04:09 PM"Debt forgiveness can play a part in achieving stability by leaving a government with more money to spend on health, education and whatever else may be important in keeping the population feeling relatively secure and happy. Charity can help in the same way too."
Or if you're a country like Ethiopia or Eritrea, debt forgiveness can leave the government free to spend up on arms (this time paying cash!) and restart one of the most useless wars on the African continent.
Posted by: steve at January 6, 2004 at 04:16 PM"Western nations have to match the war on terror with the war on poverty," Mr Costello said. "I find it unacceptable that the wealthiest nation in the world - America - gives less than 0.1 per cent of its GDP."
Which adds up to be more in dollars terms than the next six nations combined. Whats your point?
Surely if all it takes is a little bit o' cash to solve all the world's problems, surely the cashed up oil sheiks of Saudi Arabia could throw a few bucks to their co-religionists.
Oh, wait, they are. Its getting spent on planting bombs to kill other co-religionists.
Posted by: Quentin George at January 6, 2004 at 04:56 PMOh, and from the Economist magazine.
Inflation in 2003
Iraq: 110%
Zimbabwe: 400%
Ideally, it would have been better for Zimbabwe's economy for the "bejesus" to be bombed out of it than left the thug Mugabe in power.
Posted by: Quentin George at January 6, 2004 at 04:58 PMLast One Speaks wrote 'Seems to me for what was spent in bombing the bejesus out of Afghanistan, the US could have bought a lot more Islamic good will by sending the equivalent dollar amount of charitable aid.'
From:
The White House
US
To:
The Terrorists
The Desert
Afghanistan
Dear Terrorists, thank you for bombing America and killing thousands of our people. Here's a cheque for millions of dollars. Enjoy your shopping. Have a nice day.
Kind regards
George Bush
Stewart Kelly has it exactly wrong and Steve is setting him on the right track. People get wealthy when they produce valuable goods and services that others want to buy. You will invariably find that debt forgiveness is sought for places that fail to do so. They fail because of crap governments and you will usually find some version of socialism.
The formula is simple: law to support contracts, protection of private property, reasonable freedom of enterprise. The rest will follow. They can start making Nikes or whatever and soon enough will be able to afford the education and training to move on from their.
Just look at Hng Kong. When I was a kid (60s) all the crap toys were stamped made in Hong Kong. Now the buggers are rich, and no debt forgiveness or lashings of foreign aid required.
Last One Speaks,
The reason why trade, in particular trade in labour intensive goods like those Nike shoes, is the answer is because governments that rely on either:
- oil revenues, or
- aid
can quite happily disregard their own people; they have no use for them.
If a government get its money from the taxes paid by workers, it had better not bite the hand that feeds it.
Posted by: wv at January 6, 2004 at 05:59 PMYou're right. Trade is good; debt forgiveness and charity are bad.
Somebody better tell George W Bush, because he wants people to forgive debts and donate money to Iraq -- the same people who are locked out of bidding for reconstruction contracts (you know: trade).
Posted by: Robert at January 6, 2004 at 07:08 PMSo Robert, Why doest your peace loving allies forgive Iraq's debt. No one is stopping your friends helping reconstruction.
Posted by: Gary at January 6, 2004 at 07:39 PMFor a nasty moment, until I saw it was from months ago, I thought Hugh Mackay was backregurgitating his litany of scantimonious inaccuracies again (whatever happened to him - as if anybody cares?).
Posted by: sue at January 6, 2004 at 07:51 PMStewart, Last One Speaks,
Please name those countries that have been raised from poverty and ruin via debt forgiveness and charity.
If you can find any then watch me bury you with the countries that have lifted themselves out of poverty and ruin via trade and international investment (ie, debt).
Quentin, his point is that the US is not giving enough. Neither is Australia, or most of the rest of the developed world, for that matter.
Aid won't solve the third worlds problems, but it will relieve some of the internal pressures that can tear third world nations apart, frightening off investors who provide capital allowing people to produce goods and services to be sold to the rest of the world.
Give Africa clean water, wipe out malaria, help it get a handle on the spread of AIDS and see how that improves social stability in many of its nations. Those same nations will then have a better chance of getting, and holding onto, investment dollars. Aid can help in that regard.
Debt forgiveness (even partial) can also help by giving African governments more funds to devote to infrastructure, health, education, law enforcement, developing sensible regulation regimes and all the other things that can play a role in keeping a nation stable, and investors less nervous.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 6, 2004 at 08:02 PMRobert, I never said there were any. I said debt forgiveness can play a part. Read post above for details.
Steve, you're right to worry about crap/corrupt government wasting whatver money you give them or whatever debt you forgive them, so it needs to be done carefully. But I wouldn't let the possibility of it happening stop us from trying. The successes, in my opinion, would make the failures worthwhile.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 6, 2004 at 08:14 PMStewart Kelly
In regards to Iraq its not the USA that has debt to forgive is it?. What institution protects/legitimizes corrupt governments?
Posted by: Gary at January 6, 2004 at 09:09 PMLast One Speaks, Stewart Kelly, Robert, and whoever else it is who is saying this crap:
We're not giving enough? You stupid fools. We've given more money and effort and blood to help the poor, poverty-stricken, oppressed people of Afghanistan and the poor, oppressed, dictator-tormented people of Iraq and the poor, poverty-riddled, starvation-ravaged people of Africa and all the rest of the Thug World nations than any smug lecturer sitting in his Chomsky-tome-filled library has ever done. Why the fuck do you think we bothered going into these wars with such care -- we could simply have bombed Afghanistan and Iraq into glass ashtrays. As for Africa, we can't give Africans clean water,we're not keeping the clean water supply crammed up in a vault. Clean water depends upon a certain infrastructure that has to be constantly tended and maintained, and we can't force the people there or anywhere to give a shit about their own infrastructure. You're so used to living in a society full of people (other people, that you no doubt give lip service to as "workers" or complain about as "bureaucrats") that care enough to keep the water clean, the electricity going, and all the other luxuries kept running so that your pampered buttocks will always have a cushion to sit upon that you can't even imagine the problems in other countries that stand in the way of getting such a system in place; you think that all the problems in the world can be solved by a wave of America's magic wand, and only malice is keeping us from doing so. Tell you what: why don't you get off your fat, over-civilized arses, get your nose out of your political treatises or whatever "amusing," "ironic" literature is the latest thing and go help the downtrodden you are always squawking about instead of bothering other people, about whom you obviously know jackshit, with crap about them "not giving enough."
Jerks. I am so through with the likes of you people. There isn't one, not one company that I have ever worked for that has not given something to charity. We don't sit back and wait for our government to solve all of our problems. Stick your smug assumptions in your eye.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 6, 2004 at 09:36 PMNice, Andrea.
Forgot to mention about the AIDS excuse.
So, prior to the emergence of AIDS in the early '80s, Africa was a model of stability and progress ? Give us a break.
Last, Stewart, et al: you lot have it exactly backwards. The reason that AIDS, potable water, etc are such big problems is due to, not a cause of, the nature of those places.
Writing off debts, or throwing money at them (by the way, exactly how much is "enough" ?), will NOT solve the fundamental problem.
Posted by: Carl in N.H. at January 6, 2004 at 10:00 PMNo, it's not the US that has Iraqi debt to forgive. And good on the French and others for deciding to forgive some debt, and good on the Bush admin for recognising that excess debt can impede a nations economic growth.
Pity they don't have more regard for that fact when it comes to their own economy.
What institution protects/legitimises corrupt governments? I think I hear an anti-UN rant coming up. Wake me up when it's over...
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 6, 2004 at 10:09 PMStewart Kelly
"Wake me up when it's over... "
That way you'll be fresh for another anti-Bush rant.
Posted by: Gary at January 6, 2004 at 10:38 PMAndrea, fair point about US investment in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is currently significant, but it's also only been very recent. And after the job in those countries is done US aid will likely return to it's previous insufficient levels. And, given US wealth, its contribution in more typical years *is* insufficient. Same goes for most of the rest of the developed world. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
What makes you so sure I've never worked on maintaining infrastructure anyway? Granted, you're correct, but I don't see how that disqualifies from me commenting on it's importance to a developing nations economy. Plus, I love the way you lionise the 'worker' who looks after the infrastructure cos they 'care'. Funny, I thought they do it cos they get *paid*. Here's one way to find out: let's take away their wages and see how long the power stays on.
You seriously think I read 'ironic literature'? I wouldn't even know were to buy it. Is it even possible to have a sensible conversation with someone with so many deeply in-grained pre-conceptions?
Please stop being a daft bitch with the lefty stereotypes. You know nothing about how well off I am, what kind of person I am, where I work, or what I do. So quit pretending. And I'd be willing to bet my arse is not significantly more pampered than your own. And possibly significantly less.
As for Africans and infrastructure: I'm sure there are many Africans who care about their infrastructure and would like to see it better maintained, and would gladly do their part if able. Writing off the problem as the-africans-don't-give-a-shit is just plain idiotic.
Is that really the best explanantion you can come up with?
Carl (and others), read my posts a little more carefully. I never claimed aid or debt forgiveness would solve Africas problems. I said they could help.
Cheers.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 6, 2004 at 11:53 PM
By the way, for those who still labor under the notion that aid dollars are helping Africa in any meaningful way, may I recommend Tropical Gangsters: One Man's Experience With Development and Decadence in Deepest Africa, by Robert Klitgaard. A fascinating if depressing in-depth look at the way African kleptocracies work.
Posted by: Bruce at January 7, 2004 at 12:19 AMWho's writing Africa off?
The point is, there are limitations to what the US can do to help when the leadership of countries/societies is determined to be corrupt and thuggish. Until those leaders are gone, and until a civil society that's not dependent on the largesse of others (or dead dinosaurs), the debt relief/aid could make things WORSE and in fact perpetuate the reigns of terror.
If that's the extent of what we do, then THAT is writing off the people of Africa - throw money at the problem and pat yourself on the back, convinced that you've done the Right Thing.
Posted by: Steve in Houston at January 7, 2004 at 12:21 AMIt is a pity those who prate on the virture of debt forgiveness apparently know nothing about either economics or human nature (which tend to come to the same thing anyway). Sure, let Africans welsh on their debts - but in that case what responsible company, bank or government will ever lend them movey again? A few months later they'll be back in the shit as deep as ever and not even able to borrow their way out. There is only one long-term solution to Africa's problems - it's called trade. And one large, greedy, cartel locking it out and thereby murdering its people - the European Union.
Posted by: sue at January 7, 2004 at 01:08 AMAs averse as I am to commenting these days, I'd like to point out to LOS that there are, to the best of my knowledge, no bombs employing depleted uranium in the US inventory - DU is used in direct-fire weapons, such as tank, APC, and aircraft cannon.
I could, of course, be wrong, but air-dropped anti-tank munitions use shaped charges and the like to pierce armor, since gravity bombs never attain even a fraction of the speed of a cannon shell.
I also would point out that even if the USAF isn't paying for the stuff, does it really matter to the people receiving it that it's a private donation?
Posted by: SparcVark at January 7, 2004 at 01:25 AMThe EU the only one? Come off it. The US is almost as bad in the protectionism stakes. Japs too. Many other countries around the world indulge in it. I get the impression it's more common than not. Why single out the EU for abuse?
*remembers what blog he's at*
Stupid question.
I'm gunna start a petition to get europhobia declared a hate crime and get you lot locked up. Society will be better off :)
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 7, 2004 at 01:35 AMYou should remember that the site's author wrote this, Stew.
Posted by: tim at January 7, 2004 at 03:29 AMI have to stand with Andrea on this one. Too often we take the easy way out and throw money at a problem. Especially in Africa, the problem is too many strong-men trying to be top dog. No amount of trade encouragement will help Zimbabwe (SP?), for instance, since the "govenment" there wouldn't allow the environment for it to do any good. The Sudan and Nigeria are two other examples, here these countries have potentially rich oil revenues in the offing but the Sudan is being torn apart by two sets of gangsters (at least on semi-legitmate govt and rebels) while Nigeria is poised to go the same way. Sorry, but I have problems throwing good money after bad since the people who need it aren't going to get it anyway.
Posted by: rabidfox at January 7, 2004 at 03:39 AMFuck third world debt, can I have some debt relief from my bank?
The annual revenue gap between the rich bank and the poor me is about 1000000000000000% The bank probably wouldn't even notice if they relieved me of my debt.
I won't use the money in a corrupt way*, even though I am addicted to crack, alcohol and have a fiendish sex addiction. I promise.
* Does not exclude the use of drugs, liquor, ho's, rape rooms, torture prisons, systematic starvations, occasional land grabs, and did I mention ho's? - I need lots of ho's.
Posted by: James Dudek at January 7, 2004 at 08:04 AM"Please stop being a daft bitch with the lefty stereotypes."
Nice one Stewert, You would win in a bitch fight unless you've cut your fingernails lately.
"And after the job in those countries is done US aid will likely return to it's previous insufficient levels. "
Well Da! If the job is done then how is that insufficient. Like most detractors you base US obligation on your own envy and a desire mothered the rest of your life.
"Why single out the EU for abuse?"
Because people like you let them of the hook. US tariffs are being cut but you will continue the same line. why? because that is all you have. You go to sleep when chronic offenders are disused. Lots of critics of protectionism here, yet most of your ideological brothers at home and overseas would increase them.
"Writing off the problem as the-Africans-don't-give-a-shit is just plain idiotic."
No one said that. Until African governments reform there is not going to be a solution. And the poverty there has a lot to do with the culture.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 08:17 AMWell, Stewart, you have graduated to asshole status. You notice, by the way, that I didn't address just you, but two other people. You know, the whole world doesn't revolve around you.
*remembers what blog he's at*
Well, you can just fuck right off if the thoughts displayed here aren't to your liking. It's a big internet, and there are so many other blogs, lots of them run by wet pseudos like you.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 7, 2004 at 09:59 AM
Get a grip Andrea. You were referring to me as well as the other two. Given the idiocy of your assumptions about me it's not unreasonable for me to respond. The others are quite capable of defending themselves if they so wish, I won't presume to speak for them.
Gary, once the job is done in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are plenty of other countries around the world that could be helped.
As for my alleged US-envy, while I respect the US on many levels, at the end of the day I prefer living in a country like Australia. More government services. More progressive tax system. Just generally more left. What precisely do you think I'm envious of anyway?
And who exactly are my ideological brothers? Names please! You seem to think I'm hard left, when I'm more likely to vote for Keating or Latham than Whitlam.
And here's a quote from Andreas dummy spit for you:
"...and we can't force the people there or anywhere to give a shit about their own infrastructure."
Sounds like she was saying the-africans-don't-give-a-shit to me.
Tim, fair enough, I know you're not really a europhobe, you just like to take the piss. But suggesting you lot all be locked up was tongue-in-cheek too.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 7, 2004 at 12:15 PMGo away, Stew. You're boring and pointless.
Oh, it's just a joke. Get a grip. Tcha!
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 7, 2004 at 12:20 PMStewart Kelly: "I'm gunna start a petition to get europhobia declared a hate crime and get you lot locked up"
The quintessential leftist method of conflict resolution. Note that Stewart is being gentle, in that he isn't planning on putting a bullet in the backs of our necks.
Thanks for the heads-up Stew.
Posted by: Robert Blair at January 7, 2004 at 12:22 PMStewart Kelly
You said
"And after the job in those countries is done US aid will likely return to it's previous insufficient levels. "
Then shifted the goal post.
"Gary, once the job is done in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are plenty of other countries around the world that could be helped."
You try to claim to be a moderate but your target is completely one sided. Then ended up with a bit of snivelling and a popular get out jail card "I was only joking".
I wasn't born responsible for others and I'm going to dye that way.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 12:41 PMAndrea, if I bore you feel free to not read my posts.
Tcha?
*looks perplexed*
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 7, 2004 at 12:46 PMStewart Kelly
Your are a bore. Full of feelings with no substance that leads nowhere.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 01:02 PMAndrea darling, and I'm addressing your first post that mentioned my name, you mustn't let my questions upset you so or you'll end up prematurely gray. My words are always meant to be taken in the kindest way possible.
I take your points into consideration and they're well made but as always I think you completely misunderstand me. It's not about the dollar amount to me, it about the distribution of the proportional amounts. My government is spending much more than .01 percent of the GDP on, as you so eloquently put it - bombing these countries into glass ashtrays - which I believe they have already done.
I don't believe it was done carefully or humanely and I think the US government has utterly failed its responsibilty to the Afghani people they promised to set free. Don't you think that if there was a success story to be told there, you would have seen it on CNN by now?
George Bush didn't earn the money they are using to promote this agenda, I did, as did all of the US tax paying public, and those of us who would prefer our money spent constructively rather than destructively are not being heard, not because we are so few but because our voice is being suppressed, if not stamped out by the heavy boot of the warmongers. I want more balance in my country's foreign policy expenditures.
As far as the trade question, I'm not suggesting that there are not socially conscious companies. I was responding to what I saw as Tim's endorsement of the WTO spin.
I believe in capitalism and I believe in fair trade agreements but I do not buy what the WTO is selling as free trade. IMO what they're proposing is a free ride on the backs of the indigineous third world for the benefit of the multicorp's profit margin.
looking at the big picture,
Posted by: Last One Speaks at January 7, 2004 at 01:27 PM"because we are so few but because our voice is being suppressed, if not stamped out by the heavy boot of the warmongers."
A current theme amongst the week minded is martyrdom and entitlement as you demonstrated LOS.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 01:42 PMTo those of you who hold up Nike factories as the hope of the third world poor, I only hope you get to depend on your livelihood by working in one
[The rest of Last One Speaks' post has been stamped out by the heavy boots of warmongers. Email him to join his pity-party. -- Admin]
Posted by: Last One Speaks at January 7, 2004 at 01:48 PM(What's all this stuff on my soles? Christ, another good set of jackboots, ruined.)
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 7, 2004 at 02:03 PMGary said,
A current theme amongst the week minded is martyrdom and entitlement as you demonstrated LOS.
You didn't read my post on free speech zones, did you dear?
Damn straight I feel entitled to my constitutional rights to dissent. I believe in the common good, and that includes everybody, not just the people I like or those that can afford it and that especially includes those that don't have the power to speak for themselves.
I call it greed, to take more than you need just because you have an inherited advantage when there are so many that have nothing and go hungry. You call it martyrdom. I call that sharing, not sainthood.
just searching for a common ground,
Posted by: Last One Speaks at January 7, 2004 at 02:18 PMGary, no goalposts were shifted. Andrea made a reasonable point about current US spending in Iraq and Afghanistan and I immediately conceded she was correct, and altered my criticism accordingly.
As for my 'target' being one sided, up and down this comment thread I've stated that the EU and the rest of the developed world is as bad as the US in not giving sufficient aid.
I claimed I was joking in regard to calling you lot euorphobes and getting you all locked up. Not in regard to anything else. Check the post were I wrote it, and in particular check out the little smiley at the end of the sentence. I dunno about you Gary, but when I see a smiley at the end of a sentence I usually assume it to mean someone has cracked a joke and wants to be sure that readers understand that fact.
If you're going to interpret everything I say as an anti-American rant or take it out of context I can't stop you. But it's seriously delusional and dishonest.
LOS, how do you envision fair trade? If you're talking about rich nations dropping their protectionist policies then great, but if you're talking about artificially inflating prices received for products produced by cheap labour then how will third world countries attract investment with their major drawcard taken away?
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 7, 2004 at 02:25 PMLOS
You have an Email and a Webpage so no one is stopping you from speaking. And being self appointed stinks of martyrdom.
Stewart Kelly
I think you need to read a little closer, I didn't say "anti-American" I said one sided by your own admission you choose to go to sleep when its not about the US. Back peddle all you like but most are still capable of critical thinking as apposed to regurgitated rhetoric.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 02:52 PM[The rest of Last One Speaks' post has been stamped out by the heavy boots of warmongers. Email him to join his pity-party. -- Admin
I'm surprised you found that offensive. I didn't mean it to be. It was an spontaneous thought.
BTW, that would be her, I really am a girl. And if you don't want to feel sorry for the downtrodden, you don't have to come to my pity party, but you have an open invitation all the same. At my house, everyone is invited, unless they behave badly.
peace,
Libby
Posted by: Last One Speaks at January 7, 2004 at 04:27 PMGary, you didn't say 'anti-American' specifically, but you implied it. Unless of course you were suggesting that my desire to *only* talk about the US was in order to endlessly compliment it.
Anyway, what made me want to go sleep was not that we weren't talking about my beloved USA, but that I could swear an anti-UN rant was about to occur. Thankfully it didn't and I was able to remain awake.
Which rhetoric did I regurgitate anyway? And you still haven't told me who you think my ideological brothers are? Stalin? Mao? Pilger? Or specifically what about the US you think I'm envious of?
Clue me in Gaz, the suspense is killing me.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 7, 2004 at 04:27 PMI don't think anybody is able to ever Clue you in,Stewart.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 04:39 PMLOS, how do you envision fair trade? If you're talking about rich nations dropping their protectionist policies then great, but if you're talking about artificially inflating prices received for products produced by cheap labour then how will third world countries attract investment with their major drawcard taken away?
I don't have the answers, I'm here with questions but in answer to your question, I guess it's the former. I'm concerned with US subsidies that enrich monoculture corporate farms over family farmers and prevent the third world from competing fairly in the market crops they can reasonbly produce, such as say the rice market in Latin America. I see it as exploiting the indigineous by forcing them to move from a simple healthy country environment into a dangerous and unhealthy urban setting where their choices look to me to be pretty much thievry or sweat shops.
And to those who accuse me of self appointed punditry. I don't claim to be right, I'm just thinking out loud.
I know I talk a lot, but I'm really here to listen.
LOS
Posted by: Last One Speaks at January 7, 2004 at 04:46 PMOk Stew, Mike Moore seems to be your guru at least in the depth of your commontry.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 04:47 PMLOS
My ancestors moved from a "country environment" and I'm better of for it. Lucky for me they didn't have someone from another country forcing them to stay.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 05:08 PMLOS, living indigenous in the third world isn't all it's cracked up to be. Hard life, short life span. Working in a sweat shop is the kind of shitty life that I hope you or I never have, but for most it's better than the peasant life they would otherwise endure, even if only slightly so. And it offers the hope of getting better if economic growth is found and maintained.
Gaz, your cunningly thought out Mike Moore 'argument' has got me beat. Stripped of the illusions us lefties cling to I'm now forced to retire from the field, so to speak, totally cowed by your superior intellect and debating skills. Now doubt I'll have to seriously reconsider my entire set of political beliefs based on the pasting you have given me up and down this comment thread, but will one day return to humbly thank you for showing me the error of my ways
By the way you spelled "commontry" wrong.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 7, 2004 at 06:11 PMRabidfox said:
"The Sudan and Nigeria are two other examples, here these countries have potentially rich oil revenues in the offing but the Sudan is being torn apart by two sets of gangsters (at least on semi-legitmate govt and rebels) while Nigeria is poised to go the same way."
I take your point but not every country in Africa is such an extreme basketcase. What about South Africa and Botswana? Both have reasonable governments and have shown commitment to solving their countries problems and both are near crippled by the AIDS crisis.
In addition giving aid does not necessarily amount to handing African governments bundles of cash. The aid can be directly administered by aid agencies, WHO, whoever if particular governments can't be trusted. If they won't let the aid agencies in, then spend the money in another country.
There's also aid in the form of sending people to these countries: teachers, police, bureacrats, economists, business leaders - basically anyone who can fill in gaps in third world ability and pass on knowledge in key areas. Aid can pay their wages while they are there.
In addition the IMF needs reform (partly done already). It's Washington Consensus methodology of transforming third world nations into something better has shortcomings. There's excessive focus on low taxes and government fiscal discipline to the point that the need for social stability is seriously under-valued.
Posted by: Stewart Kelly at January 7, 2004 at 06:58 PM"What about South Africa and Botswana? Both have reasonable governments and have shown commitment to solving their countries problems and both are near crippled by the AIDS crisis."
You know nothing about South Africa if that's what you think and I cant teach you since my knowledge is from experience. And that's your hole problem, you believe the little snippets we get in Australia and come to such conclusions that end up meaningless. Shit that it the point, leaders give lip service and people like you believe! because its a lot easier than making hard decisions especially when it come to responsibility. Throw other peoples money at every thing then go to sleep thinking your "companionate". I support Conditional Aid but with the current institutions and blind supporters nothing is going to change. Evan none government Aid prolongs the problem because it takes the presser of government reform. We are not obligated to help and the people that try use emotional blackmail the more people stop volunteering. "social stability" cradle to grave welfare you mean, is it your concern for Americans or more likely fear of people that can grow up and make decisions for them selves.
Posted by: Gary at January 7, 2004 at 09:07 PMLast One spaketh:
exploiting the indigineous by forcing them to move from a simple healthy country environment
Oh good god. You remind me of a professor I had who complained about Evil Corporations™ building roads in Third World countries because the poor peasants would drive or ride the bus instead of walking and thus "they wouldn't get any exercise." You are obviously the product of a rich Western country; no real inhabitant of Third World rural areas would utter such stupidity.
By the way, I didn't remove your comment because it was particularly offensive (I've saved it if anyone really cares what you said; they can email me for it); it's just that when you spouted your ridiculous line about "dissent being crushed by the boot of the warmongers" I couldn't resist. I guess these boots were made for walkin.'
By the way, since you never identified yourself as female, I used the standard English possessive pronoun "his." English doesn't have a neutral that is applicable to human beings (would you rather be referred to as "it"? I thought not) and I didn't feel like using the weaselly "his/her" or fakey made-up things like "hisser" or "per" or whatever. So members of the distaff side who wish their sex to be known are advised to 1) identify themselves as such instead of waiting around for someone to make a mistake, or 2) using your real name instead of a gender-neutral pseudonym.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 7, 2004 at 09:33 PMOh my aching head. I deserve that scolding Andrea.
Having counted my empties and reveiwed my evening posts in the daylight, I think I should apologize to all for the purple prose. It always sounds so much more poetic while you're drinking those beers. If it's any comfort I am paying for this today....
And good point on the pseudonym Andrea. I post anonymously in deference to my daughter who is convinced the entire family will be arrested or least disgraced for what I'm saying on the blog. But I volunteer my identity to anyone who asks, and even though you didn't really - ask I mean - allow me to introduce myself.
Libby Spencer, (somewhat eccentric but harmless) currently residing in Northampton, Mass. USA.
Posted by: Last One Speaks at January 8, 2004 at 05:16 AMWell, I offered your name to my Masters in the Black Helicopters but they just yawned and rolled their eyes, so I guess you can tell your daughter that you are safe from being carted off to the Camps™.
[OMINOUS DRUMROLL] For now.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 8, 2004 at 10:39 AM