22 Jan 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusYes. Of course. I read it 21 years ago when it came out. Is that still your frame of reference even now in 2010? If you're interested in books on the subject I can suggest a few that were written thiscentury.
Have you ever read 'The Lords of Poverty', a devastating exposure of the arrogance and luxurious life styles of government employed 'aid workers' (eg.Unicef), as compared with those employed by charities (eg.Red Cross, and Red Crescent)
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by WajomaObviously I meant that both are a form of aid from the U.S.🙂
They are very different, a bunch of bureaurats handing out other peoples money or money donated out of genuine concern, compassion and benevolence.
One is civilized, the measure of which is the extent to which men deal with each other voluntarily. The other is busybodies ordering you around.
The similarity ends there.
It's laughable how many folks are sooo up in arms over this now, yet weren't contributing a dime to Haiti prior to the 'Quake.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFThank God they got that mess and the one at the U.N. all cleared up and none of that is happening now!🙄
Yes. Of course. I read it 21 years ago when it came out. Is that still your frame of reference even now in 2010? If you're interested in books on the subject I can suggest a few that were written thiscentury.
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by monster truckThat's not so. In the professional circles I move in there is widespread contempt for officials from the U.N. USAID, World Bank etc. The book "Lords Of Poverty" had quite an impact, though, back in the 1990s - in terms of accountability and tranparency. But it's still problematical. I stand by my response to Wajoma's ghastly sociopathic nonsesne on the previous page. Governmental aid, administered by Wajoma's "busybodies" saves lives. In WajomaWorld, we would be more civilized if we just let them die and put an end to the aid which is such an incomprehensibly shocking limitation on his "freedom".
Thank God they got that mess and the one at the U.N. all cleared up and none of that is happening now!
22 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSorry, I can't seem to find where he said or implied that.😕
.... Wajoma's ghastly sociopathic nonsesne on the previous page. Governmental aid, administered by Wajoma's "busybodies" saves lives. In WajomaWorld, we would be more civilized if we just let them die and put an end to the aid which is such an incomprehensibly shocking limitation on his "freedom".
As I mentioned in the other thread, it's sort of look pissin' outside in a hurricane.😲
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by monster truckIt wasn't so much that something so simplistic or paternalistic as a "dime" was what was wanted prior to the quake.
It's laughable how many folks are sooo up in arms over this now, yet weren't contributing a dime to Haiti prior to the 'Quake.
The history of development issues in Haiti has not been a happy one. Apart from a brief 'respite' during part of populist Aristide's brief term of government, the money has always found its way to a handful of wealthy families.
What was needed was support for efforts to empower the Haitian people and encourage meaningful participation. This would have contributed to an economic agenda that sought to genuinely benefit the wider interests of the Haitian people.
For decades these matters have been decided by a very narrow segment of Haitian society, literally no more than 20 or 25 families. Aristide's stint promised to realign the situation to a degree but it provoked a backlash and since then there has been a struggle between the demand for some form of inclusive politics and concerted efforts to prevent social and economic issues from be subjected to democratic scrutiny and solutions.
So, we had a situation where these 'questions' would be answered by "experts", such as those bearing international aid, or by "the army". The period running through the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was a one of severe and brutal political repression. Thousands of people were murdered.
What is at issue is Haiti's strengths and capacities, not its weaknesses, its failures and its "inability to progress". The question of security has never been about security for ordinary people, it's precisely the opposite - it's posed as a question of security for the elite in the face of what they see as a big mob of poor and dangerous people. This dynamic has, indeed, been playing out yet again even in the last fortnight.
In the last year the government vetoed an attempt to increase the minimum wage - so it remains at $3 a day - the lowest in the hemisphere by far - 25% of what it is in the neighbouring Dominican Republic. They ran a shockingly inappropriate privatization programme - including the selling off of the profitable (and vital revenue generating) phone company with the loss of thousands of jobs. They outlawed the most popular political party in Haiti (basically Aristide's ANC-like party).
You weren't thinking about Haiti or were unconcerned by its plight before the earthquake? Speak for yourself.
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFIn considering the plight of pre-earthquake Haiti as compared with its neighbour, the Dominican Republic, one must also take account of the very different ethnic mix between the two Countries.
It wasn't so much that something so simplistic or paternalistic as a "dime" was what was wanted prior to the quake.
The history of development issues in Haiti has not been a happy one. Apart from a brief 'respite' during part of populist Aristide's brief term of government, the money has always found its way to a handful of wealthy families.
What was need ...[text shortened]... or were unconcerned by its plight before the earthquake? Speak for yourself.
22 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSpeaking for myself (utilizing Free Speech)-
It wasn't so much that something so simplistic or paternalistic as a "dime" was what was wanted prior to the quake.
The history of development issues in Haiti has not been a happy one. Apart from a brief 'respite' during part of populist Aristide's brief term of government, the money has always found its way to a handful of wealthy families.
What was need or were unconcerned by its plight before the earthquake? Speak for yourself.
You're absolutely right.
I wasn't nor ever will be concerned with Haiti or African babies. Other than sympathizing with their plight.
I am concerned with people in my community who I can actually help. Hands on. Get it done. With my blood, sweat, and time
Not 'text 10 bucks to the Clinton/Bush relief fund'.😛
My actual contributions are of course 'confidential'.😉
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by monster truckHe described Canada's contribution of emergency aid as "forced welfare" and claimed that it "discourages genuine philanthropy". He's staunchly against "force", as we know. Canada hastily set up a scheme where it would also match the public's donations dollar for dollar from government revenue.
Sorry, I can't seem to find where he said or implied that
As 200,000 corpses lay under the rubble and more than 400,000 people were sleeping out in the open, Wajoma quibbled Canada's sending of aid, on the grounds that it was paid for with taxpayers' money. Wajoma regularly refers to taxation as "theft", of course. He described the Canadian government rushing aid to Haiti as "the promotion of an uncaring, uncivilised society". Pretty clear opposition to distaser relief aid, I think. Leave it to the domain of the collection tin, for naked ideological reasons, even as people die! That's how it goes. Civilization, eh?
Then, more recently he again differentiated between aid taken from government revenue and privaye charity, characterizing the former as not being "donated out of genuine concern, compassion and benevolence". It strikes me as a bit rich getting lectured on "concern, compassion and benevolence" by Wajoma who dismisses disaster aid as the antithesis of being "civilized". As he said on the previous page: "[charitable donations are] civilized, the measure of which is the extent to which men deal with each other voluntarily." To me, Wajoma is about as boggled eyed as an unreconstructed, unapologetic, be-sandaled marxist tertiary college lecturer.
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusWhat did you make of the long list of things Jared Diamond suggested - in his book "Collapse" - that we "take account of" when considering the plight of pre-earthquake Haiti as compared with neighbouring Dominican Republic?
In considering the plight of pre-earthquake Haiti as compared with its neighbour, the Dominican Republic, one must also take account of the very different ethnic mix between the two Countries.
22 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFIn no way is he or anybody else implying no assistance should be sent.
He described Canada's contribution of emergency aid as "forced welfare" and claimed that it "discourages genuine philanthropy". He's staunchly against "force", as we know. Canada hastily set up a scheme where it would also match the public's donations dollar for dollar from government revenue.
As 200,000 corpses lay under the rubble and more than 400,000 peo ...[text shortened]... onstructed, unapologetic, be-sandaled marxist tertiary college lecturer.