Dbass

I was up until 5 last night watching a rerun of Meet the Press with Bono of U2 talking about the Live 8 cause and the upcoming G8 summit in Scotland. I was moved, but I wonder if me being moved is a result of my heavy liberal bias and idealism, or because it really is a worthy cause and we really can do something about it.
For those of you who don't know, the G8 are the 8 most powerful men in the world. This year, the other 7 will begin to contribute .7 percent of their budget to aid for Africa to fight against AIDS and poverty (3000 people a day die from mosquito bites, that's 3 a second....we thought September 11 was a tragedy, 3000 once in the nations history!). The US contributes .17 percent, and at this rate will contribute only 1/4th the amount of the European nations. Regardless of how you feel our budget is being used, isn't that a little sad? We are, after all, the strongest nation in the world (literally!) and we will contribute only 1/8th of the total aid in the world? We ought to be 1st in line to help, if even by simply resolving the debts we collect from indigent nations.
Sorry, let me know what you all think.

djtestudo

You could make the argument that no country should be forced to give aid to any other country.

However, I won't make that argument. I'll just say that, I wouldn't be against offering this kind of aid, but I don't think that it will happen (at least to as much of the rest of the world's standards) because of our nation's own issues, and the fact that anyone with that much power who caves in on an issue due to concerts should lose that power.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

MSD

How does paying less foreign aid to countreis that owe us money than a couple dozen countries in Europe qualify as sad? Why does our government have a duty to give away more of our money without our consent to countries who have already recieved billions of our dollars and whose debt we have recently agreed to forgive? We have a massive budget defecit, yet many of the people who so vocally criticize the president for incurring this debt insist on giving away our money rather than paying off that defecit. Where is the logic in all of this?

pan6467

Personally, I have no problem giving aid in the form of food, Peace Corps, and medicines that go directly to the people. Any other aid, such as that sent to Saudi or Isreal or to governments and not the people........ then cut it to 0.

We don't even have a strong education or infrastructure, and yet we give billions to prop up governments that do nothing for their people.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

roachboy

before you start talking about the need for debt relief on the part of the poorest africa countries, it makes sense to get at least a bit of background on the imf/world bank policies of "structural adjustment" and from there maybe to think about the extent to which what is being proposed via the eu--what the live 8 thing is attempting to advance at the level of the g8 by the publicity generated by this concert.

this article is not bad as an introduction to the general dynamics of the brave new world of neoliberal debt generation. structural adjustment is an almost perfect circle. there is no reason not to forgive teh debt of the poorest countries--the consequences of not doing it is grinding the lives of millions even further into absilute squalor--not as a function of the policies of the states themselves even--but as a function of how structural adjustment works.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp

and here is a short overview of the debt relief project and the obstacles (it is cursory, but an ok place to start):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4081220.stm

more information is easily available with a search.


as a kind of disgusting sidelight to all this, a short article about the international arms trade with reference to these same poor countries:

http://www.sundayherald.com/50470


as for the show itself, it sounds like a fine idea that is routed through an excuse to book a lot of really shitty bands. i am considering going to the philadelphia show despite the fact that there is not a single band on the bill that i even like even a little and that the whole thing is only indirectly aimed at the audience that actually turns up.

actually now that i read through what i just wrote, i cant figure out why i would go. except that it will happen about a 10 minute bikeride from here.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

alansmithee

I agree that this is very sad. That's .17 more than the US should be giving out.

Dbass

I believe it is sad that the US government is not providing more aid to Africa for 2 reasons - 1. We have the chance and the ability to end human suffering. It's the chance we haven't taken in Darfur, and the chance we certainly haven't taken in Guantanamo Bay. 2. Because we are the most powerful nation in the world and we have more pride than to let Frenchmen and Germans outdo us on the world scale. We already look like a bunch of redneck shitheads for what we do to our "detainees," and we don't need to be colored as more heartless...at least I don't think that's a good image.
As to Pres. Bush, he's not exactly doing much to eliminate our deficit either.
As to the type of aid being proposed, I won't bother to defend it, but I would hope that everyone who voted no would inform themselves of the situation. www.one.org

SirSeymour

I don't mind giving money to other countries to try to solve a lot of these issues. I really don't. However, I do have a problem when people from other nations come in here and try to guilt us into doing more when they don't understand the issues we have facing our own nation right now. For example, our educational system is falling apart at the most basic levels largely due to financial issues. My wife is a teacher in one of the largest school districts in the nation which is facing a $24 million deficit next year. Helping out today in Africa is great and I am all for saving lives however I am not in favor of helping out today if it is dooming America's tomorrow. We have to fix some of our issues if we are to be able to continue helping out other nations at all.

__________________
SQL query
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
Zero rows returned....

roachboy

but something really needs to be done to change the imf/world bank m.o. in the world.
what seems to be true across many of the posts above is the illusion that you can understand the situation of the poorest african nations as being like you lending money to an unreliable friend--when there is nothing about that loan individual-indivudal that would enable you to think about what the effects of structural adjustment really are: for example, s.a. programs make it nearly impossible to develop locally-oriented agriculture and tends to undermine what exists by forcing markets open to cheap mass produced, largely american overproduction...s.a. undermines the ability of countries to control their own employment situation....s.a. traps the poorest countries in particular in a vicious circle that there is simply no way out of.
the debt forgiveness move is not just a nice idea--it seems necessary for the longer-term stability of the international regime itself--but simple debt forgiveness for the poorest african countries is also a substitute for a dismantling of the imf in its present form.

as for geldorf and bono--i think damon albarn was right about them.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Impeachment proceedings might serve to sway the president. Save for that, I believe that he thinks he is untouchable. He has already seen that he can basically do what he wants.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If America was in debt to the same degree that Africa was and we were being devestated by AIDS, I hope that the world would be willing to help us because it is the right thing to do. So also it is the right thing for us to do for the inncent people of Africa who are dying.

roachboy

here is damon albarn's critique of live 8.
to a certain extent, it had an effect--note that now there are more cities involved and a certain number of african artists as well.
but the substance of his critique, which comes at the end of this short article, is dead on:

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/4079644.stm

and i don't think that albarn's remarks a simply snippiness for not having been invited--in many ways, live 8 is almost like an episode of the love boat--a huge, bloated sanctimonious spectacle populated almost entiely by washed-up performers on the one hand and the most mediocre current popstars on the other.

that said, i hope that the g8 feels whatever pressure there is to be had from this.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

irateplatypus

helping those in need is worthy... but the method of supplying ever-increasing amounts of aid has been the primary one for decades and many places in africa are no better or even worse than when aid started to arrive.

these hippie causes are more to make the donor feel good about themselves than actually helping people.

it's time we tried something else.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Dbass

I think I just read my title for the first time...huh...you know, I hate to do this, but you're all right...it probably won't change Bush's mind. Sadly, what I believe in is that this is a righteous cause...and no matter how many people believe that too, it's sort of a moot point as long as we have a president who feels that in a reign marred by two wars, a major terrorist attack, and a huge economic slump, he hasn't made any mistakes...

Telluride

There's no reason to believe this will end human suffering. There are problems all over the place above and beyond these specific issues in this specific place (Africa). Anyway, why are American taxpayers expected to be the ones to finance this wondrous end of all human suffering?

I'd be happy to let other countries out-spend us on foreign aid. I'm against wealth redistribution in general, but if politicians insist on throwing our money away, at least throw it away by trying to fix problems here in America.

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

Marvelous Marv

Offhand, I can't think of any giveaway programs that manage to get the aid directly to the people.

I can think of many that DON'T. For example, a friend visited Malawi on a charitable mission a couple of years ago.

The law there depended on which warlord's jurisdiction you were under. Aid was confiscated by the warlords, and distributed as they saw fit.

Marvelous Marv

(Asked of you and the rest of the people reading this)

Do you really think another country would help us under those circumstances? I just can't imagine anyone else helping us, and not just because of Bush.

As far as I can tell from the UN, 90% of the rest of the world has pretty much hated us for forty or fifty years.

Mephisto2

Nonesense. Of course the world would help the US if it needed it.

You might see some countries like Iran and Cuba resisting, but the vast majority of the world would help America if it needed it.

To think otherwise is cynical in the extreme, or just plain disengenuous.

Mr Mephisto

roachboy

well, in about 15 minutes i am going to voyage teh 2 1/2 miles to where the world is, in front of the philadelphia museum of art.
that is the conclusion i have drawn so far.
the world is here and i am 2 1/2 miles away from it.

what is the world like?
well, apparently it is crowded.
and apparently that crowd is made up of members of various marketing niches.

and now they are playing the rocky theme.
i want to shoot myself.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

It's not a matter of would, but a matter of should. Of course the United States is considered to be the new Rome (in a bad way). Everyone outside of the various red states knows that we are an empire and we are not deserving of any kind of help. But does that matter? Saddam Hussein was very much evil, and his government carried out unspeakable atrocities. Does that mean that the civilians of Iraq are also evil? Of course not. The right thing to do is try to help those in need. You nor I made the decision to invade Iraq or torture prisoners. I actively protest such unreasonable and morally reprehensable acts. We are not to blame. When I went to Germany a month back, I was given sneeers and such for being American until I spoke (in the worst german in history). Most of them know that many americans hate Bush and all the terrible things our govnernment is choosing to do. They just don't know how many of us there are. I had to explain that Bush won by around 1%. Roughly half the country didn't agree with Bush during the 2004 election, and his popularity is even lower now.

Paq

will concerts sway anything? short answer: no, long answer: hell no.

hopefully something will come from the summit that is unexpectedly magnanimous, but i'm not seeing it happen.

one thing that does drive me nuts and is brushed upon by willravel is that most bush supporters i talk to talk about how the majority is ruling and the non conservative movement is dead/dying when the election was *won* by less than 2%...i just don't see that as a blinding majority.

oh well

__________________
Live.

Chris

guy44

Please, Bush isn't swayed by little things like facts or reality. Why would he be moved by Linkin Park sucking it up in Philly?

Edit: However, it is pretty awesome seeing Pink Floyd on stage for the first time in forever.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

alansmithee

However, he's the first president to win with any majority since Regan. Bush sr. and Clinton only won pluralities, neither ever cracked 50%, which Bush jr. did. And that was with a media that was less than flattering to him, during a largely unpopular war.

I don't see the nonconservative/liberal movement dying, but it's extremely fractured, unfocused, and has no real agenda except being anti-whatever conservatives are doing at the time. And that is potentially worse than death, because with death something else can arise to take its place. But lingering on in a wounded state just ensures that conservatives stay in power longer.

And to all the people who think the US isn't doing enough, feel free to send your money to support eliminating AIDS and poverty in Africa. Nothing's stopping you. But the rest of us would like to keep our money, if you don't mind.

host

Last fall, Bush was still able to convince a larger segment of Americans of his integrity, sincerity, and job effectiveness, than he apparently can today. Public opinion and political support is in a constant state of flux, and a trend is a trend, until it isn't. Bush's approval trend seems to have peaked, and is, timewise, in an historically swift reversal. This being the case, it matters little what "political capital" he "earned" by virtue of the size of the plurality of last november's vote.
The signifigance of the concerts is that they raise the awareness of young people who may otherwise ignore political issues, and because they are likely to draw media attention that may aid in feeding the current downtrend in support for Bush, his policies, and of his political party.

OFKU0

Well it's horses for courses isn't it. I guess had Chubby Checker, Michael Jackson or Living Color been in attendance, they certainly wouldn't be labelled as you have as above.

Not enough black folk representing Live 8? Maybe there will be a Black Live 8, something like Miss Black America, or the other offshoot of political correctness, the Latin Grammy's.

Maybe when Albarn reaches the status of U2, Pink Floyd or The Who, he can bitch about inconsistencies as he percieves them. Thankfully all those white anglo saxons showed up to perform or else,....they most certainly would have been laballed as uncaring and RACIST.

Ahh,.. but what a novel idea on Albarn's attempt to produce publicity for his shit bands. Very original. Wonder why no one else thought of it.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

james t kirk

You americans are just way to sensitive.

james t kirk

In all seriousness though, just throwing money at Africa will acomplish nothing. That has been proven time and time again when large sums of money are given to one tin pot dictator in Africa or another in the hopes that he will do the right thing. Usually, however, the right thing is keeping the money for him or his army.

More people are dying in Africa than ever before in history. Even the money from live AID 20 years ago just went into various swiss bank accounts, or fed the military of Etheopia (Menjitsu I believe was his name.)

The only way any aid program can work is if we (the G-8 nations) adminster the aid. I.e. we run it, we allocate it, we hand it out, we govern it, with no input whatsoever from whatever nutbar is running that country today.

Don't laugh. It already is starting to work that way. CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) no longer just hands out big bags of money without conditions. If a country wants the cash, they have to play by the rules and the rules state that we control the purse strings, and the project. If you don't like it, no money.

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind....2?OpenDocument

james t kirk

One other thing to keep in mind my American friends.

The number ONE receiver of US foreign Aid is ISRAEL

I somehow don't think that Israel is that poor of a country, or that in need of foreign aid.

roachboy

ofkuo: you can certainly read albarn's remarks as you do.

but from what i saw streamed and experienced at the phlly concert, i'd say he was more accurate than he knew in the gist of his comments.

did you see the concert via the aol stream or via some other means?

if you did, do you really think that there is nothing to what albarn was saying apart from maybe being just pissy about blur or gorillaz not being invited?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

snowy

James, the African countries who wish to receive aid are required to follow certain rules. As Tony Blair said at a news conference in early June, following an announcement for more aid to Africa: "We require the African leadership also to be prepared to make the commitment on governance against corruption -- in favor of democracy, in favor of the rule of law."

Africa is prepared to step up to the bat. The African Union has met and is in the process of putting together a message to the G8. They too realize that eliminating corruption in Africa is a major step towards improvement.

I like that Blair is insisting that Africa meet the G8 halfway, and I like that Africa is willing to do so. Perhaps this will work out after all.

A columnist in the Guardian pointed out that today's rulers need to realize that all the "kids" attending the Live 8 shows and wearing the white ONE wristbands are the voters of tomorrow. I can say that there's one "kid" with a white wristband who is a voter of today and will be a voter of tomorrow too.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

OFKU0

Yes.

Yes. Nothing.

Just like yesterday's news,... so now is he.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

Ustwo

That picture is why they are #1 on the aid list.

The number two aid recipient is Egypt. Ironic isn't it?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

james t kirk

Bah, they have more than enough money to pay for their own things.

Aid to Israel is all about politics in the USA and the jewish vote.

alansmithee

The problem with that is how will their compliance be enforced? After the Iraq situation, it's clear that the int'l community has no stomach for actual warfare, so what other ways of influencing the African countries is there? You can withhold more aid, but all that does is give the despots more money (in the form of the initial misappropriated funds) without solving any problems. And economic sanctions would be a joke for many African nations, as their economies are so screwed up that it would be difficult to damage them more. Those who control the resources and/or are running the gov'ts wouldn't feel the brunt of the sanctions anyway, it would just make things worse on the people if there was any noticable effect at all (the same as Iraq). At this point, Blair's statements are toothless threats and nothing more.


And as for the concert itself, it seems little more than Lollapalooza/Lillith Fair/any random large concert with different sponsors and a veneer of altruism. Few people attending actually care, they want to see certain acts while being able to seem trendy by attaching themselves to a cause, without actually making any sacrifice. This is like the Rock the Vote, Vote or Die, etc. movements of the last election, where outside of looking cool little action is actually accomplished.

I personally would leave U2 out of much of my earlier comments, simply because even though I don't know how much he actually knows about issues and at times can be quite a pretentious ass, Bono does seem to care about many world issues and tries to make himself knowledgable about them. I can respect someone like that who does make the extra effort and goes beyond the usual empty-headed celebrity issue advocation.