^They mentioned Egypt in this video, and Greenwald explained that Egypt (a dictatorship) has closed its border to Gaza because of the U.S., who gives Egypt billions of dollars in foreign aid every year, second only to Israel. They don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. Did you even watch the video?

Oh Winstonfield. Since when has "I read somewhere" or "Heard he" been enough for you to believe someone else? That's some pretty vague, unconvincing dreck, even for you.

Also, your claim that people shouldn't comment on Limbaugh's statement is wholly unsubstantiated by your rhetoric. His statement that people shouldn't donate to Haiti aid because it plays into the administration's 'humanitarian' appearance is (though related) a separate statement from discussing the comparison between Bush and Obama with respect to responding to human crises. It is certainly reprehensible for Limbaugh to tell people not to donate no matter the 'full context' of his quote. His statement about income tax being your donation is clearly not intended to be funny, or him 'making fun of' the AP (in your words.) It's intended to drive a political wedge in the minds of those ignorant, poor, and sad people foolish enough to trust Limbaugh. And it's clear Limbaugh doesn't care about the direct consequences of his political action (in this case, that Haiti gets less aid.)

Besides, your and Limbaugh's claim that Obama is doing it just so that news outlets _say_ he's better than Bush is specious at best. It's clear that among the reasons Obama and his administration would choose to help a poor nation ravaged by one of the worst natural disasters in recent history, aside from those purely humanitarian, is that doing so actually _makes_ them better than the Bush administration.

I was also going to say that I didn't really think Katrina and Haiti were a good comparison because one is a domestic failure and one is a foreign aid venture but really they do strike a similar chord so I think the comparison is at least somewhat valid.

So Winstonfield, have you donated to the Haiti cause?

>> ^quantumushroom:
It's not an article, RedSky, it's an essay and one man's opinion.
It makes the argument that charity and foreign aid is the only way to stimulate development.
It makes the exact opposite argument. It indicates the endless charity and aid is making matters worse.
It doesn't mean, "Sink Africa", it means: "Let Africa sink--or swim--on its own merit."


No, it makes no argument in favour of improving trade relations, reducing protection for African imports or anything to that end, it simply suggests that Africa is a hopeless wasteland and should be left to its own destitution lest it infects another country, like the glorious US with it's putrid negligence. It even goes so far as to say that bringing over African refugees would be disastrous as if it's incomprehensible they'd ever be assimilated into, or embrace another culture. Lived in Africa 30 years my ass.

It's not an article, RedSky, it's an essay and one man's opinion.

It makes the argument that charity and foreign aid is the only way to stimulate development.

It makes the exact opposite argument. It indicates the endless charity and aid is making matters worse.

It doesn't mean, "Sink Africa", it means: "Let Africa sink--or swim--on its own merit."

>> ^quantumushroom:
If you don't execute them now you'll be reading/hearing about them in a few years' time, and not for receiving Grammys.
Let Africa Sink.
http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/essays/36/


This article is nonsense.

It suggests that colonialism was beneficial and once that ended in the '60s, everything went to shit. Well no duh, it's not exactly a revelation that revolutions tend to lead to populist, despotic, autocratic dictators that steal from their people. It's a trend that happened all over the world and was not helped by the Cold War wranglings thereafter where these same dictators were propped up to serve the interests of their beneficiaries.

It makes the argument that charity and foreign aid is the only way to stimulate development. It's not, in fact unless it's in response to something unexpected such as emergency disaster relief, it's for the most part only beneficial in the short run and at worst counter productive, showing time and time again to create dependence. What has seen many African countries prosper is the opening of trade barriers, the promotion of foreign direct investment over portfolio investment which gives corporations a stake in their target country, and the promotion of democratic governments and impartial judiciaries.

Tribal warfare on the level that you no longer see in other continents of the world is a product of the lack of urbanisation and agglomeration of split social groups. The US is coming up against the same problem in Afghanistan for that matter. You can't come into Africa, try to force democracy on it cold turkey and expect it to work. Mutually trustworthy social relationships between disparate tribes don't appear overnight, although they are needed for an effective representative democracy and for a thriving business sector that brings together entrepreneurs and those with capital and funds to actualise those ideas. They are also needed dealing with natural distasters, diseases and creating safe habitable environments.

Actually, it was proposed as $825bn, and will probably pass at $880bn or so.

BTW, by Ron Paul's logic, no individual business ever helps the economy either. All of their money comes from "the productive economy", and therefore everything they do comes at the cost of harming the "productive economy", especially if they make a profit, since they're taking in more money from the economy than they spend out.

Never mind that every penny the government collects makes its way back out into the "productive economy" because it gets spent. I suppose Foreign Aid goes to other economies, though a free trader like Paul probably wouldn't think there's a distinction there, either.

For Paul to make any sense, you have to start from the unsupported premise that government always destroys, and business always creates, and never never never the opposite. I wonder if he wears a blindfold when he's on the Interstate, goodness knows he does it every time he uses the Internet.

BTW, stating that interest rates "force people" to do things the "otherwise wouldn't have done" is a bit silly isn't it? He gives the example of "build too many houses" -- that's wrong. This wasn't a problem of real estate companies building too many houses, then failing to find buyers. This was a problem of banks taking on too much risk by giving out too many loans to people who used the loan to build a house.

Lower interest rates are supposed to spur investment, it's up to the investors to be smart with their money. They weren't. Government didn't say "here, take this money and be stupid" they said "borrow money from us to do some of that private sector wealth-creating magic you do" and the private sector built themselves a giant Ponzi scheme with houses, rather than doing something useful.

PS: blankfist, this is not a response to any of the points I've brought up, it's just more hot air from a moron who doesn't realize he's a theological adherent, not an economist.

Good find. I didn't know about the self-defense clause for USA's foreign aid to Israel.

I would say that this video does not belong in the Islam channel, as there is no mention of it in the video. Islam is related to the conflict, but not the be-all end-all reason for it.

*nochannel *military *worldaffairs *politics *news

>> ^NetRunner:


I Admit I don't know much about what happened in Lebanon post-bombing, but going on that it's a defendable position, although the consequences as can be seen in allowing Hamas to participate and win the Gaza elections can be devastating.

Untied foreign aid to Pakistan was irresponsible but I still can't really see the connection to Bhutto's assassination. I can imagine what you're implying but it sounds tenuous at best to me.

I've always thought of North Korea's nuclear belligerence as a means towards extorting foreign aid, dumping them in the axis of evil and essentially ignoring them certainly didn't help, but their behaviour almost seems inevitable anyway.

I guess I can't really rail against TV personalities rather than supposed unbiased media reporting having biased or selective opinions from ideological standpoints. I guess I'm more annoyed at that there doesn't seem to be a thirst for investigative reporting. People watch the straight out news to learn the facts, but they go to these personalities to grab an actual opinion on the events transpiring. Perhaps it's because people feel they are too pressed for time or lack enough interest to become involved, while modern culture dictates they ought to have a presentable opinion on a variety of world events leaving them with the only seemingly plausible decision of stealing someone else's. Investigative reporting ought to be there so you can make up your opinion based upon the facts at hand, and yes I know I live in my own utopian world, but it damn well doesn't hurt to dream!

Plus television the main source of news nowadays was never made and isn't really plausibly capable of conveying large amounts of facts, so yeah I guess it's basically a pipe dream. Considering that, I can't really argue with Olbermann/Maddow being an inevitable counterweight to the Bill'O's of the world, a 'they started it first' approach isn't exactly ideal but then nobody really wins elections or consensus on culturally divisive issues based upon superior policy or logic. I equally have no doubt that there are plenty of people in positions of power who have no interest in an actual debate and are entirely content funnelling points of view through their television personalities, and would very much like to keep it that way so I agree with much of what you say.

The Republicans have been wrong on most things I agree, but the divide is not just political, it's ideological. I mean you're not going to see the benefits of the free market/invisible hand being argued on Olbermann/Maddow for example.

>> ^misterwight:

Sycophant!

Regardless of his religious preconditions, PEPFAR was both an extremely generous foreign aid investment and highly effective at providing antiretroviral treatment against AIDS, although yes some of the funding did go to abstinence education. If anything Bush's still high favourability ratings in Africa are testament to that.

How was the election of a Muslim theocracy in Lebanon Bush's doing? He supported Israel's invasion post-occurance, but unless he exacted any direct control over Israel's foreign policy there I can't see the connection.

Olbermann infers connections to the Mumbai bombings, the killing of Benazir Bhutto, again where is the link? The US was never proposed to be the sole global guardian against terrorism.

Preventing Kim Jong-il from acquiring nuclear weapons again is a global failing. Applying more stringent sanctions, whether they would have had any effect or not was vetoed by China. You could argue more effective diplomacy was required, but as it stands it is not a failing specifically of his administration but more of an unrealised success.

As for the rest, there's little I can argue on. I'm no apologist, but I take offence to Olbermann and for that matter, much of MSNBC providing factually correct, but one sided news.

As for why I sifted it, I want to raise my star rating and no one likes my music >.<

- By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either. -

While most Americans believe that getting rid of religion is an impossible goal, much of the developed world has already accomplished it. Any account of a “god gene” that causes the majority of Americans to helplessly organize their lives around ancient works of religious fiction must explain why so many inhabitants of other First World societies apparently lack such a gene. The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality--belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.

Countries with high levels of atheism also are the most charitable in terms of giving foreign aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is also belied by other indices of charity. Consider the ratio in salaries between top-tier CEOs and their average employee: in Britain it is 24 to 1; France 15 to 1; Sweden 13 to 1; in the United States, where 83% of the population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead, it is 475 to 1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to squeeze easily through the eye of a needle.

LMFAHS @ Kool Aid instead of Foreign Aid.

If this was Family Guy the Kool Aid man would've busted thru the wall. "Oh Yeah!"

Very nice clip. Thanks for sharing.

[edit]
LMFAHS @ "Why, cause he's black?" Hahahaha.

I must've misunderstood your comment, then.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
For the record, I never advocated sending troops into North Korea and Sudan.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I do know about it, but you were talking about sending troops onto new battlegrounds in N. Korea and Sudan.

I think before we start more wars, we need to do more diplomacy and foreign aid.

The answer to both North Korea and Darfur/Sudan is China. We have a relationship with them now, let's twist their arm a little.

If we invaded Sudan, what's the mission? If we invated N. Korea, what's the mission?

Toppling the existing regime and replacing it with one of our own design?

No thanks. Been there, done that.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Just saw this comment from back in the day.

Do you not know about all the help we have provided around the world that has nothing to do with violence?



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Can't the US do something around the world that doesn't involve the military?

For the record, I never advocated sending troops into North Korea and Sudan.


In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I do know about it, but you were talking about sending troops onto new battlegrounds in N. Korea and Sudan.

I think before we start more wars, we need to do more diplomacy and foreign aid.

The answer to both North Korea and Darfur/Sudan is China. We have a relationship with them now, let's twist their arm a little.

If we invaded Sudan, what's the mission? If we invated N. Korea, what's the mission?

Toppling the existing regime and replacing it with one of our own design?

No thanks. Been there, done that.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Just saw this comment from back in the day.

Do you not know about all the help we have provided around the world that has nothing to do with violence?



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Can't the US do something around the world that doesn't involve the military?

I do know about it, but you were talking about sending troops onto new battlegrounds in N. Korea and Sudan.

I think before we start more wars, we need to do more diplomacy and foreign aid.

The answer to both North Korea and Darfur/Sudan is China. We have a relationship with them now, let's twist their arm a little.

If we invaded Sudan, what's the mission? If we invated N. Korea, what's the mission?

Toppling the existing regime and replacing it with one of our own design?

No thanks. Been there, done that.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Just saw this comment from back in the day.

Do you not know about all the help we have provided around the world that has nothing to do with violence?



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ Can't the US do something around the world that doesn't involve the military?

Not a big fan of Rand. Well, it has nothing to do with anarchy or fuck the poor. Why is it when I bring up an idea it always becomes the butt of some chicken little fear? People who want to do good in a society will do so without a babysitting government, dude. When you give freedom a chance, it can work and work well. Government overspend and misappropriate funds, people can spend smarter. That, and I really feel most people are apathetic to help others when they know there are systems already created using their tax dollars for that purpose. It gives them a clear conscience. Reminds me of a Living Color song: Go Away. You get rid of poorly run and poorly conceived bureaucracies, I think people will give more. In 2004, American civilians gave more money to foreign aid than the US Government.

Like I said, I have given plenty to charities, and I give to the ACLU on a regular basis. I care, but I also want to give how and where I want without being forced to do it. I think that's fair. Your idea of welfare is theft, and it's theft done violently. How would you feel if I broke into your home, robbed you, but used all of that money to pay for cancer treatment for dying children. Wouldn't you still call the police and want me arrested? Seriously.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Oh wow, that's far worse. You meant no federal funds as in education anarchy-fuck the poor-caste system learning. Yikes. At least I can rest easy with the knowledge that libertarian politics have never played any meaningful role in any worthwhile modern society to date and never will.

I do like the fact that we can brawl without any bruised egos or hurt feelings. As you know, most people aren't like that.

I hope you didn't forget the lube again.