Politics ONE

DoNtFrOsTtHePiE 47 said:
GO here guys and sign up... believe it or not your voice really can make a difference
ONE

:love:
Xan
[post="1408148"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
I signed during saturday while watching live 8. I'm hosting one of their banners on my blog, it's free and I suggest others should do the same, only if they want to though. There are also instructions on how to add your blog to site, but only if you're talking about the campaign, G8 or anything related to those topics.
 
I know that I didn't start the thread but as of late the live 8 thread has turned into a debate on how things can change for the better in Africa. No speific organizations/campaigns have been spoken about. I'm assuming this thread was started to solely focus on the ONE organization...
 
not to be pessimistic or anything but you think Bush will listen? i highly doubt it. i don't think he'll care if the ENTIRE country doesn't like him, he's still gonna push his agenda. that's why i've given up hope on him. now i'm just writing to Congress. but that's probably not going to help either cuz my rep and senators are the cool ones and are already working hard to solve this nation's problems.
 
the_alliance said:
not to be pessimistic or anything but you think Bush will listen? i highly doubt it. i don't think he'll care if the ENTIRE country doesn't like him, he's still gonna push his agenda. that's why i've given up hope on him. now i'm just writing to Congress. but that's probably not going to help either cuz my rep and senators are the cool ones and are already working hard to solve this nation's problems.
[post="1408389"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
i think you should read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed piece for tuesday on Africa and Bush:
Bush, a Friend of Africa
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: July 5, 2005
Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt.

But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward).


So as the G-8 summit meeting convenes this week, focusing on Africa, it's worth acknowledging that Mr. Bush, and conservatives generally, have in many ways been great for the developing world. At their best, they bring a healthy dose of hands-on practicality to their efforts.

The liberal approach to helping the poor is sometimes to sponsor a U.N. conference and give ringing speeches calling for changed laws and more international assistance.

In contrast, a standard conservative approach is to sponsor a missionary hospital or school. One magnificent example is the Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital, where missionary doctors repair obstetric injuries that have left Ethiopian women incontinent.

Liberals also often focus on changing laws, but in a poor country, the legal system is often irrelevant outside the capital. Sudan, for example, banned female genital mutilation back in 1957; since then, the practice has expanded steadily. Sure, lobbying for better laws is important, but it's usually much more cost-effective to vaccinate children or educate girls. Nobody gets more bang for the buck than missionary schools and clinics, and Christian aid groups like World Vision and Samaritan's Purse save lives at bargain-basement prices.

Liberals may also put too much faith in aid itself. What Africa needs most desperately are things it can itself provide: good governance, a firmer neighborhood response to genocide in Sudan, and a collective nudging of Robert Mugabe into retirement.

Plenty of studies have shown that aid usually doesn't help people in insecure, corrupt or poorly governed nations. Indeed, aid can even do harm, by bidding up local exchange rates and hurting local manufacturers.

All that said, in the right circumstances aid can be tremendously effective, especially in well-governed countries - Mozambique is an excellent example. And Mr. Bush's new push to help Africa is smartly designed, targeting problems like malaria and sex trafficking, where extra attention and resources will make a big difference on the ground.

Mr. Bush's signature foreign aid program, the Millennium Challenge Account, is off to an agonizingly slow start, but is shrewdly focused on encouraging good governance and economic growth. The first grant went to Madagascar, a well-run country, to clarify property rights there. This isn't sexy, but nothing would help the poor in Africa more than giving them clear title to their land so they could secure loans and start businesses.

The divide I portray between the left and right is, of course, a caricature. Some of the very best work to help the poor is done by liberal-leaning groups, like the Carter Center, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Doctors Without Borders. They all use their resources to make real changes on the ground.

And while Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than most people realize, there's one huge exception, because anything with a whiff of sex in it makes some conservatives go nuts. Mr. Bush's decision to cut off funds for the U.N. Population Fund means that more African girls will die in childbirth. Even more tragic is the administration's blind hostility to condoms to fight AIDS - resulting in more dead Africans.

Mr. Bush has another blind spot as well: while he is right that aid is not a cure-all, sometimes he seems to use legitimate concerns about aid as an excuse for stinginess. Aid has shortcomings, but Mr. Bush himself has shown that it can be used effectively to save lives by the millions.

Yet Mr. Bush is resisting the G-8's calls for further help for Africa; he thinks the sums are better spent on cutting the taxes of the richest people on earth than on saving the lives of the poorest. Come on, Republicans! You need to persuade Mr. Bush to be more generous this week, because his present refusal to help isn't conservative, but just plain selfish.
Click to expand...

things like PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan to Fight AIDS) do have faults, but it has given a lot of help to sub-saharan Africa.
 
well, one, Africa has capitalism. i don't see what your statement has to do with anything.

and, two, it was an interesting article. it made me think. it did miss quite a few things though. the money from the Bush administration comes with strings attached and is conditional. some Africans view those conditions as unattainable in the current situation. aid also often circumvents the government, whichobviously, some Africans dislike.

however, when it comes to poverty and the plight of Africa, it's good to see people on both sides of the aisle taking action.
 
xdancer said:
well, one, Africa has capitalism.  i don't see what your statement has to do with anything.


[post="1412764"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
When people in some countries make 500 dollars american each year, you don't have capitalism. You have oppresive regimes run by tyrants.
 
Since we've been talking about Africa over here, I thought I'd post this. If it needs to be moved, let me know.

Zimbabwe razing garages, cottages, chicken coops

HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) -- Zimbabwean police extended their demolition campaign to Harare's wealthier suburbs Monday, going after unauthorized garages, cottages -- even chicken coops.

The announcement on state-run radio came as a dozen church leaders from neighboring South Africa met with some of the tens of thousands of Zimbabweans who have lost homes and livelihoods in Operation Murambatsvina -- Drive Out Trash, in the local Shona language.

The government defends the drive, launched on May 19, as an urban renewal campaign and says it will provide new homes to "deserving" Zimbabweans.

Opposition leaders say it is aimed at breaking up their strongholds among the urban poor and diverting attention from Zimbabwe's economic crisis. The demolitions and evictions come at a time when inflation has topped 144 percent, unemployment is around 70 percent and an estimated 4 million people need food aid.

So far, police have mostly targeted shantytowns, informal markets and other structures in impoverished urban and rural areas.

But police Inspector Loveless Rupere told state radio that officers also would go after unauthorized structures in Harare's wealthier, "low density" suburbs.

Michael Davies, chairman of the Combined Harare Residents Association, representing nearly 3 million people, said authorities were legally required to prove outbuildings were illegal and give 30 days notice of any planned demolitions.

"But you are basically in a war situation where the police don't respect due process," he said. "The police just ignore court orders. We have criminals in charge of the state, and criminals don't respect the law. If you order them off your property, you are asking for a truncheon across the head."

The demolitions, which have left many in the open at the height of the southern African winter, have caused international outrage.

The South African church delegation, which arrived late Sunday, toured Caledonia transit camp, where some 4,000 people are living in tents outside the capital after their homes were destroyed.

The Zimbabwe Council of Churches is host of the delegation, which includes Roman Catholic Cardinal Wilfrid Napier and Anglican Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane.

They hope to meet with President Robert Mugabe, opposition leaders and civil society representatives to help assess the humanitarian impact of the campaign. They are to return to South Africa on Tuesday.

Their visit follows a 12-day assessment mission by a United Nations envoy, who will be making recommendations to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Click to expand...
 
what's frightening is that the major increase in aid was mainly to fund those who are causing the Darfur crisis. sure he helped out with stopping AIDS more than Clinton did, but did i say that i'm on Clinton's side? why is it that people always thing, "Oh, if he's not Republican, he's a Democrat"?
 
the_alliance said:
what's frightening is that the major increase in aid was mainly to fund those who are causing the Darfur crisis. sure he helped out with stopping AIDS more than Clinton did, but did i say that i'm on Clinton's side? why is it that people always thing, "Oh, if he's not Republican, he's a Democrat"?
[post="1417090"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
what are you talking about? which increase in aid? i haven't been aware of any money going to either the janjaweed or the sudanese government. please clarify that statement. as for what you thought about clinton, i don't really care. i'm just talking about what bush has done. i didn't say it was all good or all bad.
 
xdancer said:
what are you talking about?  which increase in aid?  i haven't been aware of any money going to either the janjaweed or the sudanese government.  please clarify that statement.  as for what you thought about clinton, i don't really care.  i'm just talking about what bush has done.  i didn't say it was all good or all bad.
[post="1417149"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
A. since when has the government gone on the evening news to announce all of their operations and spendings? it's always someone in the gov't leaks the info or some citizen with too much free time that digs up the info

B. you might not care for my thoughts about clinton but that article you presented was clearly indicating that Bush is better than Clinton cuz Bush spent more money in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa than Clinton did
 
the_alliance said:
A. since when has the government gone on the evening news to announce all of their operations and spendings? it's always someone in the gov't leaks the info or some citizen with too much free time that digs up the info

B. you might not care for my thoughts about clinton but that article you presented was clearly indicating that Bush is better than Clinton cuz Bush spent more money in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa than Clinton did
[post="1417392"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
that still doesn't answer my question about what money is going to the people who are causing the genocide in Sudan. where did you get that information?
 
the_alliance said:
B. you might not care for my thoughts about clinton but that article you presented was clearly indicating that Bush is better than Clinton cuz Bush spent more money in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa than Clinton did
[post="1417392"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...
Well according to liberal logic, giving more aid automatically means you did a better job than the other guy, reguardless of the results.
 
AliasHombre said:
Well according to liberal logic, giving more aid automatically means you did a better job than the other guy, reguardless of the results.
[post="1418601"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​
Click to expand...


Ummm...no, not at all.

Maybe some liberals think that, but certainly not all.
 

Similar threads

G
politics
Replies
0
Views
765
GO Syd
G
M
Politics General
36 37 38
Replies
747
Views
13K
the_alliance
T
Saturn
Political Opinions
Replies
1
Views
785
Saturn
Saturn
Back
Top