Non-partisan rationality Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

M-SO Message Board » Soapbox: All Politics » Archive through October 5, 2004 » Non-partisan rationality « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through September 26, 2004Montagnard20 9-26-04  6:27 pm
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anon
Citizen
Username: Anon

Post Number: 1416
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 7:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

TOO FUNNY!

Cato starts a thread by saying that both Presidential candidates are fools and invites MOL posters to state what they would do as President. Michael J. takes the bait and sets out his platform. Montagnard tackles it point by point inviting rejoinders (by Janay supporters?)

Well Monty, you've convinced me that I should not vote for Michael Janay for President. But you have not convinced me why I should vote for you!

I think I'll take another look at Bush and Kerry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1120
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 9:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That's a fair point.

I'll try to put something together over the next few days.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc

Post Number: 2486
Registered: 8-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 9:33 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hurry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1121
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 10:30 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'll put one point on the table right away.

On another thread, J.Crohn had a nicely-written analysis of the terrorism threat from Islamic fundamentalists. I was planning to use it as a starting point, although I wanted to first look at what percentage of the Islamic population was fully motivated by these beliefs. Anyone who wants to get started on a critique could take on her analysis first.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn

Post Number: 1712
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mem,

A somewhat fuller discussion of the aid issue is here: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

While critical of the relative paucity of US Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a percentage of gross national product, this writer notes that all rich countries have failed to meet agreed UN target ODA percentages of 0.7% of GNP. And, as you can see from the OECD data chart he provides, the US nevertheless contributed nearly $16 billion in ODA last year--which in absolute terms is nearly three times that of the next highest donor, Japan, which was about 33% more generous than the US in terms of percentage of GNP.

Moreover, he includes in his discussion the following caveat, which everyone who has read anything about this topic is familiar with, and which should be kept in mind given that higher taxes in high-ODA/GNP countries like Denmark and Norway might offset individual giving, while comparably lower taxes in the US permit the individual more control over the distribution of his income to charitable purposes:

As an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international level and is spread over a number of priorities. Individual/private donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts above do show U.S. aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the rest, the generosity of the people of America is far more impressive than their government. As discussed further below, the government spending has tied agendas that has often been detrimental to the recipient. Private aid/donation in contrast has been through charity on individual people and organizations though this of course can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas -- more than three times U.S. official foreign aid of $10 billion:

* International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year
* Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually
* American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
* Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
* $1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students
* Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000
* Source: Dr. Carol Aderman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002. (Aderman admits that there are no complete figures for international private giving. Hence these numbers may be taken in caution, but even with caution, these are high numbers.)



[My emphases in bold-JC]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn

Post Number: 1713
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:36 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There's also a more detailed article on the subject in Foreign Affairs, from Dec., 2003, at: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101facomment82602/carol-c-adelman/the-privati zation-of-foreign-aid-reassessing-national-largesse.html

The Privatization of Foreign Aid: Reassessing National Largesse

Carol C. Adelman

Foreign aid has returned to the center of U.S. foreign policy. In the decade after World War II, U.S. government dollars helped rebuild Europe and Asia and contain Soviet influence. In the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, aid helped newly democratic states recover from the miseries of communism. Today, a third wave of foreign aid is starting to foster development and democracy, particularly in the Middle East, and to stem the onset of pandemics in the developing world.

But even as Washington reemphasizes the importance of aid, critics, from journalists and academics to former presidents, ritually blast the United States for being stingy. President George W. Bush's pledge to increase aid 50 percent by 2006 -- the biggest boost since the Marshall Plan was launched in 1948 -- and new legislation devoting an additional $15 billion to fight aids, tuberculosis, and malaria have done little to stave off such attacks. Critics -- noting that the United States, despite giving the greatest absolute amount, comes in last among industrialized nations in terms of aid as a percentage of national income -- have tagged it the most miserly of nations.

What such criticism fails to take into account is the new landscape of foreign aid. Current measures of a nation's largesse only count funds doled out by the government, thus ignoring the primary way in which Americans help others abroad: through the private sector. In the last decade, U.S. government aid has been far outstripped by private donations -- from foundations, private voluntary organizations (PVOS), corporations, universities, religious groups, and individuals giving directly to needy family members abroad. There is no comprehensive measure of how much Americans donate overseas, but a conservative estimate, based on surveys and voluntary reporting, puts annual private giving around $35 billion. Even this low-ball figure is more than three and a half times the amount of official development assistance (ODA) given out in a year by the U.S. government. In the third wave of foreign aid, it is private money that is making the difference.

THE ODA FALLACY

The claim of American stinginess results from the common misperception that ODA, dubbed the "donor performance measure," is the true, and only, measure of generosity abroad. In 1958, the World Council of Churches called on developed nations to devote one percent of national income to international development. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) later adopted a target of 0.7 percent and now publishes an annual report ranking donors in terms of ODA as a percentage of GNP.

Since the ranking began, however, the only countries that have ever managed to achieve the "0.7 percent solution" are Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, and the Netherlands. And like many such targets, this one bears no relation to the quality or impact of a donor's aid. The OECD has finally admitted not only that the chances of meeting the 0.7 percent goal are virtually nil, but also that developing countries could not absorb that much official aid anyway.


(The rest one must purchase if one wants to read it.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

J. Crohn
Citizen
Username: Jcrohn

Post Number: 1714
Registered: 3-2003
Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:37 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

(Sorry for the digression; Cato, Monty, and Janay should resume their efforts to repair the world.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

marie
Citizen
Username: Marie

Post Number: 1157
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 9:03 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would take out Arafat once and for all and take back his Nobel Peace Prize.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova

Post Number: 396
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:38 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Marie:

The thread title is "rational." How would you "take out Arafat?" By bombing his headquarters? That would do a lot for world peace. It would definitely improve the image of the U.S. and aid our international efforts. It is this kind of mindless testosterone-laden posturing that has alienated the world.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy

Post Number: 250
Registered: 12-2003


Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 10:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The problem can be solved. I've noticed how there are very few lawns in terror nations. These guys need a quarter acre of sod that never stops growing so they can spend their spare time maintaining it. No time to make bombs or spread hate. It all gets redirected at dandelions and grubs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11

Post Number: 367
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 11:40 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Addy, I'm not sure I want terrorists to have that kind of unfettered access to fertilizer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Parkbench87
Citizen
Username: Parkbench87

Post Number: 1304
Registered: 7-2001
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 11:48 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does Haliburton have any interests in companies that provide Lawn Maintenance products?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

musicme
Citizen
Username: Musicme

Post Number: 808
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 12:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Only wasp bombs
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

themp
Citizen
Username: Themp

Post Number: 972
Registered: 12-2001
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 12:10 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The problem can be solved. I've noticed how there are very few lawns in terror nations. These guys need a quarter acre of sod that never stops growing so they can spend their spare time maintaining it. No time to make bombs or spread hate. It all gets redirected at dandelions and grubs."
Don't even joke about lawns on this forum.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1122
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 2:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Thanks to J.Crohn for the data on financial aid from America that flows through channels other than Official Development Assistance (ODA).

Discussion of aid in the context of foreign policy has to reflect what is possible at the governmental level, i.e. ODA funds that can be given or withheld at the discretion of the U.S. government.

Private aid channels actually make foreign policy more challenging. U.S government threats to withhold aid are inherently less credible when other channels exist. Also, the government itself loses respect when people in other countries make a distinction between the American people (open and generous) and the American government (stingy and hypocritical).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

marie
Citizen
Username: Marie

Post Number: 1158
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 2:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The Israelis have had enough of Arafat, and hinted in late 2003 that they were considering actions to "remove" him, without going into detail. According to a Yediot Aharonot poll conducted in September 2003, 37 percent of Israelis wanted to see Arafat killed, 23 percent wanted to expel him, 21 percent wanted to continue to isolate him, and 15 percent wanted to see him released and negotiations to continue. "The world will not help us," charged the Jerusalem Post in a fiery September 2003 editorial. "We must help ourselves. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative."


Oh, those testosterone fueled Israeli's! If they could just learn to get along with their neighbors and talk things out, then the whole Palestinian/ Israeli conflict could be worked out.

Right, Cato?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mem
Citizen
Username: Mem

Post Number: 3780
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 2:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

JC - Thanks for the clarification, I knew the US gives a lot more money - outside percentages of GNP - Monty - shame on you!
Anyway, I wish we could give more money to our own inner cities.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave

Post Number: 40
Registered: 4-1998


Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 2:31 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The problem is we do give a lot of money to cities (eg Newark) and they use it to build huge sports complexes. :-/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova

Post Number: 399
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 3:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Marie, you are wrong on so many levels; you are like a skyscraper of error.

First, the question is what could we, the U.S. do. If we do something, it will have far greater ramifications than if Israel did it. What do you think the effect of a US assassination of Arafat would be? Has Arafat threatened the US lately?

Second, quoting a far right paper like the Jerusalem post is merely giving an example of invective. I had invited rational arguments.

Third, while the Palestinian leadership never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity, one cannot say the Sharon mailed fist has been that successful either. The fact is, the military and intelligence community in Israel has been in favor of a negotiated peace for some time.

Fourth, Israel has partly created its own quaqmire. They have seized Palestinian land, wrested control of water resources, and subjected the Palestinians to great indignities and humiliation. As a result, they live in a walled fortress where people still blow themselves up in the street. This is a model for us to emulate?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1123
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 8:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mem, you need to re-read my post. The U.S. government cannot extend or withhold privately given aid, so it cannot be used easily as an instrument of foreign policy.

BTW, other countries also have NGO's that provide development assistance, e.g. Oxfam alone (from the U.K.) distributes over USD 350M annually. Foreign workers in Germany, France, and the U.K. also remit money to their families.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

marie
Citizen
Username: Marie

Post Number: 1159
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

CN,

Teklay Szymanski writes for The World Review Online and the Tribune, not the Jerusalem Post. She has even contributed to the New York Times.

Arafat is a ist. He is responsible for the anti-semetic Muslim propaganda that found it's footing and spread like wildfire throughout the Middle East. Osama has Arafat to thank for the birth and eventual "success" of Al Qaeda.

Removing Arafat from the picture would offer the Palestinians a realistic chance for fair negotiations with Israel. A Palestinian homeland would bring peace, peace would bring tolerance and tolerance would help to bring an end to anti-semitism in the Middle East.

Without anti-semitism, there is no Fundamentalist
Islamic Movement whose teachings encourage s to fly planes into skyscrapers.

You're skyscraper analogy BTW is interesting. Freud would have something to say about. it. I found it offensive.

The US could certainly come up with a creative way of taking Arafat out without leaving a calling card next to his bedside table.

In case you haven't noticed, I tend to side with Israel - call me crazy and misinformed, but that's the way I tend to see the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I have no respect for a leader who encourages the use of ism to get his way - Nobel Peace Prize and all.







Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Debby
Real Name
Username: Debby

Post Number: 1137
Registered: 5-2001
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:33 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Help! What are 'ist' and 'ism'?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt

Post Number: 601
Registered: 12-2001


Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 9:43 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I could not agree more Marie. Great post.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

marie
Citizen
Username: Marie

Post Number: 1160
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Debby,

It's the filter on my computer - won't let me type some words. Sorry.

ist = ist
ism= ism

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

marie
Citizen
Username: Marie

Post Number: 1161
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

yikes - let me try it this way.

t e r r o r i s t

t e r r o r i s m
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Cato Nova
Citizen
Username: Cato_nova

Post Number: 401
Registered: 12-2003
Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 12:06 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Wrong. Arafat is many things - corrupt opportunistic misruling scumbag comes to mind - but not an idealist or ideologue. First of all, the vast number of Christian Palestinians (such as Arafat's wife, Hanan Ashrawri, et al.) renders any lumpen categorization of Arafat-linked Palestinians with Al Qaeda or other forms of Islamic fundamentalism suspect. (The same, of course, cannot be said of other Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, or Hezbollah). However, what all have in common is that they are territorially, and not ideologically driven. That is, they are and historically have been less interested in the establishment of Sharia than with the creation of a viable Palestinian state. Not that Arafat has been above cynically using religious appeals for political gain . . .

Removing Arafat by violence may paradoxically damage chances for peace, since it would leave a power vacuum. Who would step in? Likely not a parliamentary democrat. Unless we can not only disguise our hand but make it look like a peaceful death, the violent death of Arafat would most probably strengthen the hand of radical extremists. (And if we manage to cover up our participation, who would be blamed? Israel, which would likely incentivize more violence against Israelis.)

Historically, Islamic fundamentalism stems less from Palestinian rage than from Saudi Wahahbist propaganda disseminated during the 1980's, U.S. funding of radical Islamic opposition to Russian Afghanistan adventurism, and the general failure of communism and Pan-Arab nationalism as unifying principles. Yet since, Marie, you can barely spell, I guess to expect you to have even a basic historic understanding is a futile hope. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mem
Citizen
Username: Mem

Post Number: 3782
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 1:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Monty,
Thanks for the invite, but I won't read your post again, it's too angry. Have you thought about living abroad? Seriously - I do not mean this as an insult - you just seem so unhappy about these issues.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1127
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 4:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No intelligent person could feel happy about the direction America is currently taking, especially since the country has the intellectual and material resources to do better.

For example, here's a useful website from the Department of Defense Foreign Military Studies Office, which has DoD material and a long list of research links. Just for once, I'd like to see one of the self-proclaimed conservatives actually back up their arguments from an original source, instead of parroting things they've heard on Rush Limbaugh or read on Newsmax. It's tiresome having to always correct these people on basic facts before even getting to a debate.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

mem
Citizen
Username: Mem

Post Number: 3783
Registered: 5-2001


Posted on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 5:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Monty,
application/octet-stream
foreign aid by country.doc (71.7 k)

This is interesting:
http://www.usaid.gov/fani/Chapter_6--Foreign_Aid_in_the_National_Interest.pdf

The United States leads the world in total flows
TABLE 6.3
Net aid flows from selected Development Assistance Committee members (US$ millions), 2000
Total Grants by Total
ODA Other private flows
as % of Bilateral Multilateral official voluntary Private Total as % of
Total ODA GNP ODA ODA flows agencies flows flows GNP
1,744Canada 0.25 1,160 583 5 113 4,621 6,483 0.95
1,664Denmark 1.06 1,024 641 –3 32 482 2,176 1.39
4,105France 0.32 2,829 1,276 14 — 1,439 5,557 0.43
5,030Germany 0.27 2,687 2,343 –456 846 7,000 12,420 0.67
1,376Italy 0.13 377 999 –103 37 9,537 10,846 1.01
13,508Japan 0.28 9,768 3,740 –5,200 231 2,725 11,264 0.23
3,135Netherlands 0.84 2,243 892 38 306 3,469 6,947 1.85
1,264Norway 0.80 934 330 — 179 –5 1,437 0.91
1,195Spain 0.22 720 475 3 — 22,272 23,471 4.25
1,799Sweden 0.80 1,242 557 0 26 2,127 3,952 1.76
4,501United Kingdom 0.32 2,710 1,792 –72 536 2,093 7,058 0.50
9,955United States 0.10 7,405 2,550 562 4,069 10,666 25,252 0.25
— Not available.
Note: Total official development assistance (ODA) includes net flows to developing countries (bilateral ODA) as well as contributions to multilateral institutions (multilateral ODA).
Source: OECD 2002.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard

Post Number: 1131
Registered: 6-2003


Posted on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 8:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Don't you think it's strange that the U.S. at $25.3 billion is just barely ahead of Spain at $23.5 billion? Besides, when you go back to measuring total flows as a percent of GDP, the U.S. is still in 11th place.

On the bright side, it suggests that the U.S. could address some of its foreign policy challenges simply by spending more money.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration