good article about african aid by bill o reilly

[Irvine511]

God forbid anyone should ever talk about the creator of the universe...

isn't secularism important when we're talking about things like money? is it really fair to claim that humanitarian work is, by definition, God's work?

 

[80sU2isBest]

isn't secularism important when we're talking about things like money? is it really fair to claim that humanitarian work is, by definition, God's work?

I'm not sure I get your point.

What's not fair about it? The New Testament is full of admonitions to care for the poor and feed the hungry.

Besides that, for someone of faith, God is in everything. Speaking as a man of fiath, I can't really separate anything form my spiritual life and God. It's all intertwined.

 

[financeguy]

God forbid anyone should ever talk about the creator of the universe...

Yeah, it's just conservatives do a lot, and I find it boring and irrelevant, for the most part. O'Reilly's not the worst. I am intrigued by how someone can know who is and who is not doing the "work of God".

 

[starsforu2]

You argument is flawed.

Since you want to get into behaviors that are linked to instinct, consider this; there isn't a mature animal (not discussing human society here, but individual animals, including individual people) in the world that will fight if there's any way it can avoid violence. How many time have you seen two rowdy dogs back down from fighting, or two angry men, for that matter? In the great, grand, vast majority of individual confrontations, and even in many group confrontations (small groups, NOT armies directed by governments, not talking about human society, remember), the parties will attempt to find a way to avoid physical violence. Self-preservation trumps violence in the instinct department.

Ok, I'll concede that you have a point in regards to how people deal with anger vs how people deal with sex. It was a bad example of undeniable inpulse.

However, every animal in the world will fuck anything it can fuck, as many times as they can. Preservation of The Species is probably the strongest physical instinct that exists.

Preservation of the Species doesn't work as an argument with Homosexuals. Unless the wires are crossed and at a base level the body thinks it's got a chance to perpetuate the species by spilling it's seed inside a man, or in the case of a woman accepting some sort of penile substitute and her body believing it will lead to fertilization.

And from what I've read, part of the spread of Aids in Africa to the mother's have been because Husband's have mistresses and misters, but usually as a top. Thus contracting the disease and giving it to their loved (sic) one. - Which proves your point that some will fuck anything they can fuck.

It takes a lot of education to teach abstinence--and people will still come up with excuses; "He doesn't look sick.", "I'm healthy, I won't catch anything if I indulge just this once," etc.

It takes education to say wait? It doesn't take any more education than it takes to show someone how to use a condom. And hear me clearly, abstinence programs don't expect 100% compliance, but if 20% comply, there are 20% more people who are not at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. What in the world is wrong with asking people to slow down? Perhaps to think twice before engaging in risky activities. Your assertion seems to treat them like children, which they are certainly not. Yes, some people will make excuses, but we're not talking to those folks. Those folks will watch a condom unfurl onto a banana and still won't use it because it doesn't feel right. And because that guy didn't use condoms even though he was taught to, doesn't negate the idea that condoms are a better idea than none at all. Or maybe it does, because they're all animals, incapable of self-restraint. :sarcasm:

What we're talking about here is personal restraint, not banning sex. Through education we're asking and suggesting that Abstinence be a part of how they look at the issue. Just like we've asked them to wear condoms.

The instinct that drives us into one-another's beds is strong and persistent. Mother Nature says "Fuck", and she says it in a very loud voice.

So when an attractive woman passes me on the street and I hear "Fuck" I should just jump on her? -- If I knew I wouldn't get caught, why shouldn't I rape her? She's not very big, I can take her, so self-preservation isn't a factor. And she does look yummy and I'm aroused. Why shouldn't I do that? If sex is the most powerful force known to man, then there is no reason I would restrain myself, unless of course I have the power to restrain myself. That I have a brain that calculates all that I have learned about sex, and decides that it would be WRONG.

My point is if you can limit the context in which sex is acceptable to exclude rape or being underage, you can also limit the context to include waiting longer before having sex, trying to have fewer partners, and to wear a condom.

Look, I'm no puritan, I enjoy sex. But I'm telling you that peer pressure, and parental expectations spared me from having sex at 14, a time in which I would not have been ready to be a father if something happened to that condom. I waited another 5 years before finally losing my virginity, despite the persistent call of the wild. Once you start having sex, it's harder to deny yourself the pleasure, so why not try to teach young men and women to wait longer before they know how good it can be?

If you can prove that introducing Abstinence into the conversation actually makes more people have unprotected sex, then I think you have an argument worth having, but if it doesn't (on the whole) then what are you fighting for (against?) - Are you fighting to save money by not creating Abstinence materials, or are you arguing so that you won't have societal limitations (not governmental) put upon your sexuality, thus sparing yourself the dangerous idea that maybe I shouldn't fuck everything that moves.

 

[Sherry Darling]

An excellent article on "African" corruption, which actual historical facts that O'Reilly tends to leave out. This is exactly what I meant when I said a post or two ago that corruption is a relationship, not something that exists "inside" Africa. It is also (ping Dreadsox ) why, though I raise my glass for this step forward, I cannot call it a total victory for the poor. We're farther ahead than before, but we have a long way to go.


George Monbiot

Tuesday June 14, 2005

The Guardian



An aura of sanctity is descending upon the world's most powerful men. On Saturday the finance ministers from seven of the G8 nations (Russia was not invited) promised to cancel the debts the poorest countries owe to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The hand that holds the sword has been stayed by angels: angels with guitars rather than harps.



Who, apart from the leader writers of the Daily Telegraph, could deny that debt relief is a good thing? Never mind that much of this debt - money lent by the World Bank and IMF to corrupt dictators - should never have been pursued in the first place. Never mind that, in terms of looted resources, stolen labour and now the damage caused by climate change, the rich owe the poor far more than the poor owe the rich. Some of the poorest countries have been paying more for debt than for health or education. Whatever the origins of the problem, that is obscene.



You are waiting for me to say but, and I will not disappoint you. The but comes in paragraph 2 of the finance ministers' statement. To qualify for debt relief, developing countries must "tackle corruption, boost private-sector development" and eliminate "impediments to private investment, both domestic and foreign".



These are called conditionalities. Conditionalities are the policies governments must follow before they receive aid and loans and debt relief. At first sight they look like a good idea. Corruption cripples poor nations, especially in Africa. The money which could have given everyone a reasonable standard of living has instead made a handful unbelievably rich. The powerful nations are justified in seeking to discourage it.



That's the theory. In truth, corruption has seldom been a barrier to foreign aid and loans: look at the money we have given, directly and through the World Bank and IMF, to Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, Moi and every other premier-league crook. Robert Mugabe, the west's demon king, has deservedly been frozen out by the rich nations. But he has caused less suffering and is responsible for less corruption than Rwanda's Paul Kagame or Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, both of whom are repeatedly cited by the G8 countries as practitioners of "good governance". Their armies, as the UN has shown, are largely responsible for the meltdown in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which has so far claimed 4 million lives, and have walked off with billions of dollars' worth of natural resources. Yet Britain, which is hosting the G8 summit, remains their main bilateral funder. It has so far refused to make their withdrawal from the DRC a conditionality for foreign aid.



The difference, of course, is that Mugabe has not confined his attacks to black people; he has also dispossessed white farmers and confiscated foreign assets. Kagame, on the other hand, has eagerly supplied us with the materials we need for our mobile phones and computers: materials that his troops have stolen from the DRC. "Corrupt" is often used by our governments and newspapers to mean regimes that won't do what they're told.



Genuine corruption, on the other hand, is tolerated and even encouraged. Twenty-five countries have so far ratified the UN convention against corruption, but none is a member of the G8. Why? Because our own corporations do very nicely out of it. In the UK companies can legally bribe the governments of Africa if they operate through our (profoundly corrupt) tax haven of Jersey. Lord Falconer, the minister responsible for sorting this out, refuses to act. When you see the list of the island's clients, many of which sit in the FTSE 100 index, you begin to understand.



The idea, swallowed by most commentators, that the conditions our governments impose help to prevent corruption is laughable. To qualify for World Bank funding, our model client Uganda was forced to privatise most of its state-owned companies before it had any means of regulating their sale. A sell-off that should have raised $500m for the Ugandan exchequer instead raised $2m. The rest was nicked by government officials. Unchastened, the World Bank insisted that - to qualify for the debt-relief programme the G8 has now extended - the Ugandan government sell off its water supplies, agricultural services and commercial bank, again with minimal regulation.



And here we meet the real problem with the G8's conditionalities. They do not stop at pretending to prevent corruption, but intrude into every aspect of sovereign government. When the finance ministers say "good governance" and "eliminating impediments to private investment", what they mean is commercialisation, privatisation and the liberalisation of trade and capital flows. And what this means is new opportunities for western money.



Let's stick for a moment with Uganda. In the late 80s, the IMF and World Bank forced it to impose "user fees" for basic healthcare and primary education. The purpose appears to have been to create new markets for private capital. School attendance, especially for girls, collapsed. So did health services, particularly for the rural poor. To stave off a possible revolution, Museveni reinstated free primary education in 1997 and free basic healthcare in 2001. Enrolment in primary school leapt from 2.5 million to 6 million, and the number of outpatients almost doubled. The World Bank and the IMF -which the G8 nations control - were furious. At the donors' meeting in April 2001, the head of the bank's delegation made it clear that, as a result of the change in policy, he now saw the health ministry as a "bad investment".



There is an obvious conflict of interest in this relationship. The G8 governments claim they want to help poor countries develop and compete successfully. But they have a powerful commercial incentive to ensure that they compete unsuccessfully, and that our companies can grab their public services and obtain their commodities at rock-bottom prices. The conditionalities we impose on the poor nations keep them on a short leash.



That's not the only conflict. The G8 finance ministers' statement insists that the World Bank and IMF will monitor the indebted countries' progress, and decide whether they are fit to be relieved of their burden. The World Bank and IMF, of course, are the agencies which have the most to lose from this redemption. They have a vested interest in ensuring that debt relief takes place as slowly as possible.



Attaching conditions like these to aid is bad enough. It amounts to saying: "We will give you a trickle of money if you give us the crown jewels." Attaching them to debt relief is in a different moral league: "We will stop punching you in the face if you give us the crown jewels." The G8's plan for saving Africa is little better than an extortion racket.



Do you still believe our newly sanctified leaders have earned their haloes? If so, you have swallowed a truckload of nonsense. Yes, they should cancel the debt. But they should cancel it unconditionally.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not sure I get your point.

What's not fair about it? The New Testament is full of admonitions to care for the poor and feed the hungry.

Besides that, for someone of faith, God is in everything. Speaking as a man of fiath, I can't really separate anything form my spiritual life and God. It's all intertwined.

because many people do good things independent of whatever it is the New Testament has to say. they do good things to do good things, not because the Bible tells them to do so. by calling such things "God's work," good deeds like Bono's activism is being inappropriately appropriated for Christianity.

i know you can't separate anything from your spiritual life, but many people can and do.

for example, if you were to redecorate your living room, would i be inappropriate saying, "wow, you've done gay work"?

 

[80sU2isBest]

because many people do good things independent of whatever it is the New Testament has to say. they do good things to do good things, not because the Bible tells them to do so.

The whole "don't mention God because it might offend people" thing is silly, and people who say it don't really believe in free speech 100 %, especially since in this case, no moral judgment was made against Athiests.

Bill O'Reilly was speaking from his viewpoint. Would you deny that to anyone?

Do you think that I should be able to tell you not to talk openly about your dates with boyfriends, as you did in another thread, simply because I am offended by homosexuality? I wouldn't tell you not to talk about that, so why should anyone be upset that Bill O'Reilly referenced God?

by calling such things "God's work," good deeds like Bono's activism is being inappropriately appropriated for Christianity.]

Really? Is Christianity the only religion that believes in God? No, of course not. Most people in the world believe in God.

And in fact, this particular case, it was completely appropriate because Bono is in fact a Christian and credits his work to God.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

isn't secularism important when we're talking about things like money? is it really fair to claim that humanitarian work is, by definition, God's work?

I think Bono mentioned 'God' first, and secularism is important,
but (a) 80's is right, Bono often mentions that this work comes from his Christian beliefs so he has a right to bring it up whenever he wants, rightly or wrongly, and (b) Bono's role in this whole thing is first and foremost as the salesman. He's on Fox News, speaking to Bill O'Reilly. Mention God as much as you can!

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Bill O'Reilly was speaking from his viewpoint. Would you deny that to anyone?

Denying Bill O'Reilly his viewpoint

 

[echo0001]

Ok, I'll concede that you have a point in regards to how people deal with anger vs how people deal with sex. It was a bad example of undeniable inpulse.

Preservation of the Species doesn't work as an argument with Homosexuals. Unless the wires are crossed and at a base level the body thinks it's got a chance to perpetuate the species by spilling it's seed inside a man, or in the case of a woman accepting some sort of penile substitute and her body believing it will lead to fertilization.

Do you believe homosexual animals think that having sex with a same sex partner will result in procreation? I'm talking about INSTINCT here, which works at an unconscious level and drives our behavior. Whatever it is that changes the gender focus of homosexuals does not change the INSTINCT to have sex. No matter if your sexual turn on is opposite sex, same sex, a sheep, a goat, or a pair of patent leather stiletto pumps, the urge to have sex is just as strong.

And from what I've read, part of the spread of Aids in Africa to the mother's have been because Husband's have mistresses and misters, but usually as a top. Thus contracting the disease and giving it to their loved (sic) one. - Which proves your point that some will fuck anything they can fuck.

It takes education to say wait? It doesn't take any more education than it takes to show someone how to use a condom. And hear me clearly, abstinence programs don't expect 100% compliance, but if 20% comply, there are 20% more people who are not at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. What in the world is wrong with asking people to slow down? Perhaps to think twice before engaging in risky activities. Your assertion seems to treat them like children, which they are certainly not. Yes, some people will make excuses, but we're not talking to those folks. Those folks will watch a condom unfurl onto a banana and still won't use it because it doesn't feel right. And because that guy didn't use condoms even though he was taught to, doesn't negate the idea that condoms are a better idea than none at all. Or maybe it does, because they're all animals, incapable of self-restraint. :sarcasm:

What's wrong with having people slow down? Nothing. What's wrong with trying to get them to slow down?--It's a not easy, fast or simple to get them to slow down.

All people are children until they decide to grow up.

Constant repetition may eventually persuade people to practice abstinence. I am NOT saying the people of Africa are animals (noting that preaching abstinence has about the same success rate everywhere in the world; pathetic); I'm saying that at the INSTINCTUAL level, we all are. Please note again--INSTINCT. You keep talking about thought. I was talking about the driving forces behind behavior; not about the thoughts that are happening in human minds, but the urges that color human behavior.

What we're talking about here is personal restraint, not banning sex. Through education we're asking and suggesting that Abstinence be a part of how they look at the issue. Just like we've asked them to wear condoms.

Personal restraint does not come built into human beings. It must be developed. Until they have developed restraint, give 'em the damn condoms. Condoms first, abstinence second. Which most Abstinence advocates wouldn't even begin to agree with.

So when an attractive woman passes me on the street and I hear "Fuck" I should just jump on her? -- If I knew I wouldn't get caught, why shouldn't I rape her? She's not very big, I can take her, so self-preservation isn't a factor. And she does look yummy and I'm aroused. Why shouldn't I do that? If sex is the most powerful force known to man, then there is no reason I would restrain myself, unless of course I have the power to restrain myself. That I have a brain that calculates all that I have learned about sex, and decides that it would be WRONG.

Did I say rape? Where the hell did I say rape? You're muddying the subject here. AND (very damn big) AND rape is not about sex anyway. It's about violence. It's a disfunctional or maladjuested personality committing a violent act.

My point is if you can limit the context in which sex is acceptable to exclude rape or being underage, you can also limit the context to include waiting longer before having sex, trying to have fewer partners, and to wear a condom.

You can? Really? When has that ever been accomplished for the population as a whole? And don't tell me society used to be like that; my mother was an illegitimate child. And don't even begin to think that I'm advocating that; it made her early life very difficult. I'm just pointing out that 'Just wait' has never been all that effective.

Look, I'm no puritan, I enjoy sex. But I'm telling you that peer pressure, and parental expectations spared me from having sex at 14, a time in which I would not have been ready to be a father if something happened to that condom. I waited another 5 years before finally losing my virginity, despite the persistent call of the wild. Once you start having sex, it's harder to deny yourself the pleasure, so why not try to teach young men and women to wait longer before they know how good it can be?

If you can prove that introducing Abstinence into the conversation actually makes more people have unprotected sex, then I think you have an argument worth having, but if it doesn't (on the whole) then what are you fighting for (against?) - Are you fighting to save money by not creating Abstinence materials, or are you arguing so that you won't have societal limitations (not governmental) put upon your sexuality, thus sparing yourself the dangerous idea that maybe I shouldn't fuck everything that moves.

Societal limitations be damned. FYI, I haven't had sex with anyone in about a year and a half. You want to know why? Simple. Not because I think abstinence is the be all and end all. Because I'm picky about who gets into my bed. It's just how I am. A lot of people aren't so picky. It might be better if they were, but many are not.

Many programs that advocate Abstinence as their favorite pet do not want anything to do with providing information on condoms (or for women, other forms of birth control). This costs lives. You were very fortunate that YOU were in a situation, with people to support and educate you at an early age, towards a wiser decision. Not everyone is so lucky. Too many people hear abstinence at church, in class, at the program, whatever, and are hearing "You're still a virgin? Hahaha." everywhere else. You can't count on a lecture and a pamphlet at a clinic or program accomplishing for half the people in the world what your family and friends helped you accomplish for yourself.

 

[Irvine511]

The whole "don't mention God because it might offend people" thing is silly, and people who say it don't really believe in free speech 100 %, especially since in this case, no moral judgment was made against Athiests.

Bill O'Reilly was speaking from his viewpoint. Would you deny that to anyone?

Do you think that I should be able to tell you not to talk openly about your dates with boyfriends, as you did in another thread, simply because I am offended by homosexuality? I wouldn't tell you not to talk about that, so why should anyone be upset that Bill O'Reilly referenced God?



Really? Is Christianity the only religion that believes in God? No, of course not. Most people in the world believe in God.

And in fact, this particular case, it was completely appropriate because Bono is in fact a Christian and credits his work to God.

because we were making a broader point -- yes, Bono probably does view it as somewhat of a religious endeavor, but that should be up to him to decide and define, not Bill O'Reilly.

i'm not telling you not to talk about God, as it relates to you and your work. what i am telling Bill O'Reilly not to do is to claim certain altruistic activities as being of, by, and for God.

God has nothing to do with the friends i have in the Peace Corps. for you, or anyone, to label their 2 years of service as being "God's work" is to appropriate something for religion that they might not agree with.

 

[A_Wanderer]

God forbid anyone should ever talk about the creator of the universe...

Bull, you can't prove or disprove that God created the universe any more than you can prove or disprove that I created the universe and use my immense power to make my hand in it undetectable.

I have been reading Africa Unchained by George Ayittey; free press, free markets and democracy to bring Africa out of the poverty trap.

 

[Jamila]

And while everyone sits at their computer and debates in this thread....

at least 6500 Africans will die of AIDS today

another 9000 Africans will become infected with HIV

30,000 children will lose their lives to totally preventable causes today....

need I go on?

Time to let your actions speak louder than your words, folks.

That goes for the "Christians" and everyone else.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Jamila, why do you assume that the people in this thread AREN'T "letting their actions speak"? Do you have access to all their bank account info? Or, is financial support not enough? Does everyone need to have a job helping people with AIDS? Or is it okay that they have another type of job, just as long as they spend every waking moment volunteering in the battle against AIDS?

 

[bonoman]

for example, if you were to redecorate your living room, would i be inappropriate saying, "wow, you've done gay work"?

One of the GREATEST lines every posted on FYM!!!

 

[sulawesigirl4]

God has nothing to do with the friends i have in the Peace Corps. for you, or anyone, to label their 2 years of service as being "God's work" is to appropriate something for religion that they might not agree with.

wait a minute, who said that Peace Corps is God's work? (i skimmed so many I missed something). In fact, we are very strictly forbidden to proselytize or do anything that might give the impression that we are here representing ANY religion of any kind. Personal beliefs are all well and good, but being seen as an emissary of God when you are paid by the US government? Not cool.

 

[Irvine511]

wait a minute, who said that Peace Corps is God's work? (i skimmed so many I missed something). In fact, we are very strictly forbidden to proselytize or do anything that might give the impression that we are here representing ANY religion of any kind. Personal beliefs are all well and good, but being seen as an emissary of God when you are paid by the US government? Not cool.

the argument, as i understood it, was that i had said it was inappropriate for anyone to look at charitable actions -- be it Peace Corps, or Bono's efforts -- and claim that such actions are "God's work." Bill O'Reilly did this, and even though Bono would probably agree with him, i dont' think it's appropriate to do so.

i return to the analogy that 80s never responded to.

if he redecorated his living room, would it not be in appropriate for me to claim that he had done "great gay work"?

i think it would be. same applies for those who spend their lives in service. many people are motivated by religion, and it's perfectly acceptable to say, "i dig every well in the name of Jesus." that's fine. but for someone to look at the Peace Corps (or, say, Doctors Without Borders) and say, "they are doing the work of the Lord!" is, to me, inappropriate.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

ah, okay. I think I am tracking with you now. And I agree. What motivates an individual to do whatever he or she does, that is a personal thing. I can say that my religious beliefs DID affect my choice to join the Peace Corps, but I would not go so far as to say that the work volunteers do is God's work. In fact, I don't even think I would say that the work I do is "God's work" because that comes off as sounding pretty arrogant and assumptive. I haven't gotten a personal message from God giving me the right to say that, and I'm always very very nervous when people start saying things like "God told me to do this" or "this is God's will". How the hell do we know? We do our best to do what we think God would want and in the end we have to hope that it is enough.

Now on that note, I guess I'm gonna go home and do some gay work, cuz I am having dinner guests tonite and need to make my house purty and whip up a gourmet meal.

 

[Irvine511]

Now on that note, I guess I'm gonna go home and do some gay work, cuz I am having dinner guests tonite and need to make my house purty and whip up a gourmet meal.

may Oscar Wilde be with you.

in the name of Elton John, David Geffen, and Walt Whitman.

go and be fabulous.

 

[80sU2isBest]

i return to the analogy that 80s never responded to.

if he redecorated his living room, would it not be in appropriate for me to claim that he had done "great gay work"?

i think it would be. same applies for those who spend their lives in service. many people are motivated by religion, and it's perfectly acceptable to say, "i dig every well in the name of Jesus." that's fine. but for someone to look at the Peace Corps (or, say, Doctors Without Borders) and say, "they are doing the work of the Lord!" is, to me, inappropriate.

If you said that to me, I think my first recation would be to look at you with a confused look on my face and say "What the heck is gay work?"

If you said that to me in a one to one conversation, knowing that I believe homosexuality is wrong, yes, that would be inappropriate. However, if you didn't know my beliefs, it would be just a statement of the "fact" as you see it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

wait a minute, who said that Peace Corps is God's work? (i skimmed so many I missed something). In fact, we are very strictly forbidden to proselytize or do anything that might give the impression that we are here representing ANY religion of any kind. Personal beliefs are all well and good, but being seen as an emissary of God when you are paid by the US government? Not cool.

Okay then, drop the whole "official statement" angle, and tell me - as a Christian, don't you believe that any good work done to help someone is "God's work", whether it's your paid job or not?

 

[Irvine511]

If you said that to me, I think my first recation would be to look at you with a confused look on my face and say "What the heck is gay work?"

If you said that to me in a one to one conversation, knowing that I believe homosexuality is wrong, yes, that would be inappropriate. However, if you didn't know my beliefs, it would be just a statement of the "fact" as you see it.

couldn't an atheist in the Peace Corps also say, "what the heck is God's work?"

it's as appropriate for me to label the redecoration of your living room as "gay" as it is for you to claim that all altruism is about "god."

you might see it that way, and i might see your redecoration that way, but what's inappropriate is to claim someone else's work through your own belief system.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Okay then, drop the whole "official statement" angle, and tell me - as a Christian, don't you believe that any good work done to help someone is "God's work", whether it's your paid job or not?

If you'd read my next post, it may have helped answer this question, but I'll try to rephrase. Myself, as a Christian, yes I hope that what I am doing is good and I hope it pleases God. But I wouldn't have the audacity to call it "God's work" because who knows...maybe what I think is good work will actually have a bad side? All I am saying is that I don't like putting words in God's mouth. I'll do my best and hope that the little bit of good I may contribute to the world will please God, but I'd rather leave the final analysis up to the Almighty. Maybe that sounds like a semantic difference, but it is an important one to me.