Oreilly Article On Bono & Africa - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-06-2002, 09:31 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 08:17 AM

Now THAT is a rare event! Mug222 and I agreeing on a political topic! It is usually just the Grateful Dead and Wilco! Well, I am glad to agree with you on this one, my friend!

An Leprachaunite, I had no idea that you had Southern roots, and I am not sure to think of that.

~U2Alabama
__________________

__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 11:02 PM   #32
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in San Leandro, CA
Posts: 6,342
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH


In the end minds won't change and we could go on and on. I would suggest the post being closed. Next time, I will think long and hard before posting an opposing point of view (on Bono or U2).


-MBH
Now you are just being silly if not immature.

It seems that you repeatedly throw out a topic that prompts discussion. Yet, when you get this discussion, you become flustered and suggest we close threads because you aren't getting the support you wanted. Then you have the audacity to accuse us of not fully understanding the situation and only agreeing with Bono because of our love of U2. I find this highly insulting. One of the reasons I have participated on this forum for 2 years is because I find the people here intelligent and well-educated. We aren't just supporting Bono because we love U2. Rather, we are supporting him because we have done our homework and agree with his assessment of the situation.

Ironically, most of the naysayers are the ones who have done little to no homework on this topic. They dismiss the situation by saying idiotic comments like "why should we listen to an aging rock star?" I saw an editorial reply by a Dean of George Washington University write this very comment. When a Dean of a respected university is this dismissive, clearly there is a problem. And that's exactly what Bono is trying to counter. He wants people to at least think of this situation - not sit in their lofty little university offices enjoying a "good life."

Other naysayers say idiotic things like "give everyone in Africa a gun". Oh yes, that'll help them with their problems. Perhaps when they run out of animals to kill and eat, they'll start killing each other for food. Or maybe they'll just start killing each other for fun, as we seem to do here in the U.S.

In other words, while you have some points MBH, I feel that your posts from people who clearly haven't done enough research in this area (like Rush), only weaken your arguments. Furthermore, these posts show a tremendous bias against Bono just for being Bono. It's almost as if you WANT to insult Bono or U2. Is that your goal? If not, then why do you consistently seem to present these negative views and then become offended when we counter them?

From what I've read in this thread, I see only further reason to SUPPORT Bono. Until you list good reasons not to support him, I don't think you will find many people agreeing with you. And posting comments from "shock jock" artists like Rush or Dave Marsh is not the way to generate agreement.
__________________

__________________
http://u2.interference.com/attachments/forums/signaturepics/sigpic11661_2.gifI always wanted to be somebody, but I should have been more specific.
doctorwho is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 01:54 AM   #33
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH


Now is patting the back of confidants on this site necessary??
if you do it as well as I do it never hurts
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 01:15 PM   #34
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 02:17 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by doctorwho
[B]

Now you are just being silly if not immature.


Silly? Immature? You're kidding right? If I wanted to be silly and immature, I would not have entered FYM and posted intelligent, thought-provoking comments. That is insulting to me!

It seems that you repeatedly throw out a topic that prompts discussion.

True.


Yet, when you get this discussion, you become flustered and suggest we close threads because you aren't getting the support you wanted.

I suggested the thread be closed b/c it is going in circles.

Then you have the audacity to accuse us of not fully understanding the situation and only agreeing with Bono because of our love of U2.

In a unbelievably biased site, that should not be surprising.(I love U2 as much as the next one, but give me a break already)


I find this highly insulting. One of the reasons I have participated on this forum for 2 years is because I find the people here intelligent and well-educated.

Who said they weren't? The reason I post here is to endulge with intelligent and educated people.

We aren't just supporting Bono because we love U2. Rather, we are supporting him because we have done our homework and agree with his assessment of the situation.


That is exactly what I am talking about!!! You constantly assume that the other people(opposition ) have not done their homework, implying that they are wrong and you are right---all the time on this topic! That is soooo condescending!



Ironically, most of the naysayers are the ones who have done little to no homework on this topic. They dismiss the situation by saying idiotic comments like "why should we listen to an aging rock star?" I saw an editorial reply by a Dean of George Washington University write this very comment. When a Dean of a respected university is this dismissive, clearly there is a problem. And that's exactly what Bono is trying to counter. He wants people to at least think of this situation - not sit in their lofty little university offices enjoying a "good life."

Agreed.



Other naysayers say idiotic things like "give everyone in Africa a gun". Oh yes, that'll help them with their problems. Perhaps when they run out of animals to kill and eat, they'll start killing each other for food. Or maybe they'll just start killing each other for fun, as we seem to do here in the U.S.

That is just silly(agree w/you again).


In other words, while you have some points MBH,(good points, that is) I feel that your posts from people who clearly haven't done enough research in this area (like Rush), only weaken your arguments.


Look, if you are going to look at this blindly, that is your choice. Like I said, Rush is a pompous ass(but he does make some decent points). O'reilly's article CLEARLY pointed out many factual and interesting points. IF you want to ignore them, that is your choice.



Furthermore, these posts show a tremendous bias against Bono just for being Bono. It's almost as if you WANT to insult Bono or U2.

Did you even clearly read my posts and have you read any of my posts in the past???!!! I love the band, but(unlike others) if I disagree with them, I will write about that(even though I know I will get destroyed). Like I said, I agree with much of what Bono is saying and doing; just not entirely.

Is that your goal?

"THE GOAL IS E-L-E-V-A-T-I-O-N!!!!" But seriously, my goal is to start and participate in interesting, intelligent, OBJECTIVE conversation. Never once did I write that anybody had to agree with me. Taking notice of an opposing POV and acknowledging it(as I have) would be nice. If I wanted to praise U2 I would(have in the past, will do so again in the future) However, that gets very dull.

If not, then why do you consistently seem to present these negative views and then become offended when we counter them?

Negative views? Dude, O'reilly's article is not negative. It is the truth(if the truth is negative, then so be it; he doesn't even kill Bono as others have in the past, he is just documenting history and making suggestions BASED ON FACTS!)



And posting comments from "shock jock" artists like Rush or Dave Marsh is not the way to generate agreement.

I NEVER posted anything by Dave Marsh. Like I said, the purpose of this is not to generate agreement. Objectivity and presenting another side w/out getting clobbered is more like it.
__________________
MBH is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 01:35 PM   #35
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 02:17 PM
MBH, that is all well and good, but I think what we are really waiting for is a substantive argument from you. Ignore Bono, ignore U2 (as I think most people have in this thread) and make your case for why aid to Africa is not a good idea. Please do not return to O'Reilly's pale argument that aid has not worked in the past, because: there has been no significant aid in the past!

The last time that the U.S. truly gave foreign, non-military aid on a meaningful scale was in 1947-1953 when we gave $13 billion (2% of our gross national product) to Europe in the Marshall Plan. It was an unqualified success--we essentially saved an entire continent from starvation and communist rule.

Two percent of current GNP would be far, far greater than $13 billion (indeed, it would be hundreds of billions of dollars), but U.S. aid to Africa has remained in the millions of dollars (that quote from O'Neill in the Boston Globe about "trillions of dollars to Africa" was fallacious and laughable...) Bono and others are asking for $2.5 billion per year from the U.S. Even this compared to the Marshall Plan--50 years later!--is small, but it would be effective. The Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) sponsored by the World Health Organization found that $2.5 billion from the U.S. and $7.5 billion from other wealthy nations would save 8 million lives a year. 8 million a year--that is more than the entire death toll of the Holocaust (not to belittle that tragedy, of course, but merely to provide perspective.)

So MBH, what is YOUR (and not O'Reilly's, and not Limbaugh's) argument against these findings? Hopefully it is not that Africans are not smart enough to do as well with the aid as Europeans did 50 years ago, as has been the implication by many borderline racist commentators. Perhaps it it that Europe at least had a basic infrastructure at the time, which Africa lacks--that is certainly a viable argument, but I can counter it if it is YOUR chosen argument. Perhaps it is that corrupt dictators funnel the money into their Swiss bank accounts, as seems to be the favored argument by many cynics...Well, that charge is easy to combat too: the proposal by the CMH states that aid would only go to countries with an acceptable level of good governance, at once assuring the meaningful use of given aid, and providing an incentive for other nations to clean up their governments. You may argue, 'Well, no governments in Africa have stable, clean, transparent governments, anyway.' That, of course, would be a blatant lie. Two of the nations most deserving and most needing of aid are Ghana and Uganda, which have efficient, democratic governments that have long cooperated with the United States and the U.N. These countries have showed in the past that they can put aid (what little aid we've given them) to good use.

OK, MBH, I await your reply. Please no mention of a certain rock star, as I have taken pains to remove him from my post.
__________________
mug222 is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 01:55 PM   #36
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 02:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mug222
[B]MBH, that is all well and good, but I think what we are really waiting for is a substantive argument from you.


Who the hell is arguing? From the beginning of my original post, I said that I AGREE with much of what Bono is saying!!!! My point is that he seems to be TOO FREE with US money and would rather pour exorbitant amounts of aid and constantly give more and more aid before ever seeing results. That is all true!



Please do not return to O'Reilly's pale argument that aid has not worked in the past, because: there has been no significant aid in the past!

Billons of dollars in aid is not significant? O'reilly's makes quality points that are certainly not pale. Does anyone every say to himself or herself, "hey, most of the aid that the US provides to these places has been wasted. If we give 10 billion instead of 5 billion, won't that just give these corrupt gov't. more money to play with?"




The last time that the U.S. truly gave foreign, non-military aid on a meaningful scale was in 1947-1953 when we gave $13 billion (2% of our gross national product) to Europe in the Marshall Plan. It was an unqualified success--we essentially saved an entire continent from starvation and communist rule.

Two percent of current GNP would be far, far greater than $13 billion (indeed, it would be hundreds of billions of dollars), but U.S. aid to Africa has remained in the millions of dollars (that quote from O'Neill in the Boston Globe about "trillions of dollars to Africa" was fallacious and laughable...) Bono and others are asking for $2.5 billion per year from the U.S. Even this compared to the Marshall Plan--50 years later!--is small, but it would be effective. The Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) sponsored by the World Health Organization found that $2.5 billion from the U.S. and $7.5 billion from other wealthy nations would save 8 million lives a year. 8 million a year--that is more than the entire death toll of the Holocaust (not to belittle that tragedy, of course, but merely to provide perspective.)




Bottom Line: Aid should be provided in small(er) increments in the beginning of the Aid Program as US officials monitor where all the $ is going. As the aid is being used properly by the right/civil/democratic people, the aid should increase.



So MBH, what is YOUR (and not O'Reilly's, and not Limbaugh's) argument against these findings? Hopefully it is not that Africans are not smart enough to do as well with the aid as Europeans did 50 years ago, as has been the implication by many borderline racist commentators. Perhaps it it that Europe at least had a basic infrastructure at the time, which Africa lacks--that is certainly a viable argument, but I can counter it if it is YOUR chosen argument. Perhaps it is that corrupt dictators funnel the money into their Swiss bank accounts, as seems to be the favored argument by many cynics...Well, that charge is easy to combat too: the proposal by the CMH states that aid would only go to countries with an acceptable level of good governance, at once assuring the meaningful use of given aid, and providing an incentive for other nations to clean up their governments. You may argue, 'Well, no governments in Africa have stable, clean, transparent governments, anyway.' That, of course, would be a blatant lie. Two of the nations most deserving and most needing of aid are Ghana and Uganda, which have efficient, democratic governments that have long cooperated with the United States and the U.N. These countries have showed in the past that they can put aid (what little aid we've given them) to good use.



Well, since you have all the answers and you have just argued with yourself for a few lines, combined with the fact that I never intended on completely opposing Bono in the first place, I am not going to continue to go in circles.
__________________
MBH is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 04:16 PM   #37
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH


Bottom Line: Aid should be provided in small(er) increments in the beginning of the Aid Program as US officials monitor where all the $ is going. As the aid is being used properly by the right/civil/democratic people, the aid should increase.

I refer you to an earlier post of mine, which you seem to have ignored:

"The truth is that you simply cannot expect results from nickels and dimes: quantitative results vs. financial aid given is not at all a linear graph (i.e. 1 billion dollars will NOT be a tenth as beneficial as 10 billion dollars, but far less. This seems to be true, for instance, because you cannot combat half of malaria: if you do not eradicate the entire disease then it will always return with renewed force.) You can't touch the problem whatsoever until you are giving money on the right order of magnitude."

In other words, you will see LITTLE TO NO RESULTS from a few hundred million dollars.

Your second point truly reveals how ignorant you are in the matter:

Quote:
As the aid is being used properly by the right/civil/democratic people, the aid should increase.
I suggest you do some research to see that aid in many places in Africa has been used and used effectively, and yet the U.S. refuses to give aid on a larger-scale. To use one basic example, $1 billion of Uganda's foreign debt was recently erased (the equivalent of $1 billion in foreign aid) and within a year school enrollment more than doubled. If that's not a significant result, I'm curious what is.


Quote:
Well, since you have all the answers and you have just argued with yourself for a few lines, combined with the fact that I never intended on completely opposing Bono in the first place, I am not going to continue to go in circles.
You are saying, in other words: "You just deflated every argument that I was going to poach from various ignorant Republican commentators. I will send a pithy reply and hope that I can escape from this thread with at least a shred of my dignity intact."

How grand of you.
__________________
mug222 is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 05:23 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 09:17 AM
mug222, I am at the library and have gained access to that WSJ article by Sachs that you were talking about. It is posted below.

Quote:
Bononomics Rocks
Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.; Jun 6, 2002; By Jeffrey Sachs;

Rock star Bono provided the Bush administration with its future lyrics on foreign assistance during an eye-opening Africa tour with Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill last week. Yes, it's true that Mr. O'Neill sparred with Bono over the importance of aid, but, ironically, Bono has run the numbers while the Treasury has not. When compassionate conservatives like the president and the Treasury secretary finally do their homework, they will reach the same conclusion as Bono. A compassionate country like ours that leads the world in a war for freedom must also be ready to offer billions more in help for a continent struggling for its very survival, and do it in a way that really supports economic development.

Senators from both parties have reached the same conclusion as Bono, and are supporting at least $500 million in emergency supplemental funds to fight AIDS in Africa. Amazingly, the Office of Management and Budget is weighing in against the funding, because the number-crunchers lack the vision to see what's really at stake. They are even wrongly claiming that the new Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (a public-private partnership) has the money that it needs, when it plainly lacks funds even for the projects that will be submitted this September. Mr. O'Neill should urgently make the case for these extra funds given the shocking truths that he saw last week.

Africa's poverty is like no other in the world today. It is a poverty that kills, and kills in mass numbers. The continent is besieged by three simultaneous pandemics: malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS. Even well-governed countries like Botswana, Ghana and Uganda are fighting for their survival now, with life expectancy in Botswana and Malawi down to 40 years, and in Uganda to 44 years. Good governance and praise from the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom are not enough to save villagers from early death caused by epidemic disease.

The defining moment of the trip was the visit by Messrs. O'Neill and Bono to Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital in Soweto, South Africa. There Mr. O'Neill saw something for the first time that Bono and I have seen in the past. Mr. O'Neill came face to face with mothers dying of HIV/AIDS -- dying not because their illness is untreatable, but because they lack the roughly $1 per day needed for antiretroviral drugs that could keep them alive. The Treasury secretary, a decent man to the core, lost his composure, and declared himself to be dismayed that the world could stand by and let these mothers die. The doctors told Messrs. O'Neill and Bono that they had the infrastructure to scale up treatment by a factor of ten but lack the funds to do so.

Yet Mr. O'Neill then reverted to the official line of the administration, that this shocking neglect of dying people can be solved by using existing resources more effectively. That's a line that I know well. When I served on the Meltzer Commission three years ago, and then as chairman of the World Health Organization's Commission on Macroeconomics and Health in 2000-2001, I heard similar sentiments from many long-standing skeptics of foreign aid as their initial response to the plight of dying Africans.

But it was never their last line. The members of the Meltzer Commission, both Democrats and Republicans, eventually voted 11-0 for a significant increase in U.S. foreign assistance for the poorest countries. The WHO commissioners similarly voted 18-0 for a $21 billion per year increase in donor assistance for health programs. The consensus was easily reached in both cases when we looked together at the evidence rather than at pre-cooked ideologies. Even Sen. Jesse Helms (R., N.C.) has joined that consensus.

The case for more aid is straightforward, which is why I'm confident that President Bush and his Treasury secretary will get to the same answer very soon. The poor countries in Africa have an average income of around $300 per person per year, and many live on much less than that. The cost of providing a minimal package of life-saving health interventions for pandemic diseases and for other basic health needs (such as immunizations and safe childbirth) is around $40 per capita, with more needed in heavily AIDS-impacted countries.

This is around three times the current level of health spending, and is wildly beyond their means. Even South Africa, much richer than the rest, cannot afford to confront the AIDS pandemic on its own, since 25% of all adults are infected by the HIV virus. The result, throughout the continent, is mass death. Africa's silent calamity claims around 20,000 lives a day.

Mr. O'Neill had his own lyrics of course -- that "It's trade, not aid" that will help Africa. Sadly, the real U.S. position is "It's trade not aid . . . and by the way, we won't trade." We preach free trade, but we destroy potential African exports through quotas on textiles and apparel, as well as $180 billion in newly passed subsidies for our farmers. A tiny fraction of that sum, $2.5 billion per year, would save millions of lives by controlling AIDS, TB and malaria. The real answer, of course, is that Africa needs both trade and aid -- trade to promote private investment, and aid to fight disease, provide clean water, and ensure universal education, all of which are necessary for growth, as Mr. O'Neill himself has stressed.

The end of the Bono-O'Neill trip should therefore mark the beginning of a new era of U.S. foreign policy leadership towards the world's poorest countries. In addition to supporting the emergency funding for AIDS in this week's Senate supplemental, the president should ask Mr. O'Neill to prepare a longer-term plan for the U.S. and Europe to join Africa in the struggle for health and education.

If challenged to make such a plan on the basis of real evidence, the Treasury secretary would soon report back to the president that the U.S. needs to provide $2.5 billion per year for the Global Fund, more than 12 times the $200 million (or 70 cents per American) that is it now dribbling out. With such targeted assistance, we'd soon have a foreign policy fit for a country that aspires to lead the world away from death, despair and terror.
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 05:36 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Sula-
Good job finding that.
Lets hope that Paul O. has the same urgency that Mr Sachs and Bono have.
At the very minimum, the trip has been a success in raising the level of consciousness-(in our country)- of this crisis or 'genocide' as GW labeled it to Bono in the Oval Office.
This issue is NO LONGER a back-burner issue thanks to people like Bono, Jeffery Sachs and countless unnamed others..
Out-
diamond
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 05:42 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 09:17 AM
thanks, diamond. I do think that if nothing else, at least people are thinking (hopefully) about the issue and from the looks of the following article, Mr. O'Neill might be about to push for some actual results. Read on...

Quote:
Out of Africa, O'Neill Turns to Washington for Results

Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.; Jun 6, 2002; By David Wessel;

TREASURY SECRETARY Paul O'Neill and Irish rock star Bono have returned from their excellent adventure in Africa, each convinced that he achieved his goals.

Mr. O'Neill saw the woes of poverty and disease first hand, giving him the anecdotal ammunition so useful in public and private debate. He called attention to the importance of results, not intentions, in aiding poor countries. He demonstrated that Republicans have hearts, too.

Bono's running commentary prevented Mr. O'Neill's snap judgments from becoming accepted fact, but the musician's remarks weren't so shrill that he undercut his effectiveness with gray-haired Republicans who still think U2 is a spy plane. He called public attention to the importance of governments and of big-bucks aid programs. He lured MTV cameras to places they would never otherwise have gone, thereby giving young people a look at heartbreak you can't dance to.

It isn't unusual for an American cabinet official to travel to Africa to show that the U.S. cares. Mr. O'Neill's predecessor, Lawrence Summers, hopscotched through Africa, too. Bringing along a telegenic and intelligent celebrity was bold and risky. But it paid off: Bono's presence generated gobs of global media coverage about people whose plight is too often overlooked, and some occasionally thoughtful public debate about the complexity of finding lasting solutions to their poverty.

Mr. O'Neill displayed both his admirable impatience about the inadequacy of conventional approaches to any problem and his irrepressible instinct to draw conclusions not always founded on fact. After learning that a well outside of Kampala, Uganda, cost $1,000 to dig, Mr. O'Neill announced a back-of-the-envelope calculation that it would cost only $25 million to bring safe drinking water to the 9.5 million Ugandans who lack it, The Wall Street Journal's Michael Phillips reports. After Mr. O'Neill left Kampala, the water ministry's top civil servant thanked him for his concern, but said the cost actually is closer to $950 million. The secretary kept blurting out observations that made it easy to cast him as a foe of more foreign aid and Bono as an advocate.

WHEN HE PAUSES to think before he speaks, though, Mr. O'Neill often makes sense. "Compassion is a wonderful thing," he told a news conference in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, "but it doesn't improve people's lives by itself. And so when I've been critical of what's gone before, it is not because I don't want to invest a lot in improving people's lives, but it's because I know the difference between caring greatly and succeeding greatly."

The Treasury secretary has shown that he cares. The tears in his eyes were genuine. Now let's see if he can succeed.

Mr. O'Neill styles himself as a hard-nosed, no-nonsense executive with little patience for inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom or bleeding hearts. That might make him the ideal advocate for a more-generous and more-effective U.S. foreign-aid effort.

President Bush began to change U.S. policy in March with his Millennium Challenge Account proposal to increase foreign aid by $10 billion over three years for "projects in nations that govern justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom." The increase, which would return U.S. foreign economic aid to mid-1980s levels, adjusted for inflation, still needs congressional approval. Just as important, it needs public acceptance, so that the commitment Mr. O'Neill made in Africa doesn't fade with memories of his trip. Perhaps Bono, who so famously changed Sen. Jesse Helms's mind, can help Mr. O'Neill hone his arguments.

Success will take more than talking points. Mr. O'Neill needs a strategy to move beyond rhetoric to results, the stuff business executives are supposed to do well.

ONE SMART APPROACH would be to concentrate the Millennium Challenge Account money even more than officials are contemplating. The U.S. might devote the aid to fewer than 10 promising countries, chosen not because they're allies in the war on terrorism but because they're beginning to build democratic institutions and economic policies that boost the odds of success. Spreading the money broadly has political appeal, but would have as much impact as sprinkling sand on the Sahara. Just as Poland's success after the fall of the Berlin Wall inspired all of Eastern Europe, Africa sorely needs a success or two.

About 45% of sub-Saharan Africans lack access to clean drinking water, Mr. O'Neill discovered. His instinct is to stop dithering and dig some wells. But that if-we-build-it-they'll-get-richer approach has been tried. It failed. We built schools without educating teachers, clinics without medicine, wells that weren't maintained.

The reality is unfortunately complicated: Even when a nation pursues sound macroeconomic policies, combats corruption, opens to trade and improves the health and education of its people, development is painfully elusive. But without those conditions, aid is often wasted.

As William Easterly, a former World Bank economist, puts it, "The problem of making poor countries rich was much more difficult than we thought."

If Mr. O'Neill accepts that and sustains his interest, maybe he can do a victory lap with Bono in a few years. And maybe Bono will choose a different theme song than the one he sang on this trip: "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking for."
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 05:46 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:17 PM
Remember that when it comes to taxes, Americans have one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world. Billions of dollars is not a lot of money when speaking of the scale of things that need to be done. 2% of are GNP today would be 200 BILLION dollars. Yet, what is being asked for is less than 10% of that. I support BONO's efforts because I have for many years known that the International Relations Budget of the United States has been grossly underfunded for decades. The problems of Africa will not fix themselves without outside aid and support. THAT is a fact!
The Economic devolopment of Africa is in the national interest of the United States. Right now, Africa is a great place for Terrorist like Al Quada and others to hide and find new recruits. That has to be closed up. Plus, and Economically devoloped Africa can buy American goods and services making the relationship with Africa a profitable one. Of course the scale of what needs to be done to achieve this will take decades or generations. But great improvements can happen now! Engagement, not Isolation and excuses for doing nothing, is the answer. Its time that some people like Rush and O'rieghly wake up and realize we now live in an interdependent world!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 05:47 PM   #42
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 02:17 PM
crys

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mug222
[B]

I refer you to an earlier post of mine, which you seem to have ignored:

"The truth is that you simply cannot expect results from nickels and dimes: quantitative results vs. financial aid given is not at all a linear graph (i.e. 1 billion dollars will NOT be a tenth as beneficial as 10 billion dollars, but far less. This seems to be true, for instance, because you cannot combat half of malaria: if you do not eradicate the entire disease then it will always return with renewed force.) You can't touch the problem whatsoever until you are giving money on the right order of magnitude."

In other words, you will see LITTLE TO NO RESULTS from a few hundred million dollars.




Your second point truly reveals how ignorant you are in the matter:

Excuse me?

I suggest you do some research to see that aid in many places in Africa has been used and used effectively, and yet the U.S. refuses to give aid on a larger-scale. To use one basic example, $1 billion of Uganda's foreign debt was recently erased (the equivalent of $1 billion in foreign aid) and within a year school enrollment more than doubled. If that's not a significant result, I'm curious what is.




You are saying, in other words: "You just deflated every argument that I was going to poach from various ignorant Republican commentators. I will send a pithy reply and hope that I can escape from this thread with at least a shred of my dignity intact."


No, you said that. I made some valid points, backed them up with commentary from prominent pundits and you have barely acknowledged any of the facts that I have put forward. That is ignorant. I never said I was Jeffery f--in Sachs and knew every detail of the issue at hand. In fact, if there are things that I am not sure of, you could've pointed them out in a more obedient demeanor. Instead you have chosen to be insulting.
HOW GRAND OF YOU!

Also, you (and others) who may be intelligent on the issue, seem to believe that you know more or have more authority on the issue than certain political pundits(nobody specified) and, moreover, ignore and dismiss them as "idiots" or say they "miss the point." I can assure you that those you dismiss probably are mor informed and have achieved a high degree in this world by not being idiots. By calling them idiots or dismissing them makes you look foolish.

Your earlier posts were civil, intelligent and provakative. Now, you are simply being rude, obnoxious and insulting for absolutely no reason. I read your posts, acknowledged your POV, agreed with you somewhat and acted in a polite manner. Unfortunately, you have now have chosen otherwise. How sad.


I look forward to more "friends" of this community to pat each other on the back like children and lambast someone simply b/c they present a SLIGHTLY different POV. Funny, I thought many U2 fans were passionate, classy and had more to offer than others. Now, I am not so sure.
__________________
MBH is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 06:43 PM   #43
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH
I look forward to more "friends" of this community to pat each other on the back like children and lambast someone simply b/c they present a SLIGHTLY different POV.
you seem to keep accusing other members either of:
a) following Bono like mindless sheep because some do not agree with the article you posted

or

b) sticking up for eachother no matter what

is it that impossible that we simply do not agree?

many of the conclusions made in the article you posted are correct
I don't think I've seen people denying that
some of the conclusions differ from ones point of view: happens, that's ok
most people who do not agree with the article (myself for instance) seem to think that some of the accusations made against Bono and Drop the Debt team doesn't show the writer is well-informed (I for one have heard/read Bono say that financial aids aren't the solution, but since we are responsible for robbing Africa of it's recourses it's the least we can do until we do figure out a way that on how to help - but I guess adding that wouldn't benefit the rest of his article) + the overall tone of the article is not nice (it shows the writer is about as biased against Bono as we are biased towards him)
__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 07:39 PM   #44
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 02:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MBH


No, you said that. I made some valid points, backed them up with commentary from prominent pundits and you have barely acknowledged any of the facts that I have put forward. That is ignorant. I never said I was Jeffery f--in Sachs and knew every detail of the issue at hand. In fact, if there are things that I am not sure of, you could've pointed them out in a more obedient demeanor. Instead you have chosen to be insulting.
HOW GRAND OF YOU!

Also, you (and others) who may be intelligent on the issue, seem to believe that you know more or have more authority on the issue than certain political pundits(nobody specified) and, moreover, ignore and dismiss them as "idiots" or say they "miss the point." I can assure you that those you dismiss probably are mor informed and have achieved a high degree in this world by not being idiots. By calling them idiots or dismissing them makes you look foolish.
I will say that he's got a point here.. A lot of the replies are of one genre.. 'You Haven't Done your Homework'... or 'He Obviously Hasnt' done his homework... (Then proceeds directly to pot shots at Rush's Weight)."...

I will say I'm very skeptical of Bono's true intentions as I have alluded to earlier, but I will not go into that.

I am a supporter of the whole African Aid Idea, as well as Capitalismizing their Scenarios, but I do find myself agreeing with articles like O Reilly's... Sooo.. I ask to you out there who always retort with 'DO YOUR HOMEWORK'.. Explain to those who have said before that they support the African Aid Idea from the position of what Bono is saying, what he is proposing, I mean, ya'll can insult people as much as you want, but at least educate them afterwards and tell them why you think they're such jackasses.. Hahha.., but MBH is apparently looking to learn about this Homework that all of you guys say you've done.. But MBH.. you really haven't hit celebrity until you've been Targeted as a 'Dumb Fuck' by Mugg.. hahha..

Your Friendly Neighborhood Arbitrator,
Hahha.. A celebratory Champagne douche anyone?

L.Unplugged
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-07-2002, 09:09 PM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 07:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
thanks, diamond. I do think that if nothing else, at least people are thinking (hopefully) about the issue and from the looks of the following article, Mr. O'Neill might be about to push for some actual results. Read on...

Now this is a GOOD article.
We gotta make this happen.

Mug and MBH stop fighting.

OReilly did make a pt. or 2, bottom line though we need to move quicker and w responibility and be results oriented..
Everyone agrees w/this.

diamond
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Tags
africa, bono, bono africa

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com