Oreilly Article On Bono & Africa - Page 2 - 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, 06:07 PM   #21
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 03:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Mug-
Something tells me youre dialed into Brother Sachs quite well.
Would you care to elaborate?


diamond
I'm not sure what the implication is, but your overflow of smilies frightens and confuses me
__________________

mug222 is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 06:36 PM   #22
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
and the crowd roars

I have also studied enough economy and picked up enough of Bono's (+ Co) ideas to come to the same conclusions as Sula did

Now is patting the back of confidants on this site necessary??
__________________

MBH is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 06:38 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
HeartlandGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 7,033
Local Time: 08:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4


MBH, you are also extremely predictable. You seem to revel in trying to stir up controversy simply for the sake of controversy. (which may also be merely my misunderstanding, but thatís how it looks). It is also your prerogative to do so of course, but donít be surprised when people disagree with you.

Ok, so I do happen to agree with a lot of what the members of U2 have to say, Bono in particular. Does that mean I donít think for myself, or does it mean that perhaps I just happen to concur with many of their views? I would say itís the latter, and I would hope that Iím in the best position to judge. Furthermore, I find it highly amusing that you are labeling me as a ďstereotypicalĒ liberal, when Iím actually someone who generally votes Republican and holds pretty conservative views on a number of issues. I have studied economics and at an institution that holds capitalism and free market wisdom to be practically gospel, so believe me that when I disagree with you on the issues surrounding debt relief and aid, I am not doing so out of a liberal biased vacuum.

What I disagree with is your insistence on putting Bonoís position into this little box labeled ďaid.Ē What I have gleaned from articles and comments and interviews is that, yes he is definitely pushing for continued aid towards Africa, but that heís not merely saying that we should give free handouts and then abandon these countries to their own devices. What I hear him saying (and what I tend to agree with) is that while we should definitely be trying to help these countries move towards economic freedom and accountability, we cannot expect it to happen overnight and we cannot abandon them to the luck of the open market without taking into account the huge amounts of debt they carry, the ravaging effects of HIV/AIDS, the instability of many of their economic structures, and the inequity of trade tariffs. We owe it to ourselves to help and if that help takes the form of both aid and trade, then so be it. Personally, I wonít be upset if a cent of every dollar I pay in taxes goes to help people in the Third World. Iíve lived there, and I know that they can probably use it a helluva a lot more than I can.

But probably the thing that bothers me most about the articles is that they seem no more than a conservative knee-jerk reaction and one that overgeneralizes the issues and oversimplifies the solution. Not to mention the highly arrogant tone that screams condescension. I donít know when calling African countries ďpatheticĒ came into vogue, but I find that word choices like that in an article do tend to shred my opinion of the writerís credibility.

So in conclusion, I donít think that the above article is objective at all. It does validate one point of view, one that you seem to share, and of course you are welcome to it. But please donít try to convince me that itís an unbiased and fair assessment of the situation, because as far as I can tell, it doesnít even scratch the surface.

Hopefully that helped clarify my position and where Iím coming from. Sorry if I was vague before, and I do look forward to debating this issue civilly in the future.

Just as I did when sula voted for the Edge as the "sexiest member of U2," I concur with what she has written here.

Two thumbs up.
HeartlandGirl is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 06:45 PM   #24
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:27 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
[B]

MBH, you are also extremely predictable. You seem to revel in trying to stir up controversy simply for the sake of controversy. (which may also be merely my misunderstanding, but thatís how it looks). It is also your prerogative to do so of course, but donít be surprised when people disagree with you.


If trying to add objectivity to a situation is considered predictable, then so be it. BTW, when I disagree w/Bono and then people (on this site) disagree with me, I am not surprised.



Ok, so I do happen to agree with a lot of what the members of U2 have to say, Bono in particular.


My point exactly.




But probably the thing that bothers me most about the articles is that they seem no more than a conservative knee-jerk reaction and one that overgeneralizes the issues and oversimplifies the solution.

Sure, some of the criticism of Bono is unfounded and false. However, did you EVER read any article that disagreed with him concerning Africa and agreed with it?




So in conclusion, I donít think that the above article is objective at all. It does validate one point of view, one that you seem to share, and of course you are welcome to it. But please donít try to convince me that itís an unbiased and fair assessment of the situation, because as far as I can tell, it doesnít even scratch the surface.


I'm not surprised that you feel this way. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. It would be nice if someone would acknowledge the other person's point of view, that's all. As for scratching the surface, well, it would take more than a few paragraphs to get deep into this subject. However, I think that O'reilly makes some valid points.




Hopefully that helped clarify my position and where Iím coming from. Sorry if I was vague before, and I do look forward to debating this issue civilly in the future.

Yes, you have clarified your position. Speak to you soon--MBH
MBH is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 06:55 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mug222


I'm not sure what the implication is, but your overflow of smilies frightens and confuses me
Nothing to fear boss.

DB9
diamond is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 07:23 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
doctorwho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My TARDIS - currently located in Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MBH
]

Sula,
You are so predictable. I have never seen you disagree with ANYTHING that U2 or Bono does. (I'm sure you have, I just haven't witnessed it). I constantly bring up well-thought, FACTUAL statements and evidence to the contrary and you always seem to disagree. That is your perogative. I acknowledged that many political pundits(ie Limbaugh) are somewhat off-base and others just simply wanna take shots at Bono. However, much of what is written by Oreilly(et al) is a fact: much money has been wasted in 3rd world nations and it must change. Granted, Bono is doing a good thing and he has a big heart; however, you simply seem to ignore the obvious. I am middle of the road when it comes to politics; I try to view both sides objectively and fairly and make a cognizant opinion based on the facts(as I'm sure you do as well). However, the facts cannot be ignored simply because you disagree with something. You come across as the stereotypical liberal who gets annoyed and ignores the facts for the sake of a political point of view.
If Sula disagrees, I do not think it is because of her love for Bono or U2. It's because she feels as many of us do - that the systems currently in place, and this includes the current amount of aid to African countries, are simply not enough.

As others have stated, Bono has acknowledged that just throwing money at countries (or in this case, reducing the amount that countries had to spend through debt relief) is not the answer. The classic cliche of "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for life" truly does apply here. However, the glaring difference is that Bono is saying, "teach them to fish, but ALSO help them by buying new fishing polles" whereas O'Neill is saying, "hey, that crappy fishing poll they already have is good enough".

I think it is painfully obvious that we can't just throw $$ at African countries and say "go." This was done before with disastrous results. I also don't think we can just march in and completely govern these countries either. But we do need to monitor the aid received to fight corruption and further waste. When a county of a million has but one hospital with just under 400 beds, this proves that there simply are not enough funds. When O'Neill states that people should be treated for AIDS at the expense of teaching prevention, that proves that there are simply not enough funds.

It seems to me MBH that you are almost looking for a way to post an alternative view. If you disagree with Bono, rather than post Rush's view or some other naysayer who has NOT done enough homework (and I do consider O'Neill in this category), why not state specifically what you think is wrong with the plan and then possible alternatives. I think this would lead toward a healthy discussion far more readily than just throwing up another's view point and then criticizing those who agree with Bono.
__________________
https://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 06-06-2002, 08:25 PM   #27
MBH
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: wantagh, ny usa
Posts: 392
Local Time: 03:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by doctorwho


If Sula disagrees, I do not think it is because of her love for Bono or U2. It's because she feels as many of us do - that the systems currently in place, and this includes the current amount of aid to African countries, are simply not enough.

As others have stated, Bono has acknowledged that just throwing money at countries (or in this case, reducing the amount that countries had to spend through debt relief) is not the answer. The classic cliche of "give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for life" truly does apply here. However, the glaring difference is that Bono is saying, "teach them to fish, but ALSO help them by buying new fishing polles" whereas O'Neill is saying, "hey, that crappy fishing poll they already have is good enough".

I think it is painfully obvious that we can't just throw $$ at African countries and say "go." This was done before with disastrous results. I also don't think we can just march in and completely govern these countries either. But we do need to monitor the aid received to fight corruption and further waste. When a county of a million has but one hospital with just under 400 beds, this proves that there simply are not enough funds. When O'Neill states that people should be treated for AIDS at the expense of teaching prevention, that proves that there are simply not enough funds.

It seems to me MBH that you are almost looking for a way to post an alternative view. If you disagree with Bono, rather than post Rush's view or some other naysayer who has NOT done enough homework (and I do consider O'Neill in this category), why not state specifically what you think is wrong with the plan and then possible alternatives. I think this would lead toward a healthy discussion far more readily than just throwing up another's view point and then criticizing those who agree with Bono.

I think my point goes way further than just this one issue. Maybe I should've realized that posting an alternative view (of Bono; and it isn't even a critical one on my part!) in a U2-fan forum would only lead to backleash. Disagreeing with him or the band or stirring up controversy(as someone naively accused me of) is not my intention; in fact, part of the reason I am an avid fan of U2 in the first place is due to much of the similar views that I share with the band in the first place.

Unfortunately, I find that when someone posts a view that differs or is critical of U2 or anything having to do with U2 on this site, an instant onslaught takes place. It's funny how an earlier post mentions something about Conservatives having a knee-jerk reaction toward Bono when that is the exact same reaction that many people in this forum have as well; these same people seem to gang up on the person who disagrees with them and stick up for one another(I guess it's true when they say that U2 fans are passionate!; that is ridiculous; let the person stand on his or her's own comments. If they want help, they can ask for it.

Ironically, I don't completely disagree with Bono's ideas on Africa(I actually admire the man very much). Certainly, trying to convince someone to agree with me is not my intention; objectivity and acknowledgement of others point of view is; O'neill objects to simply throwing more money toward Africa with nothing in return whereas Bono, although he wants to see governmental changes in the places where money is provided, is liberal with other people's money(granted, he has good intentions). There is such grand evidence of aid producing minimal results in these areas over the years and I wish Bono(and people on this site!) would acknowledge that more frequently.

Like I said, I am a middle-of-the-road Democrat(even leaning toward liberal). However, some of Bono's views are so liberal that they sometimes seem ridiculous(refer to a quote(s) in the book UTEOTW by Bill Flanagan for this).

One of the reasons I posted this article was to point out the significant difference between a Limbaugh article and some of his views compared to O'reilly's. Unfortunately, many ignored this and quickly lambasted me much in the same way they did when I posted the Limbaugh article last week. Notice a trend here?

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
MBH is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 09:01 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 10:27 PM

I find this thread to be intriguing.

MBH, I always thought you were liberal, and I have always known that Sulawesigirl4 leans conservative on most issues. Personally, I lean conservative on most issues, as do Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama), former Congressman John Kasich (R-Ohio), Senator Orin Hatch (R-Utah), Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) and, last but not least, Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina). The thing is, Sulawesigirl4, Bono, these Republican members of both houses of Congress, and myself hav looked to ECONOMISTS for information rather than mass media political pundits like Limbaugh and O'Reilly (I am watching him now, FYI, as I do quite often). Rush and Bill may make some good points, but more often than not, it is because of their delivery rather than their facts.

There are political issues on which I have disagreed with Bono, undoubtedly. But I agree with him on this one. He is on the same page as my Congressman (Bachus), my Church, possibly my President, and most importantly, my conscience.

~U2Alabama
U2Bama is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 09:06 PM   #29
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 03:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MBH




Unfortunately, I find that when someone posts a view that differs or is critical of U2 or anything having to do with U2 on this site, an instant onslaught takes place. It's funny how an earlier post mentions something about Conservatives having a knee-jerk reaction toward Bono when that is the exact same reaction that many people in this forum have as well; these same people seem to gang up on the person who disagrees with them and stick up for one another(I guess it's true when they say that U2 fans are passionate!; that is ridiculous; let the person stand on his or her's own comments. If they want help, they can ask for it.



-MBH
You're finally seeing the manifestation of my accusations of Peoples heads residing in Bono's Rectal Tubes. A gaudy statement yes, and maybe a bit of a hyperbole, but not without evidence.

L.Unplugged
Lemonite is offline  
Old 06-06-2002, 09:15 PM   #30
War Child
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 526
Local Time: 03:27 AM

Brilliantly said, U2Bama. Thanks.
mug222 is offline  
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: 10:27 PM

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 Valparaiso, IN
Posts: 6,361
Local Time: 07:27 PM
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.
__________________
https://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: 22,044
Local Time: 04:27 AM
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
__________________
‚ÄúSome 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.‚ÄĚ
~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: 03:27 AM
[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: 03:27 AM
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: 03:27 AM

[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: 03:27 AM
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: 10:27 PM
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: 08:27 PM
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: 10:27 PM
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  
 

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 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×