First impressions you are right - on reflection, those religious groups are on a continuous war footing. They are working non-stop to promote their message and they are hassling their elected representatives. They don't think that voting is enough (even though it really should be).
I would suggest that if those same elected representatives were hassled to a greater level by any other point of view - they would quickly change their tune.
The commitments you are looking for are the 1970 General Resolution and 2002 Monterrary Consensus where the United States along with all other leaders of the developed world committed to acheive ODA of 0.7% GNP in support of the Millenium Development Goals.
Just last September your president reaffirmed those commitments:
"To spread a vision of hope, the United States is determined to help nations that are struggling with poverty. We are committed to the Millennium Development goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS -- all by 2015."
- George W. Bush, President of the United States of America.
I suggest if you have any further issues with your commitments, that you take it up with your president.
A) Even taking private assistance into account America falls far short of it international commitments. Have you taken into account that every other country in the world also gives a substantial amount of private charity.
B) More than 60% of funding for 'Active Assistance' is ear-marked directly or indirectly for American companies to carry out contracts in the developing world. It never leaves the bank accounts in the US.
As far as my agenda is concerned I'd like to see Africa get a fair deal - and whether your politics are left wing or right wing, a fair deal is a fair deal. And as long as America stands back and says 'hooray for us we've have done all we can do' when they haven't even come close - Africa will never get a fair deal.
It is not my place to judge America's contribution, that is for the American people - but I have every right to criticise anyone from America who says 'look at all the good we have done'; especially when it harms the real effort that needs to be done.
Fine - don't help them then. But don't mouth off about how brilliant you are for your pathetic contribution to solving the problem. People can't eat history lessons.
And you might remember that most European countries, far from being aggressors, were in fact victims of that horror, yet they still provide far more GDP-relative aid, no strings attached, than the US.
The United States is one of the lowest per GDP contributors to the international aid effort and most of that aid is severely resticted in its allocation - the bulk of it goes to US contractors/consultants/suppliers and only a fraction of it actually going to help the people who need it.
With a similiar gusto to yours, President Bush announced recently a tripling of international aid - unfortunately, the level of aid was so low to begin with, nowhere near that promised, that tripling only brought it closer to that aid given by the rest of the world - and tripling the aid also meant tripling the subsidies to US contractors.
When you actually start putting your hand in your pocket and helping these people then you can start patting yourselves on the back.
Is it not true that GWB's best friend in Europe, Mr Tony Blair is in fact a socialist, and leader of a party with a long history in representing the working classes against the excesses of the capitalist and imperialist oppressors?
It cost an awful lot more money than it should have in the 1960's because the objective was never to get to the moon - the objective was always to get to the more before the Soviets.
This time, however, the objective is to get there before Starbucks.
I had the same problem with my Dell laptop and Knoppix and spent 5 days trying to fix it. Linux sucks, eh?
Well actually part of my research showed that Broadcom and Microsfot were being very nasty towards Linux - in fact there is a petition floating around somewhere demanding Broadcom provide proper support for their hardware.
Anyway, I solved it by purchasing (Arggghhh!) LinuxAnt and that worked a charm.
Didn't like that solution - so I did some more purchasing and bought a Solwise (or a n other) wireless minipc, reinstalled Knoppix (just to see) - perfect. Not one problem. Changed to Ubuntu (for the hell of it) - even better outcome.
Anyway, the issue was nothing to do with Linux being difficult to install - it was more to do with negative forces actively working to
Slashdot Mirror
First impressions you are right - on reflection, those religious groups are on a continuous war footing. They are working non-stop to promote their message and they are hassling their elected representatives. They don't think that voting is enough (even though it really should be).
I would suggest that if those same elected representatives were hassled to a greater level by any other point of view - they would quickly change their tune.
The commitments you are looking for are the 1970 General Resolution and 2002 Monterrary Consensus where the United States along with all other leaders of the developed world committed to acheive ODA of 0.7% GNP in support of the Millenium Development Goals.
Just last September your president reaffirmed those commitments:
- George W. Bush, President of the United States of America.I suggest if you have any further issues with your commitments, that you take it up with your president.
A) Even taking private assistance into account America falls far short of it international commitments. Have you taken into account that every other country in the world also gives a substantial amount of private charity.
B) More than 60% of funding for 'Active Assistance' is ear-marked directly or indirectly for American companies to carry out contracts in the developing world. It never leaves the bank accounts in the US.
As far as my agenda is concerned I'd like to see Africa get a fair deal - and whether your politics are left wing or right wing, a fair deal is a fair deal. And as long as America stands back and says 'hooray for us we've have done all we can do' when they haven't even come close - Africa will never get a fair deal.
It is not my place to judge America's contribution, that is for the American people - but I have every right to criticise anyone from America who says 'look at all the good we have done'; especially when it harms the real effort that needs to be done.
- Exploiting a crisis to push your agenda, even if valid, in a global trade disagreement while avoiding to fulfill your international obligations.
I still fail to see how America is the magnanimous global citizen that we are being asked to praise.
Fine - don't help them then. But don't mouth off about how brilliant you are for your pathetic contribution to solving the problem. People can't eat history lessons.
And you might remember that most European countries, far from being aggressors, were in fact victims of that horror, yet they still provide far more GDP-relative aid, no strings attached, than the US.
The United States is one of the lowest per GDP contributors to the international aid effort and most of that aid is severely resticted in its allocation - the bulk of it goes to US contractors/consultants/suppliers and only a fraction of it actually going to help the people who need it.
With a similiar gusto to yours, President Bush announced recently a tripling of international aid - unfortunately, the level of aid was so low to begin with, nowhere near that promised, that tripling only brought it closer to that aid given by the rest of the world - and tripling the aid also meant tripling the subsidies to US contractors.
When you actually start putting your hand in your pocket and helping these people then you can start patting yourselves on the back.
Is it not true that GWB's best friend in Europe, Mr Tony Blair is in fact a socialist, and leader of a party with a long history in representing the working classes against the excesses of the capitalist and imperialist oppressors?
Space Race...
It cost an awful lot more money than it should have in the 1960's because the objective was never to get to the moon - the objective was always to get to the more before the Soviets.
This time, however, the objective is to get there before Starbucks.
The cat is dead or alive only when you actually look at the fuel gauge.
- ensure
that it was difficult to install.