America in Haiti Another SNAFU
Let me start by saying that I am so empathetic with the misery that accompanies natural disasters. President Obama didn’t waste anytime getting aid to Haiti in contrast with what Mr. Bush did not do in the case of Hurricane Katrina. It is admirable all of the help that we are giving to Haiti; however, I am disturbed. We have given millions of dollars to the Haitians for a very long time and where are those funds? I will tell you…. they were used to line the pockets of the bureaucrats. The United States has a large population of homeless, starving, unemployed desperate people. I would love to see our president send some troops into our streets right here at home to help our own people. All this altruism just appears to be another political move on the chessboard of political games. I am unimpressed. America the Beautiful…Situation Normal All Fucked Up!
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:21 am
‘Can open, worms all over.’
While I believe you’ve widened the spotlight here (from Haiti to political gamesmanship), I believe it needs to be widened even more.
To wit: clearly, you’re -reasonably- cynical about the stuff in the background. That while you’re willing to concede the devastation in Haiti, your attention is innately spurred to look at the abuses of the system, how the millions of dollars over the years have not been applied to their goal, but to some bureaucrats’ pockets. And I believe that this is entirely possible. Most entirely likely, as a matter of fact. (I’m assuming you’re talking about Haiti bureaucrats?) So that’s a contributing factor.
Acknowledging this leads to dealing with the question of how to ensure that ‘aid’ gets to the right places when you’re talking about a foreign state. Africa, for example, has been to a great extent, a failure where ‘help’ is concerned; much getting ‘lost in transmission’.
But I think the spotlight needs to be pulled back even more. You say “I would love to see our president send some troops into our streets right here at home to help our own people.” And you’re right. I agree. I would love to see the US deal with its poverty. Its crime. Its illiteracy.
But that’s not how the free-market, capitalistic democracy that’s in place, works. This is why you have business, corporate-business concerns effecting results in Washington in so many areas. (Health-care being one. And while we’re on this subject, why is it that a very pointed, very illuminating comment has sat for months ‘awaiting moderation’ on another post addressing this issue? I was really looking forward to its questions being answered. *sigh*) I believe that while it should be part of the nation’s mandate to get everything sorted at home, we both know that this just isn’t going to happen. Not as a result of a massive consensus. (I’ll leave the expected response of ‘And why won’t it?!?’ for another time.)
I can’t help but be reminded of the efforts some years back regarding an attempt to block a Summer Olympic bid by a coalition of groups who believed that the kinds of issues you refer to should be addressed before an Olympics be brought to the city. It was referred to as the ‘Bread, Not Circuses’ effort. The idea was that all the monies, the efforts, the energies that would go into presenting a successful Olympics be better utilized by addressing (and presumably solving) these problems. They chose to ignore the possibility that by changing the infrastructure of the city…and, for example, using the athlete villages as public/affordable housing post-Games…these issues could be addressed. (And presumably at least *begun* to be solved.) The result? The bid failed. No Olympics. And the issues? The problems that these groups sought to be made the priorities and not some frivolous athletic celebration? They’re still there. Waiting to be addressed.
My point is that ‘That’s not how the system works.’
Corollary to that, ‘If you want to get these things addressed, guess what? You’re going to have to change the system.’ (This isn’t just the mechanism, but the actual ‘value system’ of society.
Hmm… I’m old enough to remember that this was the goal of protesters, alternative lifestylers…the ‘hippies’…of the 60s. Nearly a half-century later, and we don’t seem to have been able to make much progress.
Your suggestions…?
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
Thanks for your intelligent comment P. Yes, I have a suggestion. Legalize Gay Marriage, Marajuana, Prostitution and get some dollars pumped back into the economy. Legitimize the Adult Industry and get even more dollars in the system. One of the main problems is that our political machine is supported by the far right and none of these changes will occur if more liberals don’t get out and rally for their leaders.
January 23rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
Well…
I’m a liberal.
In a world where the word has become a pejorative.
But I do have to say that what you’ve focused on actually seems like adding fuel to the fire, the elements you’ve listed. Doesn’t this approach…bringing up decidedly ‘far-left’ issues (indeed, essentially ‘fringe’ issues) almost make it impossible for any working dialogue to ensue?
-The Adult Industry.
-Marijuana.
-Prostitution.
That’s it?
Addressing these issues is going to change the value system?
I hate to be a wet blanket, but the real blessings of the 60s and all its protesting and alternate-lifestyle vocalizing weren’t ‘free love’ and drugs. In fact, to these eyes and ears (and perspective), what mattered most, what effected change the most, were beliefs that ran much deeper, weren’t nearly indulgent…if indulgent at all. (Maybe I need to present my credentials here: I have an erotica site, so I understand full well the dichotomy between puritanical America and the presence of an Adult Industry, as well as having lived with my eyes open long enough to be able to recognize the hypocrisy of an accepted alcohol industry and the prohibition against marijuana, of how sex in the media is frowned upon as opposed to how violence is embraced.)
Honestly, I doubt very much whether you’d find much efficacy in trying change the value system by addressing those three issues.
By changing the value system, you’d eventually take these issues in hand and address them organically.
But I’d bet a ton of money that taking the opposite tack would simply result in abject failure…with the descriptive ‘liberal’ being sent farther and farther into the ‘damnable’ zone.
January 24th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
P: I do love your brain! I would agree with everything you have written. I am just raw and cutting to the chase when I brought up legalization of the three issues. Value systems and perceptions start with the individual. Changing them comes with believing that ones own power to influence others is indeed powerful. I find that most people are generally pleasant and good and that there are less evil souls. I consider myself to be patriotic and a solid citizen, however as I grow older, I find that I am losing faith, not in people and their values, but our leaders. I wish you would run for office P. We need educated, well read thinkers like you in office. I also find that the pillars of most of the communities are faithful republicans. Unfortunately, my experience with those people is like watching the circus on the Fox New network.
January 25th, 2010 at 6:45 am
“Value systems and perceptions start with the individual.”
They do…and don’t.
Considering that people are molded by their childhoods…various theories tell us that we’re essentially ’set’ by the age of five, or eleven, or fourteen…then as individuals, we’re not in control of our value systems or our perceptions. However, if you’re looking at this from the perspective of the parent, that everything starts with THEM, then sure; I can go along with what you’re proposing.
In general, individuals can affect value systems. But the society, the community, the neighbourhood…the family, the person…they have to be on-board. Susceptible. Malleable.
You’re old enough to remember ‘back in the day’. Give some thought to what things were like in the 60s. The mindset. (Here’s a quick exercise: ‘How do you think America of fifty years ago would have responded to the Haiti crisis?’) Consider the various paradigms: personal, familial, community, country. Then go forward to the mid-70s. To the end of the Reagan era. And to now. What would you say has changed, in terms of the value system?
Here’s another exercise: ‘Project forward. Take where we are now…and project forward twenty-five years. (The equivalent to looking back to ‘85.) What do see? Guess.’
Here’s the kicker: In general, values don’t go backwards. Unless there’s been a crisis, a calamity (either a war, or a takeover, where liberties have been lost) or some kind of artificial regression. So; the values of any period of time in America’s history…say, the 50s; nuclear family, slower pace, yadda, yadda, yadda…they’re not coming back. Ever. Not unless you get rid of everything non-social that has changed…such as the rest of the world, technology, etc.
Here’s my question (with apologies for veering things away from your original post, which was, as I recall, about the skepticism surrounding ‘relief efforts’, their efficacy and also how America should look after its own first), as you referenced Republicans: Given an endlessly changing world and given what I’ve just proposed about things never going backwards, how does this group of people seem likely to adapt? Moreover, how would a Republican of the 50s get along with their Republican children…or their Republican grandchildren?
Curious, that’s me.
(And I’m still curious about that Health Care comment…)
April 20th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Раз можна подзибать…
Let me start by saying that I am so empathetic with the misery that accompanies natural disasters…..