h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In post 208, there was a link to the O'Reilly Factor's website. This is a quote, from Bill O'Reilly's list of America's shining deeds:

" America is sending $15 billion to Africa to help victims of AIDS. We were unable to find out how much France contributes, if anything. To be fair, Canada sends $270 million, which is substantial."

This is an outright LIE!!! The US has PROMISED to send aid, but so far has utterly failed to do so!

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (not the most popular guy on this site, I know!) has sent, so far, about $2 Billion (with a B) to Africa in the past 2 1/2 years, and the US government should be ashamed of themselves for reneging on such a paltry sum as $15 million (with an m). $15 million -- Americans spend more than this a year on Kleenex!

Have I mentioned lately how much I love the current administration?


SC

Referencing documents is a bit over my head. I guess I'm not the intellectual I thought I was.
However I am American and you don't have to be learned to be one of us.
I want to respond to the discussion about "how we are".
Some of us are quite frustrated with our leadership and hope to vote some morality into office soon.
Fortunatly there is still enough free flow of information that we can find out what our government is up to.
When the rest of the world refused to support Bush's aggression it was very helpful in trying to convince our peers what an immoral thing was done.
Bush talks morality and acts immorally.
Too many of my peers believe the talk and excuse the actions.

YB

US Government plans to spend $15 Billion on AIDS relief:

http://www.thebody.com/whitehouse/pdfs/aids_emergency.pdf

It's an Adobe Acrobat file, so you might need the reader.

Or, a transcript of a press conference about that plan -

http://www.thebody.com/state_dept/aids_relief.html

Notes for those who don't want to follow links:
The first chunk of money, $350 million, was appropriated by Congress this year. 2004. The US Government is chanelling that money through a partner body and ensuring that the money gets to where it needs to be. Which would be one of about 15 nations.

Lie? Or process?

I KNOW it's in the budget. The check is still in the mail, however.


SC

Again, for those that don't like documents and links:

Ambassador Randall L. Tobias says:

"...as we begin to understand what can best be done and where can it best be done and how can it best be done, then we can begin to get a handle on what really are the definitions of the needs going forward and figure out where that money is going to come from.

But right now, for people who are close to the situation in Africa, I think a lot of what you hear, a lot of what I hear about 'we need more money' is a virtuous argument, mostly related to the magnitude of the problem.

But a different question is: How much money can we effectively, efficiently use right now and put to work? And you know, the Global Fund has done, I would say, an excellent job for a brand new organization. But they -- and when I say 'they,' we are very much a part of 'they' -- they are not able to get all of the money out the door instantly relative to the needs that they have identified and the grants that they have approved. I don't anticipate that we're going to be able to do that either.

So there are really two separate issues here. What is the magnitude of the problem? Right now, in all of Sub-Saharan Africa, I don't know what the number is but it's -- there are probably maybe as many as 6 million people who could benefit from being on antiretroviral treatment. In all of Sub-Saharan Africa, the best number I have would suggest that there are about 50,000 people in total on antiretroviral treatment.

So when you compare 50,000 to a need of 6 million, the need is enormous. But when you say, 'Well, why is it only 50,000?' it's because it takes human resources and physical resources and other capabilities that need to be scaled up in order to make this happen. And that's what we're all working so hard together to get done.

I really think we need to stop spending all the energy beating up on each other, and trying to figure out how can we all get moving in the same direction, moving ahead."

To paraphrase: It takes time to set up an infrastructure that can do the work that the money pays for.

"It takes time to set up an infrastructure that can do the work that the money pays for."

I'm sure the aid organisations that have been working in Africa for decades will be interested to hear that


Could this be a case of the US wanting to have so much control over the funding that they are setting up new systems rather that using existing ones?

Gradient, are you saying that the US evolved out of the specific situation of the French and British together,a nd what happened as a result of that?

I was thinking more of countries that had been colonised by either one or the other rather than the combination of both.

And do you think the situation in Canada was sufficiently different to account for why it turned out so differently from the US?


>>But why would any other nation be relevant? We're talking about America. Unless you can point to a nation that was colonised and fought over by Britain and France leading to the French being more or less ejected and an unfair system of Trade, Tax and a lack of representation in the English parliament being set up, you can't really compare.<<

I'm not familiar enough with American history to get the last bit. I am interested in what you are saying though because the British and the French certainly colonised many countries between them, and the British colonies certainly turned out significantly different from the US.

>>>

Third World Debt & Foreign Aid

Third World Debt:  $2000 billion  (up from $100 billion 30 years ago)                         (UN's World Development Report)

¶ Debt Payments Flowing from the Poor to the Rich Countries:  approx 1400 billion (from 1960 to 1993)

¶ Foreign Aid Flowing from the Rich to the Poor Countries:  approx 140 billion (from 1960 to 1993)

Percentage of Foreign Aid that Reaches the Poor in the Poor Countries:  approx 5 %

Foreign Aid Given by Canada as a Percentage of GDP:  .29 %  (.09 % for U.S.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of World Income         (UN Human Development Report)

¶ Richest 20 percent of the World's Population:  85 %       (up from 75 % over the past 30 years)

¶ Poorest 20 percent of the World's Population:  1.4 %      (down from 2.3 % over the past 30 years)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual Cost of Alleviating Poverty  (UN Human Development Program)

For Food, Clean water, Clothes, Education, Health Care & Sanitation for 4.4 billion people:  $60 billion

For Food and Basic Health Care for 4.4 billion people:  $19.5 billion

What Americans and Europeans spend annually on pet food:  $25 billion  (for comparison)

<<<


http://www.basicincome.com/basic_gendata.htm

"The grieving parents who might yet bring Bush down"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1258231,00.html

"The families of dead American soldiers have overcome censorship and fear "


az

k.e.a, I think the 13 colonies were originally governed by trading companies with constitutions which formed the basis of State law, and ultimately the Constitution, I can't remember the details (how unlike me), but because the colonies were so isolated, the governments were given quite a free hand. Also, I think that the religious non-conformists had a fairly egalitarian approach to society (if you were a white protestant, obviously. If you were an injun or black you would just be butchered and nobody gave a sh!t). Not so sure why Canada turned out different tho.

Hey pedro

The more we discuss this the more I realise I know so little about early American history, and am getting more confused with each post

Maybe I should start a thread about it (why the US turned out the way it did).

Hey kea, actually the more I wrote there the more I realised how little I know too. I did read a history of America, and it did go into some detail about the way the colonial govt. evolved had a massive impact on how the subsequent independent USA organised its govt.

Can't remember any detail though

>>"It's not the idea of Freedom, it's THEIR idea of Freedom"

Yes, but, as I said

"The American perception of Freedom as an absolute value actually stems from the European perception that individual freedom is a cherished concept"<<

Gradient, that sentence was something I wanted to take issue with too, but I was pressed for time. What do you mean by absolute value? Do you mean absolute freedom or do you mean freedom as an inalienable right? And what does freedom actually mean?

My point wasn't that there's a collective American idea of freedom, but that individual Americans have radically different ideas of what constitutes freedom, and the constitution isn't much help because all of them use it to justify their version of the way things should be.

Regarding the monies for AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa, while $15bn was pledged by Bush over 5 years, there's no guarantee that the money will actually be released because Congress gets to vote on it chunk by chunk each year, assuming Bush asks them to (in the first year only $2bn was approved at the behest of Bush, rather than the anticipated $3bn), and it's unlikely that most of the money that ends up being approved will make it out of America. The reason why the US is choosing not to channel more than a tiny proportion of the money through the international Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, which was established to deal with precisely this problem, is because it wouldn't allow the US government to attach strings to the funding. Just a couple of the hoops which African states have to jump through to receive the cash are to accept the importation of US GM produce, and to refrain from using the money to buy cheap, generic drugs to combat AIDS and stick to buying vastly more expensive products from US pharmaceutical companies such as Eli Lilly, which just happens to be the company that Randall Tobias used to be President, Chairman and CEO of until 1998 (he still holds the title of Chairman Emeritus).

Early American History - A Rough Guide.

Britain and France squabbled over the Colonies quite often but France was slowly and surely eased out by Britain until the French influence was reduced to just that: an influence.

However, the threat of French military action was apparently ever present because Britain felt the need to place troops in the Colonies. These troops, Parliament decided, should be paid for by the Colonies themselves in the form of taxes. Taxes were duly raised. In order that the Colonies remain dependant on the UK as a trade partner laws were passed that limited how and where and with whom Americans and American merchant interests could trade. Duty on imports from other countries was set at a punitive rate so it was nearly impossible to buy from anywhere but Britain.

Taxes were levied on everything, from luxury goods to the basic neccessities of life and the Americans were more or less powerless to prevent this because they had little to no representation in the English Parliament. They could protest, sure, but their voice would not be heard where it counted.

They decided that they weren't going to take this any more and took action.

Mycroft: I meant Freedom as an essential component of day to day life. A US Citizen enjoys a number of rights which prevent the Government meddling in their lives too much or too often. There are certain things that the Government just is not allowed to do.

Depending on where you are in the USA the level of personal freedom you are allowed to exercise varies. There are state laws, county laws and city laws and ordinances which limit what you can get up to. However, those laws cannot violate the Constitution.

In one sense, if you have your rights set down in a document the amount of freedom you have is suddenly set in stone. It becomes an absolute value.

The Constitution is useful and valuable because that's where the basic rules of citizen/government interaction are laid down. In many cases it is the court of last resort and it is terribly terribly hard to Ammend.
As an example, some Americans saw the burning of US flags as wrong. They sought to ban it. This effort was overturned by the Supreme Court who ruled that flag burning was in fact a legitimate form of protest and that banning it would violate the First Ammendment.

As O'Reilly said: Dissent is good. America doesn't mind when people critique it. But calling America "evil" isn't dissent. Unless it can be proved to be the case, it's slander. Or libel if you choose to do so in print.

Also, Americans don't tend to argue the meaning of the constitution but they do argue about how it applies. That's why there are lawyers who specialise in such issues.
But far far more people worldwide use the Bible, or the Koran, to justify far worse excesses and limitations on personal freedom.

But we don't see people protesting outside the Vatican, do we?

AIDS: I thought I'd make sure people knew what the USA was doing, so I posted the information.

I would now like to see how much money other nations are contributing - The UK, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden etc. I'd also like to see how it's being managed and who is doing the managing.

And also what the amount is relative to the nation's wealth.

Not because I think it's not being done, but let's see who's got the most effective organisation. Maybe, as with the Friends of Tibet, a campaign of awareness raising within the USA might shove the US effort towards adopting a more effective model for delivering their aid.

How about it?

"As O'Reilly said: Dissent is good. America doesn't mind when people critique it. But calling America "evil" isn't dissent. Unless it can be proved to be the case, it's slander. Or libel if you choose to do so in print."

I'm sure O'Reilly has one of the very finest legal minds available at FOX News. In his expert opinion, do you think Bush's references to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria as being members of an "axis of evil" mean he needs to talk to his lawyers?

"But we don't see people protesting outside the Vatican, do we?"

I don't see you, does that mean you don't exist? I live less than two miles from Piazza San Pietro, and I've seen several protests in and around the Vatican this year, although the most recent one doesn't really count as Bush was inside having a chat with the Pope at the time, and that may have had something to do with it. Would you care to guess which of the two last advocated a crusade, by the way?

"I would now like to see how much money other nations are contributing - The UK, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden etc. I'd also like to see how it's being managed and who is doing the managing."

EU states primarily make contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria. The Global Fund was established in accordance with the wishes of The UN General Assembly, The Organization for African Unity, The World Health Organization, The European Commission and the World Bank (which acts as the Fund's trustee). The very first contribution to the Fund was $200 million from the USA and the Fund's board is chaired by Tommy G. Thompson, the US Secretary for Health and Human Services. If he's doing a bad job then the US government certainly isn't saying so.

The contributions to date from the countries you listed are as follows:

UK $173,228,038
France $302,820,359
Spain $35,000,000
Germany $95,367,375
Sweden $73,858,328

These numbers are a little on the low side, however, as there's also been an additional contribution of $400,440,124 made by the European Commission, which comes out of the pockets of member states. The total for the EU is $1,503,244,296 and the total for the USA is $982,725,000.

>>> Oh dear god, does this mean all the stuff I'm seeing about another potential Enron...and the Islamic Jihad threat to decapitate any lawyer who represents Saddam...and the 14 year old kid from New Mexico who shot his family over 4th July weekend...is GOOD news?

Very probably.



>>> Is the perception that America is evil fair?

I have come to the conclusion over the last few years that the most evil in this world is done by people who - to paraphrase Trollope - Know they are Right.

Evil is done by two categories of people, those who couldn't care less, and those who care very much indeed. These are the ones who are on a Mission from God, who have Truth and Right and Justice on their side, who are Fighting for Freedom. Abstract nouns bring about concrete evil. Those of us in the middle tend to muddle around not doing much harm and not doing much good.

I would say that the perception of America as a *propagator* of evil is fair, because America's leaders are so convinced of their own righteousness.



>>>Is the perception of America as evil actually a racist statement?

No. But the assumption that all Americans are evil because they are American would be racist, or more accurately it would be something in the same category as racism for which we have no word.



>>>Michael Moore of course points to slavery as the significant issue in establishing American identity (in Bowling for Columbine). Strange and appropriate for a country so focussed on freedom.

Possibly not so strange because Slavery is itself about freedom, and the continuance of slavery was an hypocracy in the heart of the North as well as the South.

The North didn't fight to liberate the slaves. It fought to destroy the South's economic advantage. You can tell this, because the North's original legislation around black rights started and stopped with the essentially economic action of the abolition of slavery. No-one in power gave a toss about equality, justice and freedom for all until the Civil Rights movement forced the point from the 1960s onwards.



>>> So what about the countries that were colonised by the same British and French but didn't end up like the US?

>> do you think the situation in Canada was sufficiently different to account for why it turned out so differently from the US?

Mark Twain wrote a semi-autobiographical book called 'Roughing it' which explained the US to me better than any book before or since. He recounts how, as the West was opened up, armed gangs would take over each area, brutalizing the unarmed and killing each other. The government would then legitimise the most brutal of the gangs (ie the most successful) by making them law-men.

America was founded by crinimals to a far greater extent than Australia was, because in the American heartlands the criminals *ran* the place from the very earliest days.


>>> However, the threat of French military action was apparently ever present because Britain felt the need to place troops in the Colonies.

Not necesarily specifically French military action. If you are colonising a place you can do it in one of three ways - by trade (as the Dutch tended to), by settlement (as the Pilgrim Fathers did) or by military action. If you are trading, then you need a militia even if you do not use the national army as such. The second British Empire, (ie the 19th century Empire in India, Africa and the Far East), was created and maintained by the military and administrated by civlians.


>>> America doesn't mind when people critique it.



Two words: "Freedom Fries".

B

Freedom Ticklers

I would say rather that evil has to be a choice you make knowing your responsibility for it and not just a consequence. But that's just a matter of definition.

Actually, there is a bizzare appropriateness to 'Freedom Letters'. And 'Freedom Kissing' sounds pretty darn good, too.

>> evil has to be a choice you make knowing your responsibility for it

There is an otherwise tedious book called 'Kiling Time' by Caleb Carr, where the narrator suddenly starts questioning half way through whether or not the people he is with are the good guys or the bad guys. We all assume we are the good guys.

My contention is that Bush and Blair are not a conscious hypocrites.

They have the courage of their convictions, they genuinely believe they are doing Good in the world.

Blair is in an interesting position. More intelligent than Bush, more aware of moral nuance than Bush, he appears to be on the back foot about the justification for the war, if not actually in denial. "One thing we can all agree on," he splutters, "is that it is a good thing that Saddam has gone".

Hmmm. Maybe.

It really depends how long, draw out, bloody, internicine and torturous the occupation and the new regime prove to be.

It could very well end up being as bad, or even worse.

The problem with replacing dictators is that there is a lot of desire for revenge, which tends to result in further atrocities.

B

<>

No, I don't see that at all! America is a multi-racial country, and it is not monolithic anyway - it's not America *I* see as evil, it's their foreign policy!

<>

Other, older nations have "done that" (and got the T shirt) but that's probably part of it - they're older, more "grown up"...
I've just seen Bowling for Columbine for the first time. I think Moore's main point was, that the USA is a country enmeshed in fear. That's what struck me - that and how *positive* a film it really was!

hi Della,

I remember you once saying you found Michael Moore quite OTT, so it's nice to hear you are now seeing another side to his arguments.

I'll just disagree with calling the US 'multi-racial'. I would call it multi-cultural. As is Canada. Just my particular bee-in-my-bonnet as I don't think there is more than one race - the human race.

I also found the general message in Bowling for Columbine to be a positive one. As I found in his most recent book - Dude Where's My Country? His arguments are *always* against the US government, not against the American public. In fact, time and time again in his book he talks to the American people saying that he is sure that most of them would never agree to most of what is going on and he sees the main problem as being lack of information.

Perhaps he has a tendency to exaggerate at times to get some points across, but hey, polititians don't ever do this? Basically he is fighting fire with fire, but his particular fire seems to be more about giving people information they don't get to see on the nightly news.

az