"Make Poverty History": MY Response

Published on April 15, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

I've noticed a number of banners online for the "make poverty history" campaign.

For those of you who may have been living in a cave, this is a multimillion dollar campaign featuring the likes of Cameron Diaz, Bono, and P. Diddy to urge people to support a campaign whose primary goals are third world debt retirement and more and better foreign aid.

I am all for their aims. Seriously, I am.

But I take SERIOUS issue with their methods (as stated in a previous, ignored blog).

To that end, I make the following offer to those who are inclined to support the organization's aims. Set up a fund to privately raise funds for third world debt retirement. I have a $10 donation waiting, once my stipulations are met. $10 may not seem like much to you, but to us, it is a significant contribution.

My only requirements are as follows:

No more than 10% of donations may be allocated to administration
All funds must be raised privately and not from citizens' tax monies
Aid must be distributed equitably within the recipient countries
To be considered for aid, countries must develop a comprehensive plan to deal with human rights abuses
To be considered for aid, countries must develop a long term economic development plan with the end result of self sufficiency

In return, I offer

An initial $10 donation, with more to come as we are able
Use of both of my blog sites to promote this organization
At least five hours a week of letter writing, emailing, and phone calls to further the aims of this organization
A percentage of the gross revenues of any and all of my published works to come

I think it's a fair deal, what do you say?

Comments

Gideon MacLeish

on Apr 15, 2005

I say that when Cameron Diaz, Bono, and P. Diddy give away 90% of their own personal wealth to this campaign, (which would still leave them vulgarly rich) I'll be happy to do my part as well.

See, that's the point: not ONE of them wants to give away their OWN money for these causes; they want to give away the money of the mysterious djinni "the government"; read, OUR TAX MONEY. The tag line to the ad is, of course "we're not asking for your money". Frankly, I'd feel better if they WERE asking for my money, rather than trying to take it through subterfuge, as is the case.

Dr Guy

on Apr 15, 2005

Since poverty begets starvation, and starvation begets euphoria, why bother? It should be a good experience for them, and help the luddites who are screaming that the earth cannot support the 6b people already here.

Reiki-House

on Apr 15, 2005

No one is going to 'make poverty history' and anyways it's only a notion-filled dream. It sounds good on the news and looks good in print, but no serious intellectual is going to think a no-poor society is ever going to be attainable. When politicians talk about it don't be fooled by their initiatives and talks of grandeur over their plans to get rid of poverty. No one, especially rich politicians, is going to think of it in the real-world-view reality, meaning to get rid of the poor, other than killing them outright, would involve full-society transfers of wealth, and we all know the powers that be by their very existence make that suggestion impossible. You can't get the poor out of poverty without spending and transfering large amounts of money to the impoverished. And you'd also be receiving an immense surge in newly-educated minorities who are looking to enter the business system, while of course taking that particular job away from the usual upper-middle class generally white person. Trust me it will never happen. Sure it makes people look good to talk about ending poverty. It's funny the ones crying the loudest are immensely wealthy people whose fortunes were made directly from the immediate public. I'd have a touch of respect for Bono if he'd release details of how much he tithes his own income for the poor. 10% of a hundred million? I'd also like to know who's paying his expenses when he travels all over and demands big governments to write off billions of dollars owed from their books. Anyways the opportunity for getting rid of poverty in America has already past. It's was past in 1964, which was, ironically, before LBJ came out with his "great society" initiatives, which local government officials stated was much like "a bill which said 'we understand your problem so we're giving you a large amount of money' to help fix it". "People were coming out of poverty and we could see it", said Sargent Shriver. Older blacks were learning skills for employment, no matter how basic and rudimentary i.e. welders, maintenace, laborers etc... The sad reality is that the US commitment to war against Vietnam (north and south) ended the dream of a 'great society'. Like Shriver said, the war on poverty was killed by the war in Vietnam. Birth is never glamorized and publicised like death. And he was right of course. Both left and right acknowledgethat the media only focuses on the bad side of the Iraqi illegal occupation and that good news is lost in the shuffle. In the end though I wish people would see the real side of the issue and stop focusing on an issue which has no hope of succeding. They could be talking about how to fix the problems which would help out the poor and get them off of governent relief, or welfare I guess it's called. They could talk about how to stop all the cracks and all the leaks in the social welfare sector, because of course we all know there are scams galore which cost the government billions over time. And finally I say this: the US government has the power and the money-power and the resources to do whatever it wants. That much we can agree on. If the US was totally 100% actively working to reduce the number of illegals from entering the US, they could do it. If the US really wanted to stop cocaine and heroin from entering the US, they could do it. They have the intelligence. They have the resources. And before you think 'hell it's impossible to stop all people from hiding some coke or heroin in their suitcases of even their stomachs, understand that I said "100% actively working to reduce..." that includes destroying the crops at their source, namely the nations they ultimately have a huge vested business interest in, and have a hand in controlling, like Columbia and Afghanistan. Let's not be reduced to thinking like innocent kids over this fact. The US has ultimate control of Afghanistan. They can come and go anywhere as they please. They have the power and the transportation and the mobility to act in their own self-interests. That would include spraying the poppy fields in Afghanistan and the coca fields in Columbia and neighboring nations. Finding crops isn't a problem (remember what I said about the US having the best intelligence and the most resources). Spraying the fields would be a simple matter. I'm sure the US has the capabilities to avert any disaster should Columbia's military decide to open fire on the US from their anti-aircraft batteries with the same weapons the US provided them. And don't think Columbia has been given the top of the line weaponry. Their armaments would be immediately detected by any US military intelligence operator with his standard radar turned on. The top of the line high tech weaponry is reserved for Israel. Man I gotta go have a coffee and smoke.

bakerstreet

on Apr 15, 2005

When we "make poverty history", then the next-lowest group will be considered poor. Other nations will follow the same pattern as the US. The fact is many people are willing to skimp on food, shelter and clothing as long as they have cable TV, cigarettes, and all the other trappings of "normalcy"

IN the US, no one looks in your refrigerator to see if you are poor, they look in your driveway, or to see what kind of shoes you are wearing. Kids don't make fun of other kids because of what they eat at home, they make fun of them for not having cable or videogames.

So, while I think no one should go to bed hungry, I think that there will be no end to poverty, since the values of the human race have become so skewed. I have lived the majority of my life in very, very poor areas. I have seen people living basically in shacks, that when given money to buy food, went and bought a TV or a prepaid cell phone.

Poverty is in the mind for the vast majority of the poor. They are poor because they don't know what money is for. For that same reason, many of the wealthy in the US and elsewhere are poor as well. We, the middle class, often live very poorly because of our attachment to luxury and the interest we pay to have it.

Dr Guy

on Apr 15, 2005

When we "make poverty history", then the next-lowest group will be considered poor.

That is very insightful, and I beleive oh so true. Real poverty has existed in this country in the past, but as we have raised all of them up to subsitance and beyond, so has the bar moved upwards as well.

Now, a family of 4 can be considered for some type of subsistance income if they make less than $38k per year. A princely wage in almost any country, yet here, you are still qualified for Free and reduced priced lunches at school, among other things.

Texas Wahine

on Apr 15, 2005

Bakerstreet:

IN the US, no one looks in your refrigerator to see if you are poor, they look in your driveway, or to see what kind of shoes you are wearing. Kids don't make fun of other kids because of what they eat at home, they make fun of them for not having cable or videogames.

I think that's a very insightful comment right there...absolutely true.

Gideon: Interesting article. Another curious thing about celebrities "giving" is...when there's a bunch of hype and advertisement surrounding a celeb's giving, it's not the celebrity actually giving their own money (as you noted), however, when the celebs who do actually support charities (with time and/or money) give or do, it's something your rarely hear about.

I think this reflects the general public pretty well, too...those who are truly altruistic do not go around announcing their sacrifices, while others make sure that everyone knows when they give or do the tiniest little bit for their fellow man.

Now, a family of 4 can be considered for some type of subsistance income if they make less than $38k per year.

Something interesting to note...here in Hawaii, a family of 4 is considered poor or impoverished if they make less than $60K (I read this somewhere a while back, forgive me, I don't have a link for it). While the cost of living is very high here, the $60K figure is way out in outerspace.

Reiki-House

on Apr 15, 2005

"They are poor because they don't know what money is for"
When you go without a.k.a. being poor, you're very capable of understanding what money is for and how it could be put to use. You make it sound like there's self-blame involved. That somehow they had money enough to be considered 'not poor' but because they didn't know what it was for simply used it in the fireplace to keep warm. Poor people know what money is d-uh.

bakerstreet

on Apr 15, 2005

You know, RH, "d-uh" sounds so... natural... when it comes from you. I am beginning to think you don't have the facilities to comprehend, and that's just the noise you make when you can't put a coherant response together...

Dr Guy

on Apr 16, 2005

That sounds like every enlisted family over there would then be impoverished, and it would not surprise me for Hawaii.

Texas Wahine

on Apr 17, 2005

Dr.Guy: Technically, maybe, yeah...and of course, a big percentage of military families here (and elsewhere) would qualify for some forms of government assistance.

But...my husband is an E-4 (soon to be promoted to SGT, yay), and we have no problem making it here. His taxable income (base pay) is less than half of the desired $60K income line, but when you consider free housing (if we lived off base, we'd receive $1600 a month for rent!), free utilities, tax free shopping, cheaper gas and groceries, Cost of Living Allowance (based on rank, location, and family size, and quite generous), BAS (food allowance), free health care, and all the other benefits that don't count in taxable income but help our bottom line, we are actually living very well...even in Hawaii. I certainly don't feel impoverished.

joeKnowledge

on Apr 17, 2005

It wouldn't suprise me for Hawaii either.

Location, location, location.

One thing I wouldn't agree to in your request:
To be considered for aid, countries must develop a comprehensive plan to deal with human rights abuses

While I think its a good idea, that would technically leave out many people. The one thing about poor people is that when your really strugling to survive, your not thinking too much about revolution, your thinking about food. Your not thinking about education and politics, your thinking about your childrens lives.

I would propose making that a 'we will see' provision of geting money. If it really looks like the country is only going to spend the money on being self distructive to its people then no. If the money actually gets to the people who need it then yes (and while your feeding them, teach them as well. Food without knowledge is just as deadly as no food at all.)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!