ScottaWhite wrote:Is anyone here old enough to remember a similar fiasco back in the early 80's. Back then it was Bruce, Debbie Gibson, Belinda Carlisle, etc. (that era of musician anyway)
Back then, they were going to end starvation in Africa. We as Americans were inundated with pictures of starving Ethiopians, with bloated stomachs, and flies crawling all over their faces.
Back home in America, we were shocked, after all, we had never seen anything like that before. (well most of us anyway) The big rock concert to end poverty raised multiple millions of dollars. The big theme song was "We are the world..." (we are the world, we are the children, there are choices that we're making, we're saving our own lives...)
Anyway, all this grain, food, medicine gets shipped over there. Hoorayyyy! No more starving African babies Yaaaaayyyy, and all the self-worshiping musicians got to feel warm and fuzzy for doing their good deed.
Actually, the musicians donated all told about 60 million dollars (which is 100% of their cut of the sales of the single).
I think you're confusing the USA for Africa Benefit with Band-Aid concerts that were organised by Bob Geldof. That, and the fact that the concert tickets were NOT paid for by anyone that attended (you had to win them, just like the last set of concerts), kind of deflate your odd idea that it was some half-assed self-aggradising ploy.
USA for Africa was to raise awareness, Debbie Gibson had nothing to do with it.
Quote:
The stars who sang solos were, in order, Lionel Ritchie, Stevie Wonder, Paul Simon, Kenny Rogers, James Ingram, Tina Turner, Michael Jackson, Diana Ross, Dionne Warwick, Willie Nelson, Al Jurreau, Bruce Springsteen, Kenny Logins, Steve Perry, Daryl Hall, Michael Jackson (again), Huey Lewis, Cyndi Lauper, and Kim Carnes. Bob Dylan and Ray Charles ad-libed some vocals that made it on. Singers in the chorus who did not get solos include Belafonte, Bette Midler, Smokey Robinson, The Pointer Sisters, LaToya Jackson, Billy Joel, Bob Geldof, Sheila E., and Waylon Jennings.
I'm sure you <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hs=O5m&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22We+are+the+world%22+singers&btnG=Search&meta=">Googled it</a> before you went and made an utter ass of yourself. I'm sure that all that time in College made you aware that you need to BACK UP your assertions with founded research... I mean, the junk you spouted off was refuted for the most part by the very first (ie, most relevant) <a href="http://www.songfacts.com/detail.lasso?id=1560">link</a>. I'm sure it's a minor oversight. I mean, college boys know that you need to actually cite references if you're going to make an assertion, right?
Quote:
Meanwhile, that food that was intended for the starving, was intercepted by the corrupt government presidents, warlords, and despots. The people scarcely tasted a single kernel of corn. And those despots ate the food themselves, sold it for weapons, and used it as a control tool over their people. (keep'em hungry, and tease them with a morsel, and they'll remain placid and oppressed.)
Yet again, incorrect for the most part. Ethiopia was in the throes of a 7 year drought, and at the time was under tribal government (IIRC, I may be wrong there). In 1960 there was coup attempt (by Ethiopian Imperial Guards, an army unit), but it was put down. They were under a democratic government then, as now.
Sudan was a little more complicated, but the Gov't did not steal the food as you like to think. It was too hard to move the emergency food etc. because of that little Civil war thing that was happening... oh, they too were in that 7 year drought, too. The food was airdropped if it had to be, but usually was disseminated along side Doctors without Borders (How odd, a French formed organisation!) caravans.
Quote:
This barely made the news, as I recall, and here we are, 20-some years later, doing the same thing all over again.
Again, wrong. I'm sure that you're doing this because you want to be ironical.. I mean, again a very simple <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&hs=bfS&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=Live+Aid&spell=1">GOOGLE</a> search would have turned up <a href="http://www.live8live.com/">This site</a>... where you could have very easily and tidily figured out the exact little nuts and bolts of your deteriorating argument and rectified it and stopped from making yourself look even more of a fool.
Quote:
If my tax dollars are going to go over there, then here's my proposals:
You think you really get to decide how each cent of your taxation income is spent? Oh well, you can have your little fallacies... Let's get on with it.
Quote:
1. If the government was not elected fairly and democratically, then no food at all.
What about Tribal leadership tribunals? Monarchies? Blood lines and tribe alligiences still run very deeply in Africa. Expecting everyone in the world to democratically elect their leaders is at best myopic and at worst folly. If you look at the facts, Russia elected the Bolshevic communist party after they deposed the Czar, and re-elected them year after year.. of course, they were an oligarchy, but then again, I wouldn't expect most people to make that distinction.
Quote:
2. If the government or defacto ruling party is under investigation of war-crimes or human rights violations, then no food til' they clear themselves to OUR satisfaction.
Ahh, gold... punish the oppressed, the hungry and needy. You're not feeding the Govenrments, you're feeding the PEOPLE. Don't you get that?
Quote:
3. If they stood against us in regard to Iraq, hoping to please their hemispherian neighbors France, and Germany...then no food.
That's funny... really. Way to go, fight the good fight... let them think for themselves and have self-determination as long as they agree with everything you cram down their throats, eh? </Extreme> How's about this: let them have their political ideals of their own, and just fix the problem without the politicking? It's lost on them anyways, what do they give a damn about Iraq when they can't feed their own families?
Quote:
4. No lump sum of money or food. If they can show that they can distribute it legally, fairly, and effectively, then keep up the installments. They are just like trust-fund babies...give it to them all at once, and its all gone in a year, with them crying for more.
Well, this is a fine idea... however the problem with most African, and mid-eastern nations that need help that badly are usally too busy keeping their military in a state of readiness because 2 of their 3 neighbours are looking to invade.
As an aside, OXFAM, the UN (The exact agency escapes me right now) and another agency (again, it's name escapes me, it was a British Charity organisation IIRC) that distrubuted the aid for Ethiopia and Sudan in the 80's... Sudan had internal problems that detained the army, and Ethiopia didn't have the ability to commit troops to disseminating the food. As for the money, OXFAM began their Micro-loan strategy, which is still in use today (A person takes out a small loan for $1000 or whatever, to build a portion of their farm or business, and their entire village basically guarentees the loan... There is no interest on the loan, and term is negotiated, usually 4-5 years, and the village polices their own and helps make the first person a success... very successful project on the whole).
Quote:
5. If the governments cannot maintain control (legally) of their foodstuffs, then no more food. We cannot allow corrupt low-tier officials to be selling it off to the local warlords.
Noble Idea, but you can't police that. It's probably a better idea to allow an NGO with the reach necessary to fulfill that tenant. Usually if they're in need of foriegn aid, they can't be certain of the supply chain integrity, ie. part of the reason they need the aid to begin with.
Quote:
Actually, when you think about it, these proposals would work well for all of our foreign aid recipients. Formula: You cross us, stand against us, then no soup for you!
Lastly, someone said, that those who have more should give to those who have less. (not an exact quote, so save me the boredom of having to watch your white-box quote)
That sounds like a socialist statement....well no whoopty doo there...doesn't surprise me..
Firstly, that's common sense.. would you like a cookie?
Second: You give because you can, and there isn't terms put on that... someone is needy, if you have, you give... Might be time to dust off that old bible, hmm?
Thirdly, a socialist statement in that effect would be: All people must be able to satisfy their survival needs and from there a lasting economy and dispersal of wealth my take root and build.
I don't think Jesus was a socialist though..
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
