|
Author
|
Topic: King seeks palaces funds for 11 wives
|
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 14 January 2004 08:56 PM
So foreign aid has nothing to do with this, yet you still manage to use it as an excuse to rant against it.Truth is, most foreign aid is just back-door subsidies for western companies. When aid is given for a dam, for instance, that money is spent on western contractors, bribes, kickbacks and other such corruption. It is for this reason that foreign aid should be questioned, not because the local customs violate your sense of propriety. Are you saying foreign aid should be conditional on these cultures accepting the Alliance one man/one woman definition of marriage? Your disgust reminds me of the old colonial ideology of uncivilized Africa and the superiority of western (white) culture. If only the savages were more like us... Really, I can't see how this is any different from guys like Bernie Ebbers or Jack Welch. They too demanded that their kingdoms pay for the upkeep of their palaces, wives and mistresses. Yet the right wing always finds a way to excuse the behavior of their corporate heroes. [ 14 January 2004: Message edited by: Jingles ]
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 16 January 2004 12:51 PM
quote:
Are you saying foreign aid should be conditional on these cultures accepting the Alliance one man/one woman definition of marriage?
I'm not trying to disparage the king for having eleven wives (I am personally uncomfortable with the idea, but their culture is quite different than ours). But if it is their way, then I would not deny them the right ot it. No, it is the allocation of funds which I must protest. While there may be some cultural influence here too, the fact is that lives are at stake. Jingles, we are not living in the United Federation of Planets. There is no "prime directive" that states that we must not interfere with other civilizations. Unlike the Federation culture envisioned by Gene Roddenberry, we CAN interfere in the development of other nations in order to ensure justice is served. Yes, that is our western justice that I am talking about and yes I think that it is superior if it means feeding the hungry and treating the sick. quote:
Truth is, most foreign aid is just back-door subsidies for western companies. When aid is given for a dam, for instance, that money is spent on western contractors, bribes, kickbacks and other such corruption.
That is also a problem, and should be dealt with. Corporate corruption is just as bad for capitalism as it is for any other economic ideology. quote:
Your disgust reminds me of the old colonial ideology of uncivilized Africa and the superiority of western (white) culture. If only the savages were more like us...
Every culture should be allowed to retain their lagnauge and most of their customs, but there are some things that are antithical to justice. If they still had slavery in the USA, would you oppose the government of Canada if they wanted to encourage the US to abolish it?? It was once "their culture", but it was one of those things which is almost universally immoral. quote:
They too demanded that their kingdoms pay for the upkeep of their palaces, wives and mistresses. Yet the right wing always finds a way to excuse the behavior of their corporate heroes.
Nobody is exempt from the universal moral standards. The governor general spends millions on tours, does nothing that useful, and we still have hungry people in this country. We are guilty too, but to a lesser degree. If the waste was more overt and were in a similar social crisis to Swaziland, then we would deserve the condemnation just as much (at least).
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 16 January 2004 01:44 PM
I think that if aid to impoverished countries were in the form of $500 handed out 12 times a year, there would be considerable criticism of the irresponsibility.Similarly, if social spending here at home took the form of digging a well so that the poor could irrigate their crops, or buying a loom for the village so that they could manufacture and sell textiles, then nobody would be complaining.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 16 January 2004 01:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
It's always amazing to me - many of the right-wingers with whom I've discussed foreign aid seem to feel that if the governments of countries in receipt of foreign aid spend it on the rich in their country instead of helping the poor, they're spending "irresponsibly".Meanwhile, back here at home, if our money is spent helping the poor through social programs rather than by giving rich corporations subsidies and rich people tax cuts, we're spending "irresponsibly". I'll go on the record saying that I think it's ridiculous that a country should spend money on a lavish palace for each of its king's ten wives while people are living in poverty there. Just as I think it's outrageous when any money is spent on our royal family - and just as I think it's outrageous when we have millions and billions of dollars for corporations here in Canada, but we can't scrape together more than $500 a month for someone living in poverty.
You are quite right- corporate welfare is outrageous. Tax cuts are slightly different, though. Lower taxes apply to anyone, wheras kickbacks and subsidies only help the businesses who paid the bribes and/or are friends of the government. And while it is a shame that we spend millions on our royalty, at least we are not in the same kinf of social crisis and we are not asking for other countries to just give us the money to do it with.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 18 January 2004 09:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I think that if aid to impoverished countries were in the form of $500 handed out 12 times a year, there would be considerable criticism of the irresponsibility.
To whom? If it's to the individual impoverished citizens of that country then I have to give you points for consistency, Magoo, 'cuz it looks like you can't quit being a cheap friggin' bastard about any welfare recipient anywhere in the world. I'd hate to see what you think of actually giving welfare recipients in Canada free apartments, or something, so they wouldn't be forced to waste all their money on rent and none of it for decent clothes so they can make an impression and do that miraculous thing you take for granted which is called getting a job.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
