Gideon Strauss, a smart and thoughtful South African expatriate living in Canada, has this to say about yesterday’s musical extravaganzas (scroll to the July 2nd entries, as the permalink function doesn’t seem to be working). Here’s a taste:
I am all for pop culture celebrities using the cultural leverage they enjoy to bring attention to this kind of issue, even when the actions they recommend are simplistic, and even though an event like this probably feeds the therapeutic politics of the modern North Atlantic, in which people strive harder after feeling compassionate than after actually improving the circumstances of those people toward whom they ostensibly are extending their sympathies.
He also offers a series of very sensible provisos before aid can be effective. Here’s the first:
African poverty cannot be alleviated without African governments that abide by the rule of law and that seek to establish a peaceable order with a significant degree of public justice within their territories. No external power, neither political nor economic, is responsible for this task. African governments must emerge that take up this responsibility themselves, conscious of the historical difficulties they face, but no longer hiding behind the legacy of colonialism to shirk their own duties.
Read the whole thing.
Yeah, yeah, Live 8 won’t make any significant difference. Only ’Merican-style capitalism can save ’em, etc.
For the most part, the music was dull, so it was a non-starter.
Anyway, can’t wait to hear the hair-splitting defenses of Karl Rove once that s__ hits the fan.
I doubt, Mr. Fooled Once, that my suggestion, even the abbreviated form quoted above, can be construed fairly as "Only ’Merican-style capitalism can save ’em." While I do believe that economic exchange must be ordered as markets if it is to flourish, there are myriad ways of organizing markets - not just the American way, whatever its pros and cons. And markets do exist in Africa. What Africa lacks more than markets is good government. But that is just part of my argument.
What a fibber! I bet the number of people who voted for Bush in 2000 but not in 2004 could fill a living room...that’s about it. I find it amazing how libs always pretend to be something they aren’t (e.g., all those "Republicans" who call into radio talk shows to trash Bush...what a laugh).
Your deduction that I didn’t vote for Bush in ’04 was brilliant. I found the man to be a glaring hypocrite; he gave us a real bait-and-switch. And the Swift Boat "Veterans for Truth" bunk just cinched it for me. I’ve really come to despise chickenhawks, let me tell ya. I don’t know how many of us there are in the living room you’re talking about, but as long as you’re not in it, I’ll consider myself blessed. I’m still a registered Republican, but the more I hear from people like yourself, the more I’m inclined to make a switch.
Well, if you ever were a "registered Republican" it must have been a clerical error! By all means, join the Limocrats. And I’m happy you don’t want to be around me...saves me the time and expense of getting a restraining order.
The permalink is fixed.
I find it amazing how libs always pretend to be something they aren’t
Exactly - like that Jeff Gannon - or is it Guckert? - fellow, who worked for Talon "News" Service, aka GOPUSA.com. He was pretending to be a serious journalist.
I was a registered Republican (and former Ashbrook Scholar) who voted for Bush in 200) but not in 2004. My husband, also a former Scholar, did the same. So did nearly everyone in both of our families. We do exist.
Well, Loraine, since Bush got over 10 million more voters in 2004 than he did in 2000, such defections couldn’t have been very significant. I hope you will all be very happy with your new political party, whatever it may be ... and I hope you accord it more loyalty than you’ve shown to the GOP.
I didn’t see where Miss/Mrs. Kubiak claimed that party defections (at least for presidential voting) from the GOP to elsewhere between 2000 and 2004 were significant, Dain. She merely pointed out that such defectors do exist. And why should she accord her new political party (assuming that she changed parties), whatever it may be, any loyalty at all? Would you be complaining if she returned to the Republican party? Have you complained about those who were so "disloyal" that they switched from the Democratic party to the Republican? She isn’t/wasn’t a member of the Communist Party, after all. It’s not a lifetime commitment. It’s a free market of ideas (and a whole lot of other things when people vote and take political stances), isn’t it? And people are allowed to freely pick and choose their candidates and parties. If she didn’t like where the Republican party, or just George W. Bush, was going, she was free to choose others. Your sarcastic well-wishes and finger-wagging about loyalty were really childish. And what’s up with the "Limocrats" moniker? What are all of those Bushies -and their campaign financers- riding around in? They look like stretch limos to me.
Tracy...do you live in red or blue America? I’d bet you are a blue American, yes? In red America, loyalty is a paramount virtue...just one more thing that liberals and libertarians don’t understand about conservatives.
As for childish, I find your rant about well-wishing and finger-wagging positively puerile. So cut it out.
As for childish, I find your rant about well-wishing and finger-wagging positively puerile. So cut it out.
Hey, nice work with the thesaurus, Dain. Tracy made some good points, though, and asked some good questions, which you seem to have ignored. Nearly any dog can exhibit loyalty, but it’s a higher human virtue to be perceptive enough to know when the nature of your affiliates has evolved to something you disagree with, and you must break your ties with them.
Sorry you were forced to use a dictionary, TK.
It is true that the knowledge of good and evil allows people to choose (although I think dogs choose as well...you specieist!), but advanced social organization depends on trust and loyalty...even in the face of adversity.
My prediction would be that anyone who voted for Bush in 2000 but against him in 2004 was probably a Libertarian at best...fair-weather Republicans at best (i.e., fake conservatives). If these turncoats will explain why they abandoned Bush we will clearly see that, at best, they were unreliable allies. We are better off without them (although I’m sure Hugh Hewitt would disagree with me).
Getting back on topic. Just who is responsible for dispensing the funds raised by "Live 8"? Will the creep Mugabe of Zimbabwe get his "cut"? And how will he use it?
Until these African mafioso who pretend to be governmental leaders are deposed all the money from a thousand "Live 8’s" with their ego inflated artists will be an absolute waste.