Ph: 36159673
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Showing posts with label Compassion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Compassion. Show all posts

The U.N. Strikes Again

"That's right. The U.N. organization charged with protecting children world wide is "partnering" with an organization not only designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization, but designated by the U.N. itself! Unfortunately, anyone moderately familiar with the U.N.'s history should be unsurprised."
It's not surprising, but it is shocking. Aren't they ever going to figure this whole "ethics/human rights/world peace" thing out?

Makers and Takers by Peter Schweizer

Subtitle: "Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less...and even hug their children more than liberals." The subtitle alone should pique your interest. But you can check out more on Amazon.com.

Just for fun, some of the interesting facts revealed through Schweizer's research are [from self-reporting Liberals/Conservatives (i.e. people who claim the title for themselves on public surveys, etc.]:
Seventy-one percent of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46 percent) of liberals. Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts. Liberals are 2½ times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck. Liberals are 2 times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to hug their children and “significantly more likely” to display positive nurturing emotions. Liberals are less trusting of family members and much less likely to stay in touch with their parents. Do you get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own? Fifty-five percent of conservatives said yes versus only 20 percent of liberals. Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney have given large sums of money to people in need, while Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and Al Gore have not. Those who are “very liberal” are 3 times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.
Here is NewsMax's Review, an interview with the author on NRO, and here is an eye-popping catalog of the scrooge status of many well-known Liberal advocates for the poor by the author at The American Spectator.

Abuse By UN Peacekeepers

The BBC reports on the wave of abuse taking place at the hands of UN Peacekeepers. According to an inset in the article:
2003 - Nepalese troops accused of sexual abuse while serving in DR Congo. Six are later jailed 2004 - Two UN peacekeepers repatriated after being accused of abuse in Burundi 2005 - UN troops accused of rape and sexual abuse in Sudan 2006 - UN personnel accused of rape and exploitation on missions in Haiti and Liberia 2007 - UN launches probe into sexual abuse claims in Ivory Coast

So the UN's Human Rights Committee is a sham and their Peacekeepers (of course not all) are guilty of injuring those they were meant to protect. I found this comment particularly interesting:

"A UN spokesman, Nick Birnback, said that it was impossible to ensure "zero incidents" within an organisation that has up to 200,000 personnel serving around the world.

"What we can do is get across a message of zero tolerance, which for us means zero complacency when credible allegations are raised and zero impunity when we find that there has been malfeasance that's occurred," he told the BBC."

"Impossible to ensure zero incidents"? Tell that to those who slandered all US troops regarding the shameful Abu Grab Prison scandal. So now it's OK for the UN to say this behavior by the minority is impossible to prevent.

As to their zero tolerance policy, when are they going to start their own investigation instead of just relying on a report submitted by an NGO? And when will the US take this seriously and withhold its support (25% of the UN budget) until this gets resolved?

Quotes

I'm trying to find out more about Thomas Sowell since I've been reading one of his books, and my friend Jeremy has also been plowing through several himself. This many has honestly captured my thoughts. Well I found this site and stumbled onto a page of his favorite quotes. Here are a few that I found particularly poignant:

The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false. --Paul Johnson Everybody has asked the question. . ."What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! --Frederick Douglass Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C. S. Lewis Alas, how many have been persecuted for the wrong of having been right? --Jean-Baptiste Say

Compassionate Conservatives

I often wonder about the argument that many liberals make when advocating for helping the poor. It seems most often that they want the government to do it. To put it another way, they want someone else to pay for it. They don't necessarily care enough to use their own money - it is always easier to be generous when someone else picks up the tab. Or at least this was the haunting suspicion I had whenever I heard liberal concern for the poor expressed.

Well, now here's the proof that I was right. A recent book by Arthur C. Brooks, professor at Syracuse University, compared the personal benevolence of Conservatives and Liberals and discovered some surprising facts, a few of which are:
Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush. Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent. People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
The whole article is worth a read.

From Victim to Victor

I had heard about the commotion Bill Cosby's speech made last year, but was never able to get a copy of it. Ultimately, I still can't find it. It was on the challenges in the African American community and the lack of parenting that is epidemic today. From the snippets I have heard, his comments could be relevant to any number of groups in America, including some white families. Well, he wrote a book in response to his speech and the resulting controversy called Come On People: On the path from Victim to Victor. Here is a link of an extended article based on his appearance on the Oprah show that might give you a sense of the issues. Without having read his book, and only based on the news about his speech, this seems like a book worth looking into. Excerpt from the article:
Since making his speech, Bill has been on a mission to help people think about raising children with more integrity. He has traveled from city to city, lecturing about education, parenting and responsibility. In October 2007, he released a book called Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors, which explains the causes of the problem and gives parents advice on how to address it.

"I never said there's no such thing as systemic or institutional racism. I also never said that we've got some people of our own that happen to be on the side of the racists. I'm saying we've got to dig in and fight. The same way that you and I were protected by our grandparents," Bill says. "We need to see the problem the same way and protect our children."

Kiva.org

Here is a great site where people with money (YOU) can lend it to those in developing countries who have an entrepreneurial idea. This is all in order to partner with those in poverty trying to make their way out. Definitely need to check this out.

One Laptop Per Child

It's finally here! If you buy one (for $399) they will donate one to a third-world child. The laptop looks like it has everything I would need. Check out the site and maybe you could buy one for the family as a Christmas present and connect your children to a third-world kid. Fascinating. But they stop this offer by Nov 26th!

Should Christians Support Fair Trade?

Michael Miller has written a great article about fair trade and whether or not it helps the poor. To cut to the chase, here is the conclusion of the article (but I do recommend reading the whole thing in order to understand how he gets to this):

Should Christians support Fair Trade? The question itself is a loaded one -- as if those who don't somehow support "unfair trade."

We need to be vigilant against exploitative labor practices and slave labor, and for this the Fair Trade movement should be commended. Perhaps too, Fair Trade has genuinely helped some farmers by ensuring better information and providing more secure credit channels. But even for those farmers benefiting from fair trade, any long term success seems to rely on its remaining fashionable among intellectuals and the American and European consumer -- both fickle lots. Like so many of the anti-market plans that have come and gone, Fair Trade will likely hurt the poor rather than helping them.

The best way to create opportunities and sustainable long-term growth are not faddish movements like Fair Trade, but the same institutions that enabled the West to grow rich: secure private property, the rule of law, and free exchange. When these are in place, trade becomes fair, more people benefit from trade, and the truly fair market unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit that is the source of wealth and prosperity.

Free trade and markets have lifted more people out of poverty than all the fashionable political movements loaded with good intentions but pernicious consequences. This is something to think about next time we are in Starbucks and feeling sanctimonious about our cup of coffee.

Education vs. Values

Yesterday I was listening to a portion of the Dennis Prager show while he was responding to a comment by Chris Dodd made during the Dem. Presidential debate: "Education... is the single-most important issue because it is the solution to every other issue we confront as a people." Prager challenged this supposition by claiming that the biggest problem is how to produce good people and good Americans. He claimed that it is precisely because of education that we are in such a poor shape as a nation.

He then presented two facts: 1) Poor people are more likely to commit violent crimes in America, but not because they are poor, rather because they have poor values. One does not rape because one is poor. One does not murder because one is poor. One may steal food or clothing or be vagrant, but these are not violent crimes necessarily. 2) The educated are MORE likely to support violent ideology than the uneducated. This is supported by those who participated in Nazism, Communism, Apartheid, etc. Most of the world's worst atrocities were committed and managed by the highly educated.

Two personal thoughts came to mind as I was listening: 1) My experience in child-welfare and the court system would suggest that those who are not educated are more likely to be "victims" of "the system" because they do not know their rights, the proper ways to advocate for themselves, nor how to assess the long-term consequences of the events that connected them to the system. It is also interesting anecdotally that the vast majority of my clients (families involved with child abuse/neglect) would be considered "uneducated" from a formal, schooling perspective. This is not to say that educated people don't abuse/neglect their children - they just have more sophisticated ways of doing it and covering it up. I do believe that education would be highly valuable to assist those caught up in the court systems of any branch (just think of how dumb or sheepish you felt if you ever went to appeal a parking/speeding ticket without any understanding or orientation to what was happening. Before you knew it, you had agreed to pay for the ticket because you stood up at the wrong time or stood in the wrong line - here knowledge is power). 2) One of my all-time favorite movies, The Emporer's Club, tackles this precise issue. There is a scene in the movie where the teacher visits with a parent of one of his troubled students. As the teacher explains his frustrations to impart moral values to this student without the father's support in encouraging his son to be disciplined in his studies, the father interrupts that it was not the teacher's job to "shape" his son, but the father's. The teacher was at a loss, since the father did not see the connection between a good education and the impartation of values.

This reminds me of a quote I recently discovered by Theodore Roosevelt: "To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." And this may be the crux of the matter. I did not hear Prager's conclusion since I had to go back to work. But combining his thoughts with mine, here's what I would say: Training in values, including the value of learning, hard work, respect for the elderly/wisdom, etc., will produce good Americans. And regardless of the socio-economic status of the recipient, this will produce, in general, a law-abiding, productive member of society. Now, if schools will teach values like these, than I would agree with Chris Dodd - education could solve many, if not most, of our countries problems. The bigger problem is, however, that schools are teaching contrary values like instant gratification, personal rights over responsibilities, political correctness, and in some cases, sheer debauchery in their health classes and fiction in their history courses. And this is where I would agree with Prager - education (like this kind) won't solve poverty or crime or drug abuse or teen suicide. Strong moral values that elevate the worth of hard work, chaste living, big dreaming combined with delayed gratification, self-sacrifice, and contributing to society can. [As a Christian, I would add a clear moral compass rooted in a relationship with Christ as a foundational layer to this argument.] This matter is integral to so many other issues, including social justice, international relations, the military/armed conflict, etc.

Just for the fun of it, here is a list of other witty, but true quotes about education.

The Left and Class Warfare

This Acton article (and its links) is a great brief on the subject of class warfare and rightly understanding economics, especially as it relates to advocating for the poor. From the conclusion of the article:

Family stability, education, and a sound moral fabric can never be overestimated as elements necessary to escape poverty and create economic opportunities. What was so perplexing about the economic views of some students and professors in seminary was that they did not necessarily regard socialism as a negative. The Church would be wise to do its best at helping and encouraging those in need, instead of rallying to the aid of class warfare tactics already deeply entrenched in partisan politics.

Myths About Poverty

Here is a great review of a speech given at Acton last month on "Myths Christians Believe on Wealth and Poverty" by Dr. Jay Richards. They originally had an audio link posted, but it was not working. Now the link is completely removed. If I find it up again, I will update this post. I really like the thinking that is being done right now to correctly understand the "unintended consequences" of what we do in our efforts to help the poor. Giving a handout is generally never the best approach, and now we are beginning to see why and what is more helpful. Acton has published its 2007 Samaritan Guide if you are interested in finding local agencies/charities that implement biblical benevolence (See previous posts).

Does Fair Trade Help or Hurt?

I came across a great article with attached PDF providing info to help answer this question. Here is the intro from the link:
Proponents of Fair Trade claim it improves the lives of farmers in developing countries by providing them a higher sale price for their crops, allowing for a higher standard of living, and offering the opportunity to escape the vulnerability of poverty. Drawing on field work conducted in Costa Rica and Guatemala, the author examines the observed effects of Fair Trade and finds it is unclear whether Fair Trade actually delivers on its promise. Rather, it may actually harm the long-term interests of small farmers in high-cost production areas.

CARE Refuses AID for Africa

One of the first major shots across the bow in an ever-increasing debate about the actual impact that aid has on the poor in Africa was fired by CARE this week. The NY Times reports on CARE'S refusal of almost $45 million worth of food. See commentary also found on the Center for Global Development Site. CARE is following the reasoning of others who are advocating for aid to Africa to stop because it is doing more harm than good.

"Nice" Emergent Posters

OK, since I posted the other version of posters for the Emergent church, I will be fair and post these, more gracious versions. This one in particular got me:



However, I find it interesting, as in any argument, that the extreme example is generally not where the disagreement lies. Nuance is everything. But this poster is a great reminder. It might actually be a more fitting rebuke for the health and wealth preachers!

Helping the Poor by Listening

Another great video presentation from the folks at TED (See link in margin). This one is regarding listening to Africans before/above giving to them. Empowering them with the dignity of choice to help them overcome poverty. This is very much in line with Olasky's views on compassion (See previous posts/"Compassion" Label). Video is about 18 min.

Stop the Aid to Africa, part 2

I have referred to this approach in an earlier post, but it seems it is now getting even more popular. The idea that aid to Africa is hurting more than it is helping is starting to ruffle the feathers of even ... (wait for it) ... Bono! He doesn't get it when Africans tell him directly to stop. An article by Jennifer Brea at American.com explains some of the recent events and Bono's response:

Arusha, Tanzania–Africa is a continent of despair and desperation. Here, eight year-olds toting AK-47s massacre whole villages and eccentric dictators feast on the organs of the opposition, believing it'll boost their mojo. Tsetse flies nibble on the eyelids of starving children who sport distended bellies like it's their birthright, not to mention the fact that by the time you finish reading this article, another six Africans will die from malaria, five from AIDS, and seventeen from poverty and hunger. Also, the wildlife is beautiful and the people like to dance and sing. That's Africa, and it's in desperate need of our help. Luckily, a few enlightened megastars from America and Europe have come to save it. Curiously, not all the natives are grateful....

Eleni Gabre-Madhin, a World Bank economist, returned to her native Ethiopia to start a commodities exchange to prevent future famines. Daniel Annerose invented software in Senegal that allows farmers to track market prices via SMS text messaging. Alieu Conteh built the first cellular network in the Congo, Florence Seriki, Nigeria's first computer manufacturing company. Then there's William Kamkwamba, the undisputed showstopper, a teenager from rural Malawi who, at age fourteen, built a windmill from plastic scrap and an old bicycle frame that generates enough electricity to light his family's house.

These speakers were selected to support a thesis, painfully obvious but somehow radical in this age: Africa won't be "saved" by aid, but by the ingenuity and determination of its own people. Andrew Mwenda, an outspoken Ugandan journalist who was jailed last year for criticizing President Museveni, lambasted the Western world's "international cocktail of good intentions" for robbing Africa of its future.
After all, what country has ever gotten rich from aid? What Africa needs is investment.

Near the front of the darkened auditorium a white man with orange sunglasses stood to object. It was Bono! The audience (myself included), exuberant in the presence of celebrity, craned their necks to catch a glimpse. Aid saved Ireland from the potato famine, Bono declared. George Ayittey, author of Africa Unchained, a wildly popular book which argues Africa's problems should be solved by Africans, was bumped from his scheduled spot so that Bono could play a prerecorded greeting from German chancellor Angela Merkel on the importance of honoring aid commitments to Africa. "Try telling Chancellor Merkel that the Marshall Plan was a load of crap." Bono then took the stage to defend what has become his life's avocation: opening the pockets of rich governments to give to the kleptocratic governments of Africa. What Africa needs is its own Marshall Plan.

Comparing post-war Germany or Ireland during the Great Famine to Africa is a bit like comparing post-war Japan to Iraq. Aid might be able to restore normalcy in a country devastated by war or disaster, but can it really push a whole continent of largely pre-industrial societies into the next phase of history?

Africa has never loomed as large in the popular imagination of the West as it does today, thanks to the Jeffrey Sachs-Bono ambition to Make Poverty History, and of course to Angelina Jolie and Madonna's commitment to adopting African babies.
Their message of hope is one that seems to deny Africans a role as agents of their own transformation. We can save Darfur. We can save Africans from disease. We can even save Africans from themselves. Africa can be saved if we just try hard enough.
It is true that from the villages of Darfur to the slums of Soweto, thousands of people on this continent die unnecessary deaths each day, but Africa is home to 900 million. Tragedy is a small part of a much larger and more complex story.

Of the 47 countries that make up sub-Saharan Africa, only five-Sudan, Chad, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia-are home to active conflicts. Last year, Africa saw its highest growth in GDP in two decades. Sixteen African countries have favorable sovereign credit ratings. Botswana's is higher than Japan, yet it still struggles to attract investment. For the thousands of foreign-educated lawyers, businessmen, and architects from the Diaspora who are leaving cushy corporate jobs to return home with their skills and their dynamism to open businesses, it's about creating wealth, not reducing poverty. Africa is not a victim in need of saving: it's a land of opportunity.

Kenyan economist James Shikwati, who in advance of the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles famously asked rich nations, "for God's sake, please just stop" giving Africa aid, thinks even misery is an opportunity. The Chinese see Africans the way many would like to see themselves. We can fight malaria by distributing free mosquito nets, which may cost $10-$60 each by the time you get them down often impassable dirt roads. Or, as Shikwati suggests, we can train locals how to operate a business spraying homes with an insecticide that will keep them mosquito-free for six months at about $2 a family. We can spend billions importing medication, or you can invest in local farms that grow the Artemisinin, a Chinese herb with potent anti-malarial properties, and the factories that process it. We can continue the endless cycle of need and dependency, or you can create jobs, develop indigenous capacity, and build a sustainable future.

Navigating Foreign Aid

I don't know much about the World Bank (to my own detriment, I'm sure). However, I recently came across this site that I believe would be a valuable resource. With the G8 conference just ending and President Bush pledging now $30 billion for Africa, I think it would be wise to consider where that money goes. And consdering my previous posts pleading to STOP aid to Africa and focusing on corruption-free governance, the World Bank's "Governance Indicators" is a starting point to help us laymen stay abreast of where money can better be spent and offered.

Another great resource is a working paper titled "A Primer on Foreign Aid" by Steven Radelet from The Center for Global Development that can be found here. Following is a summary of its intention:
This new working paper by senior fellow Steve Radelet explores trends in aid, the motivations for aid, its impacts, and debates about reforming aid. It begins by examining aid magnitudes and who gives and receives aid. It discusses the multiple motivations and objectives of aid, some of which conflict with each other. It then explores the empirical evidence on the relationship between aid and growth, which is divided between research that finds no relationship and research that finds a positive relationship (at least under certain circumstances). It also examines some of the key challenges in making aid more effective, including the principal-agent problem and the related issue of conditionality, and concludes by examining some of the main proposals for improving aid effectiveness.


What the World Eats

Follow this link to see pictures of what's on family dinner tables around the globe. This is a fascinating slideshow of 15 families (2 from US) standing in a room with the groceries they would eat for that week. The pictures are taken from the book "Hungry Planet".

National Compassion Ministry Catalogue

Acton Institute has a great resource for identifying social service agencies/programs that follow Marvin Olasky's model (as described in his "Tragedy of American Compassion", which I reviewed a couple of month's ago). You can find links to all of the agencies nation-wide that score an "excellent" on this assessment both by category of service as well as state. For those who want to support compassion ministries who follow this approach, check out this link.
 


You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser