open Democracy News Analysis - visions & reflections - Comments

dayaraj subedi on "Forward, Mr President!"

dayaraj subedi — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 04:54:31 +0000

This is quiet important thing to repair relationship between Russia and west. West believes, if two giants during pre 1990s able to join hand together, then we can lead the world long decades. This is urgent for them to cope the challenges posed by booming economy of China and India, growing international military casualties and demand of military officers to increase numbers in the Afghanistan threats American startegy "war on terror" and Obama remarks on Iraq.
The Afghanistan and Iraq lessoned US to initiate the building relationship with its former counterparts against growing threats of Muslim countries like Iran. Us and west quiet feel relax towards the booming economy of Asia since historical cold relationship between two economic giants of Asia China and India. Still west fear from the asian elites repeated lobbying for the Pan-Asia strategy between asian leaders.
It is quiet interesting to see how far Obama achieve his strategy in near future.

Laurie Melville on "Forward, Mr President!"

Laurie Melville — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 20:22:40 +0000

well said
the standard demonising in our daily press of Medvedev as Putin's lackey, the standard demonising of Putin, and thence the painting Russia an an ungovernable land of thugs and victims - this gets us nowhere.

The horrors are real enough; the imperial brutality (as in Chechnyia) patently obvious; all at least as awful as the excesses of the United States.

But carefully phrased encouragement like this, we need more of.

dds on "Islamism and war: the demographics of rage"

dds — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:11:20 +0000

лучше бы по-Русски написал...

Pedro, 19 student from Portugal on "Barack Obama: hope, fear... advice"

Pedro, 19 student from Portugal — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:07:05 +0000

I hope Obama doesn’t forget to help Africa and other places where people live badly ever because of western Industrialization. Why in Congo blood diamonds and extractions of gold still go on, without the workers receiving anything. Why Obama doesn't have a word about it?

Why we still pay for things that other receive nothing or little for what they worked for? Besides the economic crises this is not also a big problem in capitalism? The invisible trace of global commercial relations seems to me that are causing bigger problems in the world than the economic crises that hits the westerns.

Why we don’t discuss poverty in the world and stop being selfish?

I sincerely hope that someone lessons to this.

Fishman5 on "Philanthropy for social change: a response to Michael Edwards"

Fishman5 — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:46:28 +0000

This reminds me of the new show on NBC called the Philanthropist. I have not seen it yet but I would imagine its going to be awesome. I feel more people in this world need to give than take. A defiant child acts out because they feel like they are a victim. No one wants to give, everyone just wants to take. Probably because we have made it much easier in society to take than to give.

Mukhtar on "Dubai cosmopolis"

Mukhtar — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:45:27 +0000

hello i did ma education in afghanistan so plz i wanna study more and more wanna make my future and i am very pleased to give me free seat for my education and onething i forgot to say i am working in a company to support my family so please i need your support......thanks

stateless123 on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

stateless123 — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:27:16 +0000

This is the one problem I have with telefons. It's all about a mindset which says "what can I do to appease my guilt this year". It's a woeful attempt at a quick fix, where a quick fix isn't possible. An all too ofen seen sudden intense gaze followed by months of nothing, which seems to be the cornerstone of reporting and public interest nowadays.

Of course the central problem really is that it's hard for people to emotionally connect with something they only ever see on TV, or rather they actually prefer it to be that way. People are far too busy with their own "problems", which for the most part are trivial, to give headspace to people who had the misfortune to be born into poverty.

It's hard to know what can truly be done about this. Maybe children should be encouraged to study areas of the world where life is surviving day to day. Maybe encourage penpals or at kind of substantive connection at a young age. There needs to be a realy connectin, real feeling. At the moment, it's all so very "out of sight, out of mind" which is saddening.

Horse Racing Tips

NYCartist on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

NYCartist — Thu, 21 May 2009 10:35:12 +0000

Peter Singer's opening fantasy stays with me like a piece of street litter caught in the wheel of my wheelchair. How would you read his words, if you knew his views that urge parents to have and use a "right" to kill a baby born with disabilities after its birth?
His fantasy of saving a child who fell in the water and if you have new shoes.... To him, people with disabilities, like me, are "old shoes".

NYCartist on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

NYCartist — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:46:18 +0000

Please get a view of Peter Singer's record by looking
at Not Dead Yet's website, and blog by Stephen Drake. www.notdeadyet.org Singer's record, his views and writing, on
people with disabilities, is ugly.

Helen Todd on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

Helen Todd — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:44:16 +0000

I'm amazed by the oversimplification of the issues in this article, coming from one of the world's leading thinkers on ethics. To extend the analogy... what if you realise someone is systematically depositing children into the pond. You can keep saving the children, or take a pause to try and analyse how to stop the other person chucking the children in the pond in the first place. OK, children will die in the interim period but in the long run you should hopefully save more children.

This is what everyone involved in global campaigns on debt, trade and other fundamental causes of inequality is trying to do. Had a quick look on Peter Singer's website and no mention of looking at bigger picture solutions in the 'what you can do' section... bizarre.

Logged in Lawrence Efana on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

Logged in Lawrence Efana — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:31:59 +0000

Much is ongoing on discussions about what "Direct Democracy" can and cannot do. Now from the look of things where would you place it in relation to: (a) the logic and hence (b) the problems] highlighted in the article?

The point is the appeal made here is decent and also from the heart, but are there equally decent minds and reformed institutions out there enough to act swiftly on it? On the latter, take into consideration Walden Bello on "Capitalism's crisis and our response"

Parallel to direct democracy discourses, the paper "Poverty and political freedom" - Rajeev Bhargave (2003), isn't bad for trying to comprehend rightly the depth and implications of fighting poverty locally and globally.

But permit me to be sentimental, whether or not you publish this comment. Doesn't it just seem that we, our moral values, practices and institutions are stock-up? Where then is my sentiment? Let me quote it in 'Swedish' language from a book titled "Under Ytan..", the following "Människan tycks vara den enda varelse, som vet om att hon skall dör. Genom sitt språk och sin kultur kan hon observera tidens gång och fundera över sin icke existens. Hon foljer inte bara nedärvda beteendeönster utan upplever sig som fri. DENNA FRIHET ÄR BÅDE HENNES FÖRBANNELSE OCH VÄRDIGHET"] - Owe Wikström (2004:92-93).

Should this be worth sharing, let it be added that by not reevaluating our values, governance systems and morals as well as institutions, we will continue to play foul game of politics and reap the results we reap now and then - whether on poverty, environment or inertia to act swiftly.

Ndayse on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

Ndayse — Tue, 12 May 2009 14:32:27 +0000

Peter Singer is correct in identifying poverty as the cause of the death of the child that stands in this article for all the miseries of the Third and other disadvantaged Worlds. But it is an ingenuous argument since the life of that child can also be attributed to poverty.

I recently saw a BBC newscast that featured an interview with a Congolese refugee in his thirties, destitute father of nine children. Why do such people breed? Not merely because sex is one of the few (apparently) free pleasures available to them but because in a world that lacks any form of governmental safety net, one's kin and ultimately one's children offer the best old age pension and insurance against all manner of ills. So it is worthwhile to breed. By the time a child in such circumstances is twelve she or he is already paying their way, a net economic benefit to the parents.

But children are a risky investment in such circumstances; a high proportion die before puberty. So in order to guarantee one's security one needs to have many. No wonder then that the number of years of women's schooling is negatively correlated with the numbers of their offspring. Decreasing poverty is the underlying variable.

Of course the rich, Westerners and others, will continue to exploit the Third and Fourth Worlds while bitching about illegal immigration and the fecklessness and irresponsibility of the poor. In this area I see no change I can believe in.

Rich S on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

Rich S — Mon, 11 May 2009 19:23:29 +0000

I agree completely that choosing between expensive shoes and a child's life is grotesque. This is what people are asked to do with every charity donation tin in a supermarket.

What is the cut-off point? £20 for groceries and t-shirt and £10 for starving children, or maybe £15 each? How much is enough? This choice will always be grotesque.

Should medical care be funded by individual charitable donations? Should it be based on private investment and ultimately be driven by profit?

I find it also grotesque that most products you buy in shops have probably been produced in some way that violates Human Rights, whether it be labour, environmental, health, a simple decent wage for work done. How much would products cost if trade was 'fair' and everyone had decent labour rights?

Does the aid I give negate this? Is it my fault?

By giving aid I may be giving someone a helping hand, but out of the corner of my eye I can see I am still standing on their head with my international expensive shoes (the varnish on which has accidentally contaminated the water). If I move my leg then I might fall in the man-made pond. What is stronger my arm or my leg? The person in the water probably has a good opinion about this, as does the person selling shoes.

Jeff Mowatt on "A life to save: direct action on poverty"

Jeff Mowatt — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:46:55 +0000

You may be interested in the microeconomic development work we've been doing in Eastern Europe which began in 1999 with sourcing a microfinance bank in Russia and takes us today to leveraging social enterprise in Ukraine.

It began with a call for a more inclusive form of capitalism pitched at the US President in 1996.

http://www.p-ced.com/about/history/

ew keane on "A new world order "

ew keane — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:34:12 +0000

There will be no doubt places on this earth where the influence of the world central bank will be resisted. If the global powers continue to press a policy of radical austerity upon the free men of the world, the central bank
will have to buy more armed killers to terrorize civilians. It will become a police state, to protect the interests of business organizations that vest a tiny minority of the population with awesome political power, and cause bloody revolution and war.

These corporate power structures must be brought to the heel of the public. The madness of international corporate socialism, and the suffering and death that has been done in its name, must end.