Late to the party
Jan. 15th, 2010 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danalwynEarlier I linked to a David Brooks column in the NYTimes of Jan 15, 2010 as a direct part of this post. However, it's been pointed out to me that even though we start at the same point, his final conclusions are sufficiently objectionable that attempting to relate the two arguments causes confusion. To that end, I have removed the reference, since it is irrelevant to the final post I made. I am leaving the rest of the post as-is to preserve the original source of the argument, although I am putting it under an LJ-cut since this is getting long. I should repeat that this affray was entirely my fault for not making myself clear.
The Chinese sometimes had an odd theory about their emperors, the idea that in the time of bad emperors, those who focused on their own pleasures rather then running their country, the divine mandate of heaven would fall. And as the Emperors fell from favor, China would suffer from increased crime, lawlessness, and worst of all, natural disasters that would level entire provinces. Most of us no longer believe that every natural disaster is a direct message from God, but there may be truth behind what it says about government.
Haiti was just devastated by a quake that registered a 7.0 on the Richter scale. Like many thousands of other Americans, I have experienced, and survived, a 7.0 quake, in my case the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. The Loma Prieta quake struck in the middle of the heavily populated San Francisco Bay Area, the Haitian quake next to the heavily populated city of Port-au-Prince. The Loma Prieta quake killed 63 people, the Haitian quake and its after-effects will be lucky if it only kills 63,000. Despite the huge bridges, the overpasses, the dangerous coastline, the high-rise buildings, the Loma Prieta quake hit a first-world country, with modern building codes enforced by city agencies, with clear streets and well-mapped utilities, where emergency services were standing by, where people had been trained what to do, and where heavy equipment was on hand only minutes away from disaster zones. Port-au-Prince had a sky high population density with none of the benefits, a disaster waiting to happen. The Bay Area was capable of getting on with its business in days, Port-au-Prince may be destroyed for years to come.
And this should remind us of one thing. Earthquakes are preventable disasters. You can't stop the earthquake, but there's no reason that an earthquake should be anything other then a moderate inconvenience. If you want to stop tragedies like this, don't invest so much in the disaster relief teams that come by later to clean up the mess. Invest in the countries vulnerable to them. Earthquakes, like fires, floods, famines, hurricanes, plagues, and all other natural disasters, can be handled by competent, efficient governments with much reduced loss of life. Haiti doesn't need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of disaster relief now, it needed just millions of dollars to nurture a stable and capable government before the earthquake happened. Remember that when you look at where disaster might strike next.
ETA: Since it's not clear, I wrote this as an indictment of the US, and the first world's, foreign aid policy. Several generations of short-term planning, along with that particular US conservative bent, have changed things to follow the same idea as conservative health care - no preventative care, only disaster relief. The point is that we need to send millions to Haiti now, but what we really should have done was send millions to Haiti earlier, and they might not need this level of relief. I'm hoping that this whole incident will serve as a warning for the future, and for how we deal with foreign aid to other nations.
The Chinese sometimes had an odd theory about their emperors, the idea that in the time of bad emperors, those who focused on their own pleasures rather then running their country, the divine mandate of heaven would fall. And as the Emperors fell from favor, China would suffer from increased crime, lawlessness, and worst of all, natural disasters that would level entire provinces. Most of us no longer believe that every natural disaster is a direct message from God, but there may be truth behind what it says about government.
Haiti was just devastated by a quake that registered a 7.0 on the Richter scale. Like many thousands of other Americans, I have experienced, and survived, a 7.0 quake, in my case the 1989 Loma Prieta quake. The Loma Prieta quake struck in the middle of the heavily populated San Francisco Bay Area, the Haitian quake next to the heavily populated city of Port-au-Prince. The Loma Prieta quake killed 63 people, the Haitian quake and its after-effects will be lucky if it only kills 63,000. Despite the huge bridges, the overpasses, the dangerous coastline, the high-rise buildings, the Loma Prieta quake hit a first-world country, with modern building codes enforced by city agencies, with clear streets and well-mapped utilities, where emergency services were standing by, where people had been trained what to do, and where heavy equipment was on hand only minutes away from disaster zones. Port-au-Prince had a sky high population density with none of the benefits, a disaster waiting to happen. The Bay Area was capable of getting on with its business in days, Port-au-Prince may be destroyed for years to come.
And this should remind us of one thing. Earthquakes are preventable disasters. You can't stop the earthquake, but there's no reason that an earthquake should be anything other then a moderate inconvenience. If you want to stop tragedies like this, don't invest so much in the disaster relief teams that come by later to clean up the mess. Invest in the countries vulnerable to them. Earthquakes, like fires, floods, famines, hurricanes, plagues, and all other natural disasters, can be handled by competent, efficient governments with much reduced loss of life. Haiti doesn't need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of disaster relief now, it needed just millions of dollars to nurture a stable and capable government before the earthquake happened. Remember that when you look at where disaster might strike next.
ETA: Since it's not clear, I wrote this as an indictment of the US, and the first world's, foreign aid policy. Several generations of short-term planning, along with that particular US conservative bent, have changed things to follow the same idea as conservative health care - no preventative care, only disaster relief. The point is that we need to send millions to Haiti now, but what we really should have done was send millions to Haiti earlier, and they might not need this level of relief. I'm hoping that this whole incident will serve as a warning for the future, and for how we deal with foreign aid to other nations.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-15 09:53 pm (UTC)Is there somewhere in particular that you think would benefit from this kind of investment? I can think of multiple places that could use it, but that doesn't mean that they'd necessarily develop if given aid?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 01:03 am (UTC)So much fail. Both you and Brooks.
Yeah, a country that's been ravaged by centuries of oppression and manipulation is going to have the resources to put up earthquake-resistant buildings.
Just unfuckingbelievable. And I'm sure you think you're being "reasonable" and "insightful" because you're saying everything in a polite tone.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 01:39 am (UTC)Did I miss something? I don't think
I know it has made me rethink where I put my dollar for help (well, outside the current crisis, where I've given what I can for immediate aid). This post (and other information like it (http://www.correntewire.com/development_aid_does_it_hurt_more_than_it_helps) have made me give thought to giving aid that helps economic development in disadvantaged countries as opposed to the other options that are available. I don't know what that might be yet (aside from projects like Kiva (http://www.kiva.org/)) that I already support, but it's an idea for a hopefully proactive approach. Just throwing aid at immediate problems is ineffective in the long run.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 01:56 am (UTC)You know why Haiti's fucked up? Centuries of slavery, followed by punitive economic practices by rich countries, such as France demanding that Haiti pay them reparations for lost slave labor. Then refusal to trade with them. Then invasions and other machinations. In just the last few decades, the U.S. propped up the Duvaliers and ousted Aristide.
Before anybody starts declaiming "dispassionately" and "logically" and "reasonably" about how the Haitians don't stand up to help themselves, how about other countries get their boots off the Haitians' necks?
And, I'm sorry, but to lambaste a country that poor — a country deliberately made that poor — for not building the way San Francisco Bay Area does? That takes some truly oblivious privilege, not to see the giant elephant of history and politics in the room.
Just throwing aid at immediate problems is ineffective in the long run.
They're still digging people out of the rubble. I think it's a little premature to kvetch about how one's dollars are going to be spent. And I'm certainly not going to call up Doctors Without Borders for an audit of how they spent my donation.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:08 am (UTC)how about other countries get their boots off the Haitians' necks?
Agreed, entirely. This is also part of the article I linked -- apologies but I don't know if the original (which is in a German language news magazine) comes in English. The question is how to give aid such that the aid really helps people in the affected countries, instead of deliberately sabotaging them and keeping them dependent to feed First World greed or First World ego.
First things first, and the world has to help Haiti, yes? But once the immediate crisis is past then what? Haiti needs help to rebuild herself as a strong, self sufficient nation in the way her citizens would want -- not be kept dependent on foreign condescension, or dictated to by foreign value sets. I don't know what the answer to this is.
Thank you also for clarifying about the writer of the original article. I'm not familiar with him, and don't feel I'm missing out by this!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:21 am (UTC)Gotcha. Sorry I misinterpreted; I'm actually seeing people making that argument for why Haiti shouldn't receive any earthquake relief at all.
The scary thing is that I don't know that the world can do enough, fast enough.
Tragically, they can't, if only because the airport and seaport were so damaged by the quake that people traveling into the country are bottlenecked. If that weren't the case, then perhaps there'd be some hope, but the logistics don't favor the Haitian survivors. :(
The question is how to give aid such that the aid really helps people in the affected countries, instead of deliberately sabotaging them and keeping them dependent to feed First World greed or First World ego.
Grameen (http://www.grameen-info.org/) has the right idea, as does Kiva, to which you linked. Giving money and other resources to women tends to have the optimal effect, because, as most of them are responsible for children, they will use it to better their family prospects. The men tend more often to spend it on drink and gambling.
I'm not familiar with him, and don't feel I'm missing out by this!
No, you're really not. Another recent gem: American-style capitalism "leads to more exciting lives." (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/27749.html) Yeah, I suppose you can say that unemployment, lack of health insurance, and worrying about eviction and whether you can afford groceries can be quite... stimulating.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:50 am (UTC)... I'm... I can't even begin to address this. It's inhuman, subhuman, I'm not even certain of the English (German has a better word for it: Unmenschlich). It's one thing when there is nothing that can be done to help, but where aid can be given to deny it is... I don't know. I can't articulate it.
The other article you linked made me laugh.
"I came away convinced that the American model is in fact better, but it was useless to try to persuade continental Europeans of this fact."
No kidding, yes? Other nations actually place value on quality of life, not just on acquisition of wealth. I know this is difficult for some people to grasp, and most particularly citizens of the United States who think everyone should do things their way because it works for them! In re: exciting lives, this fellow should really have to live as a self-sustaining hunter gatherer for a bit. He would have a far better grasp of how exciting it is to live or die by one's own efforts, and the vagaries of an entirely unsympathetic world.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:47 am (UTC)Yes. "Sociopathic" would be another good term. Welcome to the United States circa... well, forever, really. Not that other countries don't have such individuals, but we nurture 'em really well here. And it's not simply anonymice on the internet, but quasi-"respectable" media figures. (Of course, our media sucks.)
this fellow should really have to live as a self-sustaining hunter gatherer for a bit.
I hate reality TV but I'd watch that. I'd pay to watch it, in fact.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:44 am (UTC)I've been crunching the numbers on that all day, and I keep coming up with very grim pictures of the situation. There just aren't enough assets that are transportable, and with the amphibious ships not arriving on day one, you're basically hosed. I'm hoping more sealift capability will allow them to land the heavy vehicles soon, but I feel that at this point they're just going to show up in time for trucking supplies, not pulling people out of the rubble. The people can come in from the air, but the heavy equipment is going to need to come in by sea, and it just won't make it in time.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:50 am (UTC)My apologies if you've seen these before, but I thought you might find them helpful.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:29 am (UTC)In the long run, I don't want to have to deploy massive foreign aid efforts to other nations in the wake of disasters, because I don't want them to need it. I donated on the day of the disaster here, because we have not fulfilled our end of our duties.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:45 pm (UTC)This is a bit of an embarrassing confession to make, but when I'm tired my ability to focus is not so good, yes? What happens with language comprehension at such time is that I read without seeing the details. (Somewhat like that little study that went around showing that as long as the first and last letters in a word were in the correct order people could still read the sentence even thought the rest was scrambled. It only works for certain languages of course.)
So instead of reading a sentence and translating it mentally (because I don't think in English when I'm tired or otherwise stressed) I sort of "apprehend" the meaning, all in a block. It's usually completely accurate, ironically, as it was in this case where I "knew" what you meant. It was only when I saw
It's not ideal, but that's simply how my brain works and it's not like I can exchange it for something else. The alternative is a very laborious word by word process of translation, and when I'm tired enough that I automatically "apprehend" I don't have the energy to go back to such basics. The alternative is that I simply give up and try again later. If you ever see me miss the point of someone's comments this is likely the cause, and if so please correct me and draw my attention to what I missed. Correction is actually most helpful in increasing my skills, and I appreciate it instead of taking offense.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 01:58 am (UTC)It's very much beside the main point, but I was wondering if you had seen or heard anything concerning how the tendency of the far right to criticize other people for having too many children* (i.e. those poor and/or non white/non North American people of course) is reconciled with their own anti-abortion, anti-birth control and pro-large family stances within the United States? Is it pure double think? I'm removed from this situation (not in the U.S.), but it's something that I completely don't understand. (Then again, I'm a supporter of women's rights in general and the ability to control fertility is pretty critical.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:05 am (UTC)The best way to understand them is to watch what they do, not listen to what they say. I have not ever been to an abortion clinic, but I hear from many, many sources that the "sidewalk counselors" will get in the faces of white women with the "Don't kill your baby!!" guilt trip. They will never, ever go up to a black woman, Native American woman, or Latina and do the same. (Not sure about Asian women.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:29 am (UTC)This is not, by and large, a country of people comfortable with differences. At least not outside of a limited number of urban areas, and even sometimes not within them.
in spite of being reasonably fluent in English I find there's still a "language" barrier that's more cultural than linguistic.
I'm not really surprised, especially in specific reference to the fundie xtian subculture, because they use and mis-use language in distinct and purposeful ways. Are you familiar with "dogwhistle" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics) as a political metaphor? It refers to coded language understood by an in-group but no one else. In the U.S., it tends to have racial connotations, but it can also have religious ones (see the 2nd paragraph under "United States" in the Wikipedia article).
In case you ever have the time and curiosity, I would recommend browsing the blog of Fred Clark (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/), a liberal Christian who keeps tabs on the fundies. He's best-known for his deconstructions of the odious Left Behind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind) books, but his posts on other religious matters are also informative.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:24 am (UTC)The problem is not that people aren't having large families. The problem is that white people aren't having large families. When they are amongst themselves, you will occasionally here them muttering darkly about racial extinction.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 02:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:04 am (UTC)I am afraid to ask, but why is everything pink? Do I want to know?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:34 am (UTC)...
I'm sorry, it's too easy to hit certain targets.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:50 pm (UTC)You know, I do not understand the logic behind that term "Born Again" in the religious sense. I know they mean it as "washed free of previous sins, freshly embarking on a religious life", but this collides directly with the other doctrine that all humans are inherently born sinful, and just creates cognitive dissonance for me.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 05:04 pm (UTC)I have no idea how it's treated for those who already were in that life, except that they may have to indulge some sings to get through, but it always felt to me like you were expected to be sinful as a youth (which is sort of logical, because restraining that is hard). Part of it is that the movement spread through adults who had been in other churches for years before being 'born-again', which made the distinction easier to understand.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 06:04 pm (UTC)Personally, I prefer "born right the first time"
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 12:33 am (UTC)(*) They might be renting and have no control over the décor. They probably own the couches, though, which are truiy awful.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 02:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 04:17 am (UTC)I can believe that they may not have much control over the decor, but that doesn't explain why the women are also wearing matching shades of pink (including the inexplicably bathing suit clad lady with the waist tattoo), or why both boys are also clad in that shade.
I suspect there's something going on -- if it's not deliberate symbolism, someone is far too fond of pink.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 06:02 pm (UTC)But since they are color coordinated, maybe they like it? Well, tastes are beyond my ken normally.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 06:41 pm (UTC)(I also have a personal bad association with this. The funeral parlor where I helped make arrangements for my grandmother's funeral was all a rose shade very similar to this. Rose carpet, rose walls, gilt and cream ornaments and framed pictures of roses. It's meant to calm and soothe, I think, but I would have hated it even if I wasn't there under very sad circumstances.)
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:17 am (UTC)I'm doing what silverjackal has said, the point of this post is that we shouldn't be playing catch-up anymore - the way we seem to have gone about this whole business is by running through the world, and providing disaster relief funds after things have happened. I read Brooks as edging towards trying to make things happen before things got to this pass.
To be honest, I don't agree with a lot of Brooks's points about Haiti in particular, but I do agree that we should stop trying to heal things after they happen. Haiti was a mess for decades before any of this happened, and despite some commitments here and there, we have not seriously committed resources to trying to strengthen their government. I hold the foreign nations to blame for this sort of affair, and I much prefer the pro-active response to the re-active response (the same way I support access to preventive care in the US, that shouldn't only apply to the US).
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 01:37 am (UTC)Dude.
Haiti was not prepared for the quake because Haiti did not have the resources to prepare for the quake.
Haiti did not have the resources to prepare for the quake because it has been consistently fucked over by basically everyone and everything.
Check your privilege.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 03:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-16 04:11 am (UTC)(Then again, those might have been Robertson's henchmen).