David's Blog

Well, I seem to find myself cynical recently of anything that is into the "wrist band" craze....but this is just overt pessimism on my part, and has nothing to do with the organization. But, let me not only be a cynic, but also a hypocrite in thinking that one of those bands would be cool (ahem...if you get some, I'd totally be into having one too)

Any sort of attempt to fight poverty in any form is a good thing, even if it only brings attention to the issue and nothing else.

Oh, and speaking of white..yea, I'm all into it now too. I think it was a result of the wedding, but now I'm just all up in it.

Peace be with you...from the "blogslack"

Yeah, anything (well, almost anything) to bring attention to poverty or to help fight poverty seems like a good thing to me. Before donating money, I'd just research to make sure it actually goes towards fighting the poverty and also that it's not immoral.

That last statement may sound weird considering moral people should give money to charities and noble causes, but some charities (like United Way) have refused funds to certain organizations because of their moral values. For instance, United Way has refused to give money to the Boy Scouts because they "discriminate" by not allowing homosexual Scout Masters. Maybe it's just me, but I appreciate the fact that any future sons of mine will not be going on week long camp outs in the woods with homosexual men. I don't think that's discrimination, I think it's common sense.

So how does United Way tie into this? Make sure that the "One" campaign is not directly anti-moral (like refusing to fund food distribution programs in churches overseas or mission groups).

Oh yeah, and from what I see, your main page ( http://gatorpressure.com/) has not been updated (but I have a feeling you were referring to the main page of your blog ;-).

I didn't really look at the website long...

Have you seen the movie Beyond Borders. I first saw it because it's got Jolie in it, but it turned out to be good. Angelina is involved in the relief effort worldwide and she's so passionate about it that she got a movie made on it. In the LA airport I read an article in the paper about her humanitarian efforts and this blog just reminded me of that in general.

David, what do you think about the food relief programs and the wealthy countries giving money to help feed the starving people of the world? Should we give up substantial amounts of money to other countries to help them feed millions of people or do we keep our money, invest it in ourselves (since it's our money) and let them die since they are probably doing to die anyway.

Jenn,
In defense of these right-wing individuals you mention...
When you borrow money the borrowed money becomes the property of the borrower and ceases to be the property of the lender. The lender owns a certain amount of debt instead. Example -- when you purchase a house with a home loan you are still entitled to call the property "my house." The lender no longer has its money, but instead has has ownership of your debt. That is usually property of a bank or other financial institution (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) and can be bought, sold, traded, and the lender sees fit.

Also, when financially conservative people of any politcal persuasion raise concerns about deficit spending they are realizing that ultimately it is "our money" because the citizenry of the debtor nation is still obligated to pay back their debts. So, even though we may be spending money that we are borrowing, we are still spending future dollars that will some day need to be repayed to the lenders.

This national debt problem is actually something that the ONE campaign adresses. It does not address the issue of US national debt, but it has made the realization that many nations have been unable to pay their national debts. So, the ONE campaign seeks debt forgiveness of those nations through the US gov't. The US would either forgive the debt itself (when the US is the lender) or incur more debt to pay the debts of another nation to another (non-US) lender.

One way to answer the people that you've labled as "right-wing" is to encourage them to go further with their feelings of fiscal responsibility. If our nation would get back to the 90s and start paying off our debts again the US would eventually be cleared of debts almost entirely. That would free us to increase our spending on poverty and humanitarian issues in a dramatic way. Especially when you consider that the US has an unspoken policy against having a national savings. Deficit, surplus, and debt are all OK, but holding onto a surplus beyond the point of repaying all debts doesn't seem to fly.

Anyway, I wonder how difficult it is to discuss poverty without discussing politics. I love to discuss politics, and this campaign is a political play, so I guess I should expect some political discussion, shouldn't I?

Okay, now a comment that frustrates me a lot of the time. Money is not the issue at hand; human greed (and sin) is.

If we were to equally distribute all the wealth, resources, etc across the world, then no one would be wealthy and no one would be poor. In fact, no one would be anything. If everyone had exactly one million dollars, then one million dollars would be worthless. It's the fact that humans want to have more of something that creates the problem. Someone gains the advantage and then exploits that advantage to the detriment of others.

If poverty truly were ever to be eliminated (with a rising world population the way it is), then that would mean that each of us would have to live a very pious lifestyle; one that I would like to live, but that I realistically would have a very hard time living. It would mean not going to all you can eat buffets, not buying name brand products, probably not owning my own computer or DVDs, and definitely not owning expensive electronic equipment (digital cameras, cell phones, etc). It's amazing how little humans can live on, but all of us (especially me) want more. It's the number of man: 6. Always reaching for perfection (7) but never attaining it because of our fallen nature.

All that having been said, I think we should do our very best to help others in life, but ultimately it will be God who eliminates all pain. I think the television show Angel said it best, "We're saving people, one person at a time."

Also, I often need to be reminded that addressing the spiritual needs of others is infinitely more important than addressing their physical needs. I can give a person a fish and feed him for a day. I could teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Or, I can share the Gospel with a man and God will provide for him for eternity.

(That last part was an altered Confucius quote - "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime").

My information on United Way was not entirely correct: Only certain chapters of United Way have refused to fund Boy Scouts. For more information see:

http://national.unitedway.org/aboutuw/boyscouts.cfm

Nate --
Redistribution of wealth doesn't really work, because wealth isn't really about dollars, gold, or other such "wealth containers." Wealth is about scarce resources and work done on those resources or directly for someone else.

If we all lived a "pious lifestyle" there would be less demand for goods and services by definition of the "pious lifestyle." This would mean fewer jobs available, which provide people with opportunities to trade their skilled labor for the things that they need. This would be fine if it did not happen suddenly, because these things tend to balance out, but after the balance fewer people would be able to be supported.

I think that meeting someone's spiritual needs does do more for the person in an eternal persepective than anything else. I also think that it is hard to keep a person's mind on spiritual truths when his/her body is wasting away from malnutrition, lack of adequate clothing/shelter, or diseases that go unchecked due to poor distribution of life-saving medicines and vaccines.

I'd like to see a charity go into these impoverished areas and develop more robust economies. This is what is happening in some parts of China now, due to the need for cheap labor. Companies come to get the cheap labor, but they give opportunity (though this is poo-pooed because it often doesn't meet the US citizen's high standards)

If impoverished nation X had something that the rest of the world (RotW) wanted, and it was a renewable resource that the nation's populace shared to an extent (like "cheap" labor) then that country could begin to participate in trade and export what the RotW wanted, and import what it needed and wanted.

These thoughts are a stepping stone in the thought-path that I take that leads me to thinking that what we really need to solve poverty is to figure out how to solve the logistics issues of getting things to and from the "remote" areas of the world... cost-effectively.