|
| When a magnitude 7 earthquake struck the capital of impoverished Haiti in January this year my initial feeling was one of helplessness. For me there is nothing worse than knowing that others are suffering and having no means to help them. I thought to myself, why am I here at work when there are people still alive and buried under rubble?
It was because of my desire to help that I jumped at an opportunity to join a church group traveling to that country. The group I went with was comprised of young people (mostly in their mid-teens to mid-twenties) and two married couples (or "youth advisers") from the church. The trip had been planned before the earthquake and I was slightly disappointed to learned it would not be directly centered on earthquake relief. But even still I was glad to be a part of any effort intended to help the Haitian people and knew that somebody needed to continue the other work to be done.
As the departure date neared I had a bit of trepidation being it would be the first time I was out of the country (other than Canada) and needed to have a passport. I was also excited, I had worked hard with very little time off and a trip to Haiti would be a unique experience to say the least, an adventure. But the week before I left, there was a stronger feeling that overwhelmed me--It was a feeling of intense guilt.
The guilt came from knowing that no matter how much we accomplished in the ten day trip, the money we spent on airline tickets and the necessary accommodations for just over thirty people could be far more effectively spent. I tend to approach the world from an economist's perspective, I couldn't help but see the wasteful excess and inefficiency of sending a crew of Americans to do the same work that could easily be accomplished by Haitians. While sincerely trying to help, we were taking jobs away from Haitians who desperately need an income to survive. We could've sent (and paid) two people to organize projects and employed a half dozen Haitians for months with the same money.
During my brief stay in Haiti, the validity of my concerns was proved beyond what I had imagined. The size of our group did not contribute to our efficiency. We may have really worked four or five days out of the ten. The projects we did were mostly centered around improvements to a church and work at the pastor's house. While in the church painting, a young Haitian man outside asked me what we were doing and told me he needed a job. I couldn't help him. I could it distressed him to see us all busy working when he couldn't find work and it certainly distressed me as well.
We did also reorganize a small warehouse stocked with protein, dried milk, noodles and other items to be distributed. But the actual distribution was a disheartening experience, a vivid scene that will leave a lasting memory and for the wrong reasons.
It took a four hour drive on the back of a "tap-tap" with thirty Americans and a moderate amount of food items arrived at a small village in the middle of fields of rice paddies. The village is not a place that sees many foreigners and our two vehicle convoy started to draw a crowd. We left a few guys to guard the stuff on the truck and while our Haitian hosts/guides talked with their contacts in the village the rest of us ate a light lunch in little church building. We ate sheepishly with the curious eyes of children peering in from any opening, no doubt trying to figure us out and the reason for our invasion.
After lunch, in front of the still growing crowd, we unloaded the truck into the church building with a nervous tension in the air after an older man tried to grab one of the bags and was scolded off by our interpreter. The pandemonium grew as the word got out we would be giving food and women with children were instructed to line up outside. Pushing and shoving soon erupted at the door as men tried to get in line and the decision was made to start distributing candy at the other side of the built as a way to draw attention away.
Unfortunately, that only created more chaos as children mobbed us bewildered Americans. We were horribly disorganized with no plan going in and that began to show. There was a vacuum of leadership. The point man of the trip (an American) was preoccupied with staging a photo op so he had something to show the donors back home. I sensed that the Haitian pastor (spoke very little English) and our interpreter who accompanied us from Port Au Prince didn't know how far to assert themselves. Not knowing even a few commands in Creole and having no position of authority in my own group, I was in no position to take control of the situation.
Soon we got the order to pull out and leaving behind a few men from the village church to hold back the mob as we retreated to the trucks. Predictably the men at the doors were soon overwhelmed and the food went out the door helter-skelter to whomever was able to grab it. It sickened me, not only because the people who needed the food probably didn't get it and those who did may have sold it for profit, but what upset me more is that we allowed it to happen. I am convinced, with the manpower we had and a little foresight, the whole outcome may have been entirely different. Our Haitian guides were distraught and completely embarrassed, but I don't blame them nor the people of the village for what happened.
It felt at times that all we did was drive around like tourists, cameras in hand, taking in the sights, occasionally stopping long enough to stuff our faces, sometimes in the presence of malnourished children and with food provided by the generosity of others. I don't think I ate better in a long time. Not at all saying the group I was with was insensitive or unconcerned, in fact the trip was a big sacrifice for some, I admire their desire to help and everyone worked hard when there was opportunity. But good intentions do not always produce desirable results.
So overall, I have difficulty chalking up the entire trip to Haiti as a success. It was most certainly a learning experience and gave me a clearer picture of the needs in that country. It has confirmed some of my prior suspicions about the effectiveness of short-term missions trips and given me many ideas on how to improve upon them. But more than that my experiences have given me hope that Haiti, despite the desperateness of the current situation, is not a place beyond fixing. The people of Haiti are in need of more than charity, they are in need of opportunity and empowerment, a means to work for their own future. Charity and good intentions are not enough...I want to give the people in Haiti a means to help themselves.
I plan this to be the first of several posts about Haiti, next up will likely be a discussion of how the short-term help of governments and aid organizations has sometimes done more damage than good in the long-term. I feel I owe it to the people of Haiti to make something out of my visit, so offering my observations to you is part of my atonement. I do actually have positive things to say. Stay tuned...
| | |
| "The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama" Al Sharpton
Since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt, America's leaders have been on a push for more Federal control in the life of the individual citizen. Before Obama set foot in the Oval Office a little over a year ago, this country was already a quasi-socialist or collectivist state and becoming more so. Like everything, there is a continuum between collectivism and individualism. Compared to China and even Europe, we are (at least up till Monday) a very individualistic country and I believe that is what most Americans deep down prefer.
I grew up in collectivist sub-culture. I am a dual citizen of a sort. I grew up in a conservative Mennonite setting. But unlike most of my Mennonite peers, I went to a public school. Conservative Mennonites are a very collectivist group, spiritual (and some times blood) cousin's to the "barn raising" Amish church and the communal Hutterites, our common bond is the "Anabaptist" heritage we share. Community is the reason why Amish avoid modern means of transportation and other technology, they predicted (and possibly rightfully so) that the automobile would destroy community and took a stand against it. Mennonites, in most cases are not as strict, but still discourage individualism and promote a collective approach, or "brotherhood" as we call it.
The reason for this practice is rooted in the teachings of Jesus for his believers (note: not everyone) to have "all things in common" and it is applied to varying degrees depending on the groups interpretation. The application varies from Anabapist subgroup to subgroup, from Mennonite conference to conference, from individual church to church. In many conservative Mennonite churches there are detailed rules to follow as far as lifestyle, technology and dress. Nearly every Anabaptist group in varying degrees provides support for their membership, but to the same degree most support they also restrict the behavior of individuals.
I have a love/hate relationship with my church, on one end I see the benefit it has brought me personally, on the other end I see the coercion and sometimes overbearing legalism that comes with any form of collectivism. You see, there always must be an enforcement mechanism for group decisions to stick and that is a sticky subject for most Mennonites. You see, that was part of the reason why the Amish split off the Mennonite church many years ago. They believed that scripture taught that those who do not follow the rules of the community should be ignored, shunned. Mennonites, on the other hand, will discipline (ie: usually a confession) and eventually revoke the membership of an erring member.
Understand, I am quite intrigued by voluntary collectivism and would even live communally if I found the right people. But, I have seen collectivism applied and it is easy to abuse even when it is completely voluntary, that is why I oppose it when the government is involved. Coercion is implied when government is involved in anything and I don't want the IRS knocking on my door or putting liens on my house because I refuse to take part in the current administration's collectivist vision and schemes. I don't like to be forced against my will.
In the current health care bill (among many items in it) I take strong issue with "mandates" for various reasons. The first reason being that requiring people to buy a product just because they breath is unconstitutional. I know I know, automobile insurance is a popular liberal talking point. But that is a completely invalid comparison for several reasons.
First of all, automobile insurance is required by states and enforced by the states. Second of all, you have a choice to own a car and drive that car on 'public' roads, you don't need insurance to drive the car around the yard or on your own personal race track, you can take a bus, buying the insurance is voluntary. Third, you don't need car insurance to cover your own losses, car insurance is to protect the people you may hit. But if you want to make that comparison, go get in a wreck without insurance and then try to buy a policy that covers the pre-existing condition.
A mandate to require coverage forces anybody who breaths to buy a product, unlike automobile insurance where you can choose, you have no choice. Another reason why this should not happen is that it creates even more inequity. I currently do not have insurance because I can't justify the expense of a policy that will meet my needs, I prefer to self pay. Unfortunately, I lose the right not to have insurance (which will become more pricey because of a 40% tax levied on insurance plans) and I will be penalized for not having insurance. So, worse than not having insurance, now I am subject to another tax on my income and still don't have any coverage. Obama himself opposed mandates when he campaigned against Hillary for the same exact reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvcxYMIT_rs
Obama is a collectivist, he promoted "collective salvation" in a speech he gave at Wesley college (read that in the article here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/obama_black_liberation_theolog_1.html or youtube it) and in his constant demonization of private enterprise, his health care bill is a collectivist's dream seed. What he doesn't tell you, is that public (collective) insurance plans like Medicare reject more claims than private insurers. What the media doesn't tell you is that insurance administration costs (profits) only account for 5% of all medical costs. The real truth is that every collectivist endeavor is sold as being for the common good, but in time always ends up being about controlling people. With this health care bill that time may be sooner than many expect.
I don't have a problem with collectivism and actually do see strength in it as a voluntary arrangement, but I do have a problem with coerced collectivism. Americans in this generation seem to want the best of both worlds: live a life of reckless liberty, complete individuality and with a government that can't tell them how to live, but then want a government that rescues them from their irresponsibility. It is an unsustainable path unless the government can "control the people" (as Democrat John Dingell said after the health care legislation passed) and limit individual liberty. Government collectivism always comes at the expense of individual liberty because it is impossible to sustain otherwise.
As President Ford said, "a government big enough to supply all your needs, is a government big enough to take everything you have..."
I do not believe that dismantling individual rights in the name of security best serves the "common good" quite the contrary in fact, I think it destroys ambition and certainly it does not discourage irresponsible behavior. Do you want a government that will pay your insurance, but then forbid you from eating the food you like to eat, drinking as you want, stop you from skiing, etc? Should I (a non-drinker, non-smoker, non-risk taker) be forced to subsidize the reckless behavior of others by a mandate penalty/tax? I think the common good is best served individual liberty with individual responsibility, it allows the most freedom and encourages responsible behavior.
Mainstream America is decidedly individualistic and very "my rights" oriented, I am immersed in this culture and know it well. It the name of a "right" to health care that some Americans are willing to sacrifice their own rights and the rights of others, ceding that to an ever expanding Federal government. I believe too few are aware of the consequences that come with this type of system, but if this bill is not struck down in court or repealed, when the real teeth come in (mysteriously after Obama's first term is over, not before...hmm) I think they will understand. The bill was never about reform and providing more care, it is about control and redistributing wealth, it is about creating dependency, it is about creating a political power base for the Democrat party.
You will see the rumblings, people will lose insurance as some companies go bankrupt and others raise their rates in order to stay in business. Manufacturers John Deere and Caterpillar are already projecting the costs of this bill and it will likely force them to lay off employees and outsource or go out of business entirely, read up on this. No doubt, this too will become a reason for even more government intervention and eventual socialism. Don't say I didn't warn you if this ends in tears.
Back to Sharpton's quote: Of those who voted for Obama, time for some honesty, did you elect him President because you wanted socialism?
| | |
| If you notice the reporting of the Ft Hood massacre is very careful to downplay the Muslim faith of Major Husan. Even the official words of military leaders caution the public against jumping to conclusions about the motive for the attack. There seems to be more concern about the backlash against other Muslims than there is about reporting accurately and just saying it how it is. They go to ridiculous lengths too, like speculating post-traumatic stress disorder for a man that never was deployed into combat. We are suppose to ignore evidence that links this man to Muslim terrorists. Major Husan was a Muslim and it is likely his Muslim faith played a role in his decision to open fire on his fellow soldiers. It seems political correctness is at least partially to blame for this tragedy. The story coming out slowly seems to be that the military ignored the warning signs and gave him special treatment because he was a Muslim. Time does a wonderful job of exploring the topic of political correctness and the shooting in this linked the artcle. Like I said in my last post, I don't think Muslims should be denied rights or discriminated against because of their faith. Most Muslims aren't terrorists, thank God. But at the same time we should not ignore the fact that many terrorists are Muslim. Denying the truth about the Ft Hood shooter's faith or ignoring links to Muslim terrorist organizations is not necessary. Giving Major Husan's suspicious behavior a pass because of his faith is inexcusable, this kind of political correctness will cost lives. | | |
| When hearing about a murderous rampage, like that of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, it is easy for our basest "protect the herd" instincts to take over. But, almost immediately my thoughts went back to a recent conversation I had about the internment of Japanese families during WW2, the mistreatment of German speaking CO's, and how much harm was done to so many people for no good reason. US Citizens were imprisoned and put in camps, not because of something they did, but only because of their ethnicity. It was a good starting point for my thinking, because soon after a friend of mine shouted "WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYONE IN OUR MILITARY THAT IS A MUSLIM!!! AND I SURE AS HECK THINK THAT NO MUSLIM SHOULD HAVE GUNS!!" on their facebook status. I'm not going to repeat the vigorous religious debate that ensued afterwards, but I will cover an aspect that I didn't discuss in detail and that being the importance of not abandoning the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. In my further thinking, I recalled recent shootings that involved single and male gunmen who plotted and then acted out violently against a culture they despised, neither of them Muslims or of middle-eastern descent. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter wasn't Muslim (if anything anti-religious) and was South Korean. The Colorado Springs shooter, Matthew Murray was white, possibly gay and anti-religious in his rants. George Sorini was single, white and a nominal Christian. The Columbine shooters were agnostics or anti-religous. Going back a few years, the Oklahoma City bomber, a military vetern, Timothy McVeigh, was agnostic. It would set a very dangerous precedent to deny a Muslim entry in the military and gun ownership because of his religious beliefs, because if we do why stop with Muslims? There is no freedom of religion if a person is disqualified from service to their country and excluded from the right to bear arms on the basis of their religion. If we deny rights to Muslims today, it is a matter of time before Christians or others will denied rights using similar rational. Christians should pay particular attention, because not too long ago I heard a critic of Sarah Palin make a ridiculous suggestion that Palin would try to bring the "end times" about since she was a Christian. It is true, Maj Husan is a Muslim, we are at war with Muslim terrorists in Muslim lands and thus it is very possible that Husan's faith played a role in his shooting rampage against his fellow soldiers. But despite that potential religious motive, Husan is a US citizen and entitled to the rights defined in the US Constitution. Muslims should be treated as individuals, just like everyone else. Those who value the rights granted to them as citizens in the US Constitution should fight any attempt to deny those rights to other citizens, because what goes around comes around. "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither" -Benjamin Franklin | | |
| Since Obama took power there has been a campaign against one industry after another, the claim is the "obscene" profits of this corporation or that justify direct government intervention in the market, even the extreme measure of a government "option" to compete with private industry. Never have I seen private enterprise demonized so severely. The drum beats of war are in the air, but is the government's justification for this unprecedented power grab a lie? The mainstream media has been extremely negligent in reporting on more than the rhetoric of those who are demanding a radical restructuring of the US economy. Not only is it impossible to find a comprehensive list of what states already do for the uninsured, but I haven't even seen an actual fact check of the claims of "obscene profits" by the neo-liberals (or neo-marxist statists) in power. It is unbelieveable that the same press that dutifully "fact checks" a comedy routine about President Obama on Saturday Night Live has not even bothered to check the claims of the most powerful man in the world and his neo-liberal cronies. Finally AP has done some real journalism and has not only debunked the myth of the "obsene profits" of insurance companies, but also proved false the claim that insurers did better under the prior administration. According to the AP fact check, insurers make a paltry 2.2% profit and did not prosper during the Bush era. If you know anything about business and accounting, you know that is a profit barely worth the effort and certainly not "obsene" when compared to other businesses. What motivates the left in this country to destroy business and demonize profits is a fundemental misunderstanding of economics. The premise is that the free market exploitative and if all you look at is corporate profits, you may actually believe that. But, the truth is that the profit motive is what encourages productive behavior and makes the economy efficient. Since a private business cannot force people to buy their product, to remain profitable they must compete on price or value. BMW can sell a car for three times the price of a Hyundai because it has value to a certain consumer. On the flipside, because of the price difference, Hyundai can sell three times as many cars as BMW. If the economy goes downhill and people can no longer afford to buy a BMW, then that corporation has big choices to make if they want to remain profitable. They could lower production and layoff employees or cut product quality and compete directly with Hyundai. But either way, profitability is a must or they will eventually go bankrupt and potentially put everyone who worked for them out of a job. The insurance survives on caluculations of risk. An automobile insurance company would go bankrupt in short order if it decided to charge everyone (regardless of driving record) a flat rate and decided to cover pre-existing conditions. What would happen is that people who never paid in the poll, were uninsured and had pre-existing dents in their cars or a poor driving record would quickly sign up. That would dry up money available forcing a severe rate hike. Then, as a result of the higher premiums, the drivers with good driving records would flee in droves to insurers who more fairly pro-rated them according to the actual risk. The free market is a two way street, you pay for the goods and services of others keeping them employed, while they buy the goods and services you provide giving you the money you need. The worth of your labor or service is determined by the willingness of others to pay for it. If you charge too much, a competitor will enter the market and take advantage of your greed. If you charge too little, you will not be profitable and eventually go bankrupt. It is a system that benefits everyone involved according to the worth of their contribution. When the government enters the market, it disrupts the balance and rewards people not according to their contribution to the market, but their connection to those who hold power in government. The neo-liberal health care "reform" does nothing to improve quality of health care. No, it is nothing more than a way to erase the already slim profit margins of health insurance and eventually put them out of business. Waiting in the wings for the many Americans left uninsured will be the one remaining option that doesn't need to have a sustainable business model to survive, the public option. Once the public option monopolizes the insurance market, it will put the government in a position to dictate pay for services and by extension wages of health care workers. Obama ran for office promising "single payer" health care and judging by his rants against anything or anyone that competes with his power, I have no reason to believe he has changed. Only the rhetoric has changed, the current spin is "choice and competition" is nothing but a Trojan horse disguise to hide the underlying goal of a government monopoly of the health care industry. His goal is the same now as it was when he campaigned: Eliminate private insurers and replace it with one option, the government option. It is time for the media to stop acting as a shill for the Obama administration, start researching the claims and start asking tough questions. If journalists wait too long and let Americans remain in the dark, they may find that the same government that took the power from their fellow Americans (while they cheered or just stood idly by) will not be content to let them do as they please. When the government takes freedom from any group of citizens, it is a threat to your freedom as well. Learn this lesson while you have freedom, not after you lost it. | | |
|
