Showing posts with label Quite Right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quite Right. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Africa is giving nothing to anyone -- apart from AIDS

By Kevin Myers - The Irish Independent

Thursday July 10 2008

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.

There is, no doubt a good argument why we should prolong this predatory and dysfunctional economic, social and sexual system; but I do not know what it is. There is, on the other hand, every reason not to write a column like this.

It will win no friends, and will provoke the self-righteous wrath of, well, the self-righteous, letter-writing wrathful, a species which never fails to contaminate almost every debate in Irish life with its sneers and its moral superiority. It will also probably enrage some of the finest men in Irish life, like John O'Shea, of Goal; and the Finucane brothers, men whom I admire enormously. So be it.

But, please, please, you self-righteously wrathful, spare me mention of our own Famine, with this or that lazy analogy. There is no comparison. Within 20 years of the Famine, the Irish population was down by 30pc. Over the equivalent period, thanks to western food, the Mercedes 10-wheel truck and the Lockheed Hercules, Ethiopia's has more than doubled.

Alas, that wretched country is not alone in its madness. Somewhere, over the rainbow, lies Somalia, another fine land of violent, Kalashnikov-toting, khat-chewing, girl-circumcising, permanently tumescent layabouts.

Indeed, we now have almost an entire continent of sexually hyperactive indigents, with tens of millions of people who only survive because of help from the outside world.

This dependency has not stimulated political prudence or commonsense. Indeed, voodoo idiocy seems to be in the ascendant, with the next president of South Africa being a firm believer in the efficacy of a little tap water on the post-coital penis as a sure preventative against infection. Needless to say, poverty, hunger and societal meltdown have not prevented idiotic wars involving Tigre, Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea etcetera.

Broad brush-strokes, to be sure. But broad brush-strokes are often the way that history paints its gaudier, if more decisive, chapters. Japan, China, Russia, Korea, Poland, Germany, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the 20th century have endured worse broad brush-strokes than almost any part of Africa.

They are now -- one way or another -- virtually all giving aid to or investing in Africa, whereas Africa, with its vast savannahs and its lush pastures, is giving almost nothing to anyone, apart from AIDS.

Meanwhile, Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources, and causing catastrophic ecological degradation. By 2050, the population of Ethiopia will be 177 million: The equivalent of France, Germany and Benelux today, but located on the parched and increasingly protein-free wastelands of the Great Rift Valley.

So, how much sense does it make for us actively to increase the adult population of what is already a vastly over-populated, environmentally devastated and economically dependent country?

How much morality is there in saving an Ethiopian child from starvation today, for it to survive to a life of brutal circumcision, poverty, hunger, violence and sexual abuse, resulting in another half-dozen such wide-eyed children, with comparably jolly little lives ahead of them? Of course, it might make you feel better, which is a prime reason for so much charity. But that is not good enough.

For self-serving generosity has been one of the curses of Africa. It has sustained political systems which would otherwise have collapsed.

It prolonged the Eritrean-Ethiopian war by nearly a decade. It is inspiring Bill Gates' programme to rid the continent of malaria, when, in the almost complete absence of personal self-discipline, that disease is one of the most efficacious forms of population-control now operating.

If his programme is successful, tens of millions of children who would otherwise have died in infancy will survive to adulthood, he boasts. Oh good: then what?I know. Let them all come here. Yes, that's an idea.

kmyers@independent.ie

Posted by Lord Lunch, all a-tremble for the safety of Kevin Myers for audacitating to write such, er, such audacitable stuff, stuff that any prudent person of Euro stock in 2008 knows better than to think, much less write and publish. Spare a prayer, too, for The Irish Independent. Surely there will be sharp consequences for the newspaper because of its reckless daring to publish the audacious opinion of Mr. Myers. Tut.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Why Al Really Won the 'Peace Prize'

Your Lordship (moi) takes great pleasure in providing (below) an illuminating excerpt from Adamant wherein the always delightfully perceptive Russell Seitz peels away the p.r. puffery and reveals the hokum that is the Nobel Peace Prize.

- Lord Lunch, Hamsammich Castle, Worcestershiresauce, England

The method of electing the [Nobel Peace Prize] winner ensures a political outcome. Other Nobel prizes are assigned by committees of experts in the orbit of the Swedish Academy of Science, but the Peace Prize winner is determined by a committee reflecting the current strength of Norwegian political parties. Were Norway's anti-immigrant Progress Party to gain a majority, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize might well be Pat Buchanan.

Will The 2008 Nobel Peace Prize Go To Pat Buchanan ?

The five members of the parliamentary committee to whom Democrat Gore owes his prize include three drawn from the Socialist Left, Labour, and Progressive parties forming Norway's ruling coalition, and one Conservative - a former Minister of Trade. Little wonder Francis Sejersted, past chairman of the committee, admits:

“Awarding a peace prize is, to put it bluntly, a political act.”

And all politics is local. None of the other worthy Peace Prize nominees one might list, from Burmese monks to the embattled opponents of tyranny in Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe, can increase the value of Norway's oil and gas reserves. Giving a prize that amplifies the credibility of the world's foremost advocate of carbon taxes most assuredly can.

Investing $750,000 in Al's power to pontificate on behalf of his carbon trading business could pay Norway and OPEC handsomely. The return could exceed a million to one, since Al's crusade to double coal's cost by taxation should translate into far higher prices for the lower carbon North Sea oil and gas that are the mainstay of the Norwegian economy. Oslo stands to gain hundreds of billions of Euros on its multi-billion barrel reserves, a truly extraordinary return on a one kilogram disc of gold.

So my congratulations to Mr. Gore, and kudos to the Oslo committee, whom I hereby place in nomination for the Nobel Prize in Economics for awarding the Peace Prize to Al.

Their decision is in the best Viking fiscal tradition, but avoids the recrimination that so often attends rapine, pillage, looting and burning. Especially the last -- nowadays, a Viking's loot might not cover his carbon offsets.

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

I'm With That Cuban Guy On This

That young feller, Mark Cuban, articulated my own thoughts perzactly. I would say he must have plagiarized me, except I don't remember ever putting quill to parchment on this matter. I should have. Now he gets all the credit. Here's what Cuban had to say in his blog September third:

What I would love to see is a candidate who says he/she is going to start removing laws and programs. Give me a candidate who's primary platform is to spend 4 years removing federal programs and laws. If it was a law or program worth anything the states or local municipalities will find much more creative ways to make them work.

I know its far easier said than done, but could it be any harder to remove an existing law or program than it would be to define, develop and implement another on top of what we already have in place ? Our government is so big, getting it to move in any direction is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

So if you want my vote in 2008, don't tell me what you are going to add, tell me what you are going to remove. Tell me how you are going to simplify the government. That's how you get my vote.