1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Olympic stars support campaign against hunger

Discussion in 'The Attic' started by BingoT, Aug 12, 2012.

    Aug 12, 2012
  1. BingoT

    BingoT Nurses love to give shots webmeister

    Occupation:
    Nursing & Run Bus Trips
    Location:
    Hartford,Ct
    I love to see this going on in the World.
    People Helping People.


    Olympic stars support campaign against hunger

    Olympic stars including Britain's Greg Rutherford and Ethiopia's Tirunesh Dibaba have backed a campaign against child malnutrition in poor countries.

    The athletes have written an open letter to David Cameron ahead of a "hunger summit" at Downing Street.

    They urged the prime minister to make the issue the top priority for the UK's presidency of the G8 next year.

    Mr Cameron said he was determined that the UK would help to tackle child malnutrition around the world.
    From BBC News
    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
  2. Aug 12, 2012
  3. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Another round of promises, but will we see long term results.

    Bob Geldof made a really BIG fuss over this decades ago, and forced governments to take notice, yet here we are decades later discussing the same problems.

    One cannot deal with poverty and hunger without dealing with the causes of the contant wars we see in many places that destroy much of what is built, and sends people back to hunger and poverty. Big powerful nations could combine to stamp out these minor warlords who NEED to stir up wars in order to justify their existence and hang onto power. Countries without significant oil reserves are more likely to be left to the tender mercies of their warlords, but significantly disrupt oil supplies to the US, and they will be dealt with robustly. Saddam knew this in the early 1990's, and said he would blow up all the oil wells should the allies attempt to drive him out of Kuwait. He wasn't bluffing either, he followed through. He took a big gamble and lost, hoping that the US would order a backing down and cut a deal that would keep the oil flowing at the expense of the people of Kuwait.

    The US got their revenge in the early 2000's, managing to manipulate the allies into supporting the removal of Saddam under the guise of protecting the region from a nasty assault from a huge pile of nasty weapons that had been built up since Kuwait. Poverty and hunger has, as a result, spread to parts of Iraq and Afghanistan that were previously better off.

    The surgical removal of the life long president of Zimbabwe would have done more to eradicate hunger and poverty than any amount of talking could. The US has done it before, they just don't like to admit it. They even got caught red handed at it in latin America, and more recently are well in the frame for a couple of very nasty and highly targeted cyber attacks on Iran.
     
  4. Aug 12, 2012
  5. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    So a charity called "Save the Children" wrote a letter to David Cameron and some athletes signed it? Of course they signed it. They'd look pretty shitty if they were asked to sign a letter asking to make child hunger or 3rd world famine a priority at the next G8 summit and they said no. I doubt much will come of it.

    I've been watching the same "Dollar a day will feed a child" commercials on television since I was a child. The images are sickening. Entire villages of people with swelled stomachs and bones sticking almost through the skin. Flies crawling on their faces. Apparently this has been going on for generations. How are people with flies on their faces and bones sticking through their skin having children in the first place? I don't think the villages reached this level of starvation after they had these children. I wouldn't even want to attempt reproduction with a starving woman with flies on her face. But that's just me.
     
  6. Aug 12, 2012
  7. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Without children, there is noone to care for the elderly parents, nor work the land for future generations. Unlike the rich nations, the state will not help, and you cannot employ anyone to do it for you. High child mortality has lead to a culture of having as many children as you possibly can, knowing that most will die young. It is when this changes, and culture does not, that you can get a sudden surge in population which runs out of support resources. The unequal disribution of wealth concentrates the negative consequences in a few places that suffer such total devastation, even though if shared evenly, the pain would barely be noticed by anyone.

    In order to get a more equal distribution, the rich are guaranteed to be on the losing end, yet they are the ones making the decisions. Of course nothing is going to come of it, it's bleedin' obvious.

    The only hope is to cut out the rich decision makers altogether, and set up direct aid schemes on small scales, and loads of them. Even this runs into problems because the local elites tend to intercept and pocket any aid before it reaches the end users.

    Rather than expect government officials to decide to make themselves poorer when they retire from office, trick them into setting up schemes such as tax relief that appear to make them LESS liable, and let them find out they have been "had" long after they retire because so many people have taken up the offer.

    It seems the current government have just come to this realisation, and propose to scale back the tax breaks for charitable donations on the rather dubious grounds that they are all "tax dodges for the wealthy". Maybe there IS a way to use them in this way, but voting them out of existence seems like turkeys voting for Christmas, it makes little sense. More likely is that so many people have started giving donations under gift aid that the government has seen a significant fall in tax revenues because of the bulk relief claims coming in from charities under the scheme.

    Don't bitch and moan that the government will never do anything, do what I did and sponsor a child by direct donation to one of these schemes. Do what Purple Lounge clearly didn't do, and cost the total expected outlay until your child reaches 18 (a shade over 2K in my case, and absolute fortune for them), and place it somewhere segregated from your gambling accounts so that if you get screwed, your child's community doesn't.

    The schemes are normally structured so that the amount needed to support a project are worked out, and then enough children are selected in order to secure the income. These children are sponsored by people in the richer countries, who will barely notice the money going out, pooled together, and used in the target community. In this structure, you sponsor the community with a group of others, with the child and family being the point of contact that builds the relationship, allowing you to see how things change over time.

    There are schemes where you directly sponsor a single child, however there is a view that this can lead to tensions and jealousy within a community, with a lucky child having a "rich" foreign sponsor being given chances that the rest can only dream of, and flaunted right under their noses. Such schemes therefore need to be planned very carefully indeed.

    Water Aid (My mum pays into this) targets the provision of clean water and sanitation to communities, with this thought to enable them to escape poverty and disease to make progress. This is possibly down to them not having to spend most of the day finding the nearest source of the least disease ridden drinking water, and this time can then be spent tending to crops, and sending their children to school to learn how to do things better and stimulate progress.

    Other schemes target the provision of free to use schools and hospitals, giving the poor access to education and healthcare which they would otherwise not be able to afford.

    The governments on the other hand, just produce large volumes of hot air, which rises and helps nobody.

    If one is to take the approach of writing a letter, end it with ".....else I will be voting for the <insert name of opposition party here> at the next election".
     
  8. Aug 16, 2012
  9. Seventh777

    Seventh777 RIP Roy

    Occupation:
    Builder, mainly renovations.
    Location:
    Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
    Can`t believe that VWM thinks voting has got anything to do with who gets elected, wakey, wakey, Brian ;).
     
  10. Aug 19, 2012
  11. skiny

    skiny Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas

    Occupation:
    Doing everyone else's job.
    Location:
    Canada
    It would if everyone voted.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Aug 19, 2012
  13. vinylweatherman

    vinylweatherman You type well loads CAG MM

    Occupation:
    STILL At Leisure
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It's more about voting someone OUT rather than in. It singles out an individual MP who has done something particularly bad. With the expenses scandal, those MP's with their noses deepest in the trough with the worst excuses got kicked out. We lost our own long standing MP because he faked having a house in the constituency by declaring his London flat as his main home, with his true main home being revealed as being "up north" where his wife was an MP. The constituents were not going to forgive this, and the party kicked him out and put up a new MP rather than risk losing a safe seat. The same party got elected, but a different MP.

    This was a golden opportunity for real change, since no government could be formed without the Liberal Democrats say so. Unfortunately, the deal they did with the Tories didn't impress their long term supporters, and I expect we will be back to the two party fight next time.
     

Share This Page