Shire Network News #106 has been released. The feature interview is with two ex-Muslims – Sheila (not her real name for reasons which are probably obviuous) who lives in the United States, and Adil Zeshan from the United Kingdom. They talk about why they left, and why the fear the reaction from their former compatriots.. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary segment.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to “Consider This”.

“A chicken in every pot, and a car in every garage.” That was the slogan of Republican Herbert Hoover in his campaign for President of the United States. His promise of prosperity likely helped propel him into the Oval Office. Well, it looks like Hillary Clinton has taken that same promise and updated it for 21st century Democrats.

Her first trial balloon was the idea that the government would give each child a $5000 US Savings Bond when they were born. More than just a chicken in every pot, this would be a bond for every baby. But unlike Hoover’s promise of prosperity, which came with the assumption that people would earn those chickens and cars due to a healthy economy, Clinton is doing what liberals do best; giving “free” money away and taxing the growth out of the economy to pay for it.

But this trial balloon was made of lead. Apparently the legality of vote buying is not in question with most Americans. And so, with this attempt at pure, unadulterated socialism put back in the vaults of the Democratic Party, no doubt to be brought back out again in the fullness of time, Mrs. Clinton tried something less brazen.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed tax cuts of up to $1,000 a year on Tuesday to encourage millions of working-age families to open personal 401(k) retirement accounts. The New York senator said the program would be paid for through higher estate taxes.

Now this is ironic on any number of levels. Let’s start with the obvious one; using “tax cuts” and “Democrat” in the same sentence. OK, OK, she does wind up trading one tax for another, but to not just seem to be giving away “free” money must have really hurt.

And what tax is she trading with? The estate tax! Otherwise known as “The Second Tax on The Stuff You’ve Already Been Taxed On When You Earned It”, it’s assessed on your estate when you die, hence a third, more well-known term, “The Death Tax”. Do you see the circle of life here? She gives you a tax break for retirement that she takes back from your heirs when you die. It’s the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. And it’s just as illusory. Or you could look at it as a forced loan from your children. Now there’s compassion.

And consider this; what she’s essentially doing is (get ready for this) partially privatizing the handling of retirement benefits! She’s not talking about a $1000 boost in your Social Security benefits, she’s talking about your own, personal 401(k). You gotta’ give her credit for coming around, even a little bit. But again, we’re swimming in irony here..

And yet, it still really just is vote buying, if clothed in privatization. If at first you don’t succeed, buy, buy again.

So whatever happened to Hoover’s promise? Well, a scant 7 months into his administration, the Great Depression dashed all his plans for prosperity, proving once again that no matter the promises a presidential candidate makes, the future isn’t always perfectly predictable. (Just ask George W. Bush about the first September after he took office.)

The best a President or Prime Minister can do is make economic conditions as favorable as possible, so that if stock markets or buildings come crashing down, you will be in the best position to recover. Redistributing wealth through an inefficient bureaucracy isn’t the way to do that.

I’ll leave you with a quote talking about the state of the republic:

Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions – everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

No, not our republic. This poet was talking about the Roman empire of the first century, but the results of relying more and more on government rather than ourselves are the same regardless of your time period. If Mrs. Clinton is elected President, perhaps we would need to update this observation just a little. The People may now be anxiously hoping for bread, circuses, and 401(k)s.

Consider that.

Technorati Tags: Shire Network News, Adil Zeshan, Herbert Hoover, Hillary Clinton, socialism, Social Security, bread and circuses

When you want to buy something, especially a high-ticket item — let’s say a car — you want to do your research first. You have certain things that are important to you, as well as those things you think would be nifty to have, and balance that with how much your needs and wants are going to cost you. Then, you make your choice, good or bad, and you buy a car. You may buy just what you need, or you may buy more than that, but whatever the price, you are responsible for it. Your neighbor can neither tell you what to buy nor should your neighbor pay for any part of it, even the excess gas if you buy a guzzler. You pay the money, so you control the choice, and the consequences.

But with something more personal, like health insurance, liberals seem to think that experts in their ivory tower should manage the health care spending of us all. The lure is that just pay them a fee and they’ll run the whole healthcare system for you. Don’t worry about cost. The upside, they tell you, is that you may get more healthcare than you pay for. The downside, they don’t tell you, is that any money you don’t use you also don’t keep. This “forced charity” (oxymoron) is held up as the way to make sure we all get what we need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (Great line, wonder who said it.)

But that is just the foot in the door. As with the car, when you pay, you decide how much or little gas mileage you’re willing to pay for, how much luxury you want, and what you can do without. You neighbor doesn’t have a say because he’s not paying for it. In a nationalized health care system, however, whoever is paying now has that power over you, and not just which doctor you go to. Folks in the UK are finding that out.

Failing to follow a healthy lifestyle could lead to free NHS treatment being denied under the Tory plans.

Patients would be handed “NHS Health Miles Cards” allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.

Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services – such as jumping the queue for council housing.

But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.

Those who abused the system – by calling an ambulance when a trip to the GP would be sufficient, or telephoning out of hours with needless queries – could also be penalised.

The report calls for a greater emphasis on the “citizen’s responsibility” to be healthy and says no one should expect taxpayers to fund their unhealthy lifestyles.

Ironically, I heartily agree with the statement that “no one should expect taxpayers to fund their unhealthy lifestyles”. However, because the government is forcing taxpayers to fund their neighbors’ poor choices, now the government has to step in and make your lifestyle choices. It’s not that I don’t think people should be as preventative as they can health-wise, it’s just that I don’t think the Health Police should be, in effect, roaming the streets making sure you’re running your daily 2 miles or doing your 25 situps, and shutting down food stores that don’t serve items that are up to government standards. The result is the same, with or without a London bobby walking the beat.

When the government pays, the government calls the shots. All the shots.

Technorati Tags: health care, NHS Health Miles Card, Tory, socialism

Same conservative drumbeat, different song, but the beat goes on.

Two years after the devastating floods that followed Hurricane Katrina, the rebuilding of New Orleans, and much of the Gulf Coast, has largely taken two paths: communities that have rebuilt themselves using private funds, insurance money and sheer will — and publicly funded efforts that have moved much more slowly.

Federal, state and local governments have struggled to speed up the release of funds and restore infrastructure. None of the 115 “critical priority projects” identified by city officials has been completed: For example, New Orleans’ police superintendent still works out of a trailer, as do most of the city’s firefighters. And analysts at the city’s crime lab don’t have a laboratory to match DNA samples.

Private funds also generally indicate that more personal effort is going into the project than those who, waiting on big government money, are also waiting on big government action. The more big government is relied upon, the slower things go, and the more people tend to avoid aiding in the cause because, hey, the government will help them. In that sense, government aid can be society’s own worst enemy, in the long term.

Technorati Tags: Katrina, New Orleans, government aid, conservative

This is the 2nd and final part of my analysis of an open letter from Anne Rice. Part 1 can be found here.

Abortion

Anne Rice spends most of her letter covering this issue, and she starts with an assertion that, to me, shows a lack of consideration of the history of the issue.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

Ms. Rice does touch on these historical issues lightly later on, and I’ll hit them more in-depth then, but even looking at how the abortion issue generally falls between the parties today, I don’t see this as making sense. What I hear from Democrats are things like John Kerry with this sentiment:

I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many. I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman’s choice. It’s between a woman, God and her doctor. That’s why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.

If one’s commitment to Christianity should be “absolute”, as Ms. Rice has said, there is a big problem with this statement, that is generally the line religious Democrats use when talking about abortion, and that is the canard about legislating one’s religious faith, or sometimes call ramming one’s religion down your throat. Civil rights are very much a moral issue, but does Sen. Kerry have the same problem with legislating that? No, he’s very willing to impose his view on KKK members, and rightly so. It’s right, it’s moral and it’s the law. Legislators all throughout our country’s history, and more so in our early history, based many of their decisions partly or mostly on their religious faith. This excuse is disingenuous.

Regarding Hillary Clinton, NARAL gave her a 100% score on her 2006 voting record (PDF), and she’s a big supporter of Roe v Wade. See here for other details. You won’t curb abortions by voting the way she does. Like her husband, she’ll talk the talk, but watch the way she votes.

When voting, as Ms. Rice says, “Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian”. If there is a substantial difference between Ms. Rice’s vote and Sen. Kerry’s or Clinton’s vote, I’d like to know what she thinks it might be. Both votes affect more than just the voter, and one’s Christianity shouldn’t be compartmentalized between private and public life.

In one sense, votes by representatives will, to different extents, reflect the people represented rather than the representatives views. At the same time, by that very title, the representative represents their constituents views and values, and his or her own views are part of that; he or she was voted in partially or mostly because of their views. It’s certainly not always a perfect fit between the politician and the constituents, but Sen. Kerry’s statement takes his religious beliefs totally and completely out of the equation. If Democratic politicians, in general, can’t bring themselves to vote against abortion, how in the world they be better in stopping the horror of it?
Read the rest of this entry

This is one of my longer posts, possibly the longest I’ve done on the blog. What happened was, I was reading an open letter from a Christian planning on voting a particular way, and as I read further and further into it, one objection after another kept coming to my mind, and one problem after another regarding the writer’s reasons kept getting in the way. Finally, I realized I’d have to just set aside some of my typical day-to-day blogging of the link-and-quick-comment type, and go in-depth into the problems I see with the author, and Christians in general, who vote Democratic for specifically Christian reasons, and especially regarding the social issues brought up in the letter. Pull up a cup of coffee and sit back.

Anne Rice is a Catholic author. I’ll admit to not being too well-read, but as a Protestant my knowledge of Catholic authors is even more limited. Therefore, I’m not sure how much Ms. Rice’s views are mainstream Catholic, although whether or not they are really isn’t the crux of this post. I do want to discuss the views she espouses, and espouses quite well as an author. That she is a Catholic and I am a Protestant has really no bearing on my criticism of her recent public letter dated August 10. I know Protestants who would agree with her on these issues, so this is not a denominational thing. She professes Christianity, as do I, and we have very similar goals, as far as I can tell, on the topics she discusses, and yet we’re voting differently. Ms. Rice wrote a lengthy letter to her readers on her main web site (no permalink so don’t know how long it’ll stay on the front page) about why she is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. They reasons she lists for that endorsement, to me, run completely counter to her list of important issues and goals. If she is truly concerned about those goals, I don’t follow her endorsement, nor the endorsement of other of my friends and acquaintances of any Democrat in the current group. I want to address the inconsistencies I see in this post.

Ms. Rice starts out with her Christian and Catholic creds, which I respect and am willing to accept. She talks about how, while the separation of church and state is a good idea, the voter does not have that prohibition, and in fact must consider their vote based on their religion.

Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

I agree wholeheartedly. But, she also correctly notes, we have only 2 political parties in this country. (She believes, as do I, that a vote for neither Democrat or Republican, whether it’s a non-vote or a vote for a 3rd party, is essentially a vote for one of the two major ones, no matter how you slice it.) In short:

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

And that last clause is where the disagreement begins.

Charitable Giving

The first paragraph of explanation deals with giving.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving ones neighbors and loving ones enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

First of all, neither the religious right nor the religious left have a lock on charitable giving. At the same time, as was noted on this post regarding a study by Arthur Brooks, conservatives outgive liberals by quite a significant amount. How does this relate to how the political parties differ in their view of the government’s role in this? Ms. Rice, I believe, falls into a trap by simplistically equating the advocacy of government charity with Jesus’ admonition to the individual to be charitable. Democrats say the government should give more, so by her reckoning thy are more in line with her Christian view. However, it has always made me wonder how when Jesus tells me, personally, to be charitable, that somehow this means that I should also use the government to force my neighbor, under penalty of jail, to be “charitable”. I put “charitable” in quotes because when there’s force involved, there’s no real act of charity. How Democrat Christians get from point A to point Z on this boggles my mind. Another statistic from Brooks’ study brings this point home; People who believe the government does not have a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

On top of this, the bureaucratic inefficiency filter that we’re all forced to funnel our “charitable” taxes through siphons money away from the needy, as does the massive fraud that goes on in a big government program that has little accountability.

Conservatives believe that forcibly taking money isn’t charity, and that it is not government’s role to rob from Peter to pay Paul, and that the way the government handles this creates dependency and causes further problems, like giving fathers a disincentive to stick around. Because of this, conservatives give more of their own money to local charities where the administrative costs are much lower. The Republican party, the current home of most conservative political ideas in this country, purports to support these goals, and while they don’t always follow those principles, they have done better at this than Democrats. An expanded role of government in the area of giving to the poor is not the best way for that to happen, and as a Christian I believe it’s not moral to force others to give when they don’t want to. Again, Jesus asks me to give; He didn’t ask me to force others to.

Ms. Rice, in ticking off a laundry list of values, seems to be falling for the framing of the issue that Democrats have put forth; welfare = caring. There are other ways to care, which can have much better results.

Part 2 tomorrow.

Technorati Tags: Anne Rice, Catholic, Protestant, religion and politics, charity, welfare, abortion, Democrats, Republicans, social issues

This is another reason why the US government shouldn’t be spending borrowed money to finance extra-constitutional spending.

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning – for the first time – that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.

Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

Described as China’s “nuclear option” in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.

It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

When the federal government is asked to do things the Constitution doesn’t tell it to do, and when more and more money flows through it, and with that more and more power, it’s hard to stop spending. And with that comes borrowing. And with that comes slavery. The same thing could happen even if spending were kept in the context of the Constitution, but once you escape its limits, there is then no limit.

The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. – Proverbs 22:7 (NIV)

Technorati Tags: China, debt, Communism, borrowing, deficit

Arnold Kling exposes a new movie.

The Acton Institute has produced the most subversive movie I have ever seen. The Call of the Entrepreneur, which is being released on an agonizingly slow schedule, is a threat to tyranny everywhere, including here at home.

The movie’s message is that entrepreneurs are creators of wealth, Wall Street financiers are enablers of economic progress, and the villains of the world are people like the Communist leaders in China and American religious leaders who rail against capitalism.

Here’s the short description from the movie’s website:

A merchant banker. A failing dairy farmer. A refugee from Communist China. One risked his savings. One risked his farm. One risked his life. Why do their stories matter? Because how we view entrepreneurs – as greedy or altruistic, as virtuous or vicious – shapes the destinies of individuals and nations.

But there are probably too many impediments to it to be shown widely in this country. Kling explains:

But it has very little chance of being shown in public high schools in America. It is far too explicit. “Call of the Entrepreneur” features the Reverend Robert A. Sirico, including a full-frontal shot of his clerical collar. As producer Jay W. Richards points out, the movie uses “the G word.”

As a Jew, I am certain that I missed a number of the religious aspects of the movie. There were subtle references to Christian doctrine that went right past me. Perhaps there are Christians who would be more aware of the context and, based on their knowledge, might even take offense at the film’s stance. I imagine that passionate atheists would tend to be turned off. But I think that a typical high school student could be exposed to the religion in “Call of the Entrepreneur” without being permanently scarred or corrupted.

I would argue that “Call of the Entrepreneur” and “An Inconvenient Truth” are both religious films. However, unlike Al Gore’s movie about global warming, “Call of the Entrepreneur” steers clear of sensationalism, dogma, and misleading half-truths. It is ironic that public teachers and parents are happy to see “An Inconvenient Truth” in the classroom, but “Call of the Entrepreneur” would probably be greeted with protests if it were shown.

Kling’s being sarcastic, of course, but makes his point clear. The more we see government as savior, the less freedom we have. The more the entrepreneurial spirit is encouraged, the better it is for all of us, the poor included. Don’t give a man a fish, teach him to fish, and allow him to open his own fish business without excessive interference. That’s how freedom works.

Technorati Tags: Call of the Entrepreneur, Robert A. Sirico, Acton Institute, Arnold Kling

…has been cut in half.

The nation’s budget deficit will drop to $205 billion in the fiscal year that ends in September, less than half of what it was at its peak in 2004, according to new White House estimates.

President Bush planned to discuss the figures in an afternoon appearance.

The new figure is considerably smaller than original estimates. In February, the White House predicted that this year’s deficit would be $244 billion because of stronger-than-expected revenue collections. The deficit hit a peak of $413 billion in 2004 and was $248 billion last year.

And with no tax increase? Those on the Left who both decried the Bush tax cuts, while at the same time morphed into fiscal conservatives regarding the spending by the Republican Congress, will have a tough time with this news. Heads may explode if they have to credit Bush with anything let alone tax cuts. Fiscal conservatives who have always been fiscal conservatives will, of course, have no consistency issues with both the tax cut results and with continuing to push for less spending.

Technorati Tags: economy, deficit, tax cuts

OK, that’s a “dog bites man” headline if there ever was one, but here’s the latest example. A report by CAP, the Center for American Progress (PDF is here, though I had trouble loading it into Acrobat Reader), entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” notes how many more conservative talk radio stations there are than liberal ones. No news there.

What the report suggests is that the government should step in and “fix” this. Again, no news there. What’s really funny is how they frame it. They play both the race and gender card, and bring up the non sequiter of who owns the radio stations. From the coverage on “Think Progress”, here’s the two paragraph they quote from the report discussing this (emphasis theirs).

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. […]

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

So if only more radio stations were owned by women and minorities, we’d have more liberal talk radio.

Short answer: No.

Liberals once again demonstrate their lack of familiarity with that concept called the “free market”. People don’t listen to a radio program — music, talk, news, entertainment, whatever — based on who owns the station. They listen to what they want to listen to based on content. They have their preferences, and that’s what they listen to. This isn’t to say a rock-and-roller won’t occasionally peek over to the jazz station, or that folks can have very eclectic tastes, but by and large people stick with their preferences.

Now, a radio station stays in business, generally, by making money. (This is central to the “free market” thing. Liberals, please read this. Others can skip to the next paragraph.) They do this by finding a need or want in the community and filling it. Not enough hard rock? Play it! Not enough 18th century classical? Get it! Not enough hard news? Report it! Not enough comedy? Program it! But here’s the catch: if you’re wrong — if there is enough 18th century classical music on the radio — you won’t have enough listeners to allow the advertising revenue pay for your expenses.

If you’re operating at a loss, generally you go out of business, or try another idea (not enough 20th century avant-garde new age pipe organ music?). Unless you’re Air America, in which you just get infusion after infusion of cash from big, corporate rich guys, and if that fails, you legislate.

And that’s precisely what CAP is suggesting; making laws to determine how much anybody can own in a market so that they can, maybe, get people to listen to their programs. As I said, a non sequiter. When Air America came to Atlanta, the radio station carried the whole slate of talkers, morning til night. I would occasionally listen to Randi Rhodes on the way home just to hear how the other half thought, but I just couldn’t believe that’s what the other half really thought. Way too much conspiracy theory. So I didn’t listen to her with any regularity. A year or so later, the station is sold (most likely due to coming in last in the market with a 0.0 rating), changes format to an Eclectic Arts station and Air America was off the air in Atlanta. Didn’t matter who the owner was. It was unprofitable in the extreme. (And the new owner went from owning 1 to 2 radio stations; definitely an “independent local owner”.)

And that’s why Air America and “progressive” radio in general isn’t out there on the airwaves as much as conservative talk. Hardly anyone listens to them. It’s a simple business calculus. But instead of making their product better, the Left seeks to get the government to force the issue.

Are you now waiting for the Left to propose the same thing for the newspaper or broadcast TV media as well? Hold not thy breath. A “Fairness Doctrine” that covers more than just radio? That’ll never happen, because those other outlets generally lean left. Which goes to show that when the Left whines about fairness, it’s all one-sided. Nothing fair about it.

Technorati Tags: liberal, media, Center for American Progress, talk radio, Think Progress, free market, Air America, Randi Rhodes, Atlanta, Georgia, Fairness Doctrine

An Kenyan expert in economics, James Shikwati, was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel. The interview got off to a quick start as Shikwati surprised the journalist.

SPIEGEL:Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa…

Shikwati: … for God’s sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

Massive injections of money, good intentions, and virtually nothing to show for it. Sounds just like the welfare state here. The journalist is confused, bewildered.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Why is it a paradox if it simply a case of doing what doesn’t work on a much larger scale? This exposes the incredibly simplistic assumption on the part of liberal ideology that throwing money a a problem really should work…in theory. As conservatives have been arguing for decades, however, an understanding of economics helps explain this “paradox”. In answer to the question, Shikwati explains.

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa’s problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn’t even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.

Being taught to be beggars, dependence on government, dampening entrepreneurship, and government corruption involved in the cash transfer. Sounds just like the welfare…well, you get the idea.

Well, now our journalist is flummoxed. Doesn’t someone have to help them? Shikwati slaps down this dependency thinking, and explains how food shipments both prop up corrupt governments and at the same time destroy the local economy’s incentive.

SPIEGEL: Even in a country like Kenya, people are starving to death each year. Someone has got to help them.

Shikwati: But it has to be the Kenyans themselves who help these people. When there’s a drought in a region of Kenya, our corrupt politicians reflexively cry out for more help. This call then reaches the United Nations World Food Program — which is a massive agency of apparatchiks who are in the absurd situation of, on the one hand, being dedicated to the fight against hunger while, on the other hand, being faced with unemployment were hunger actually eliminated. It’s only natural that they willingly accept the plea for more help. And it’s not uncommon that they demand a little more money than the respective African government originally requested. They then forward that request to their headquarters, and before long, several thousands tons of corn are shipped to Africa …

SPIEGEL: … corn that predominantly comes from highly-subsidized European and American farmers …

Shikwati: … and at some point, this corn ends up in the harbor of Mombasa. A portion of the corn often goes directly into the hands of unsrupulous politicians who then pass it on to their own tribe to boost their next election campaign. Another portion of the shipment ends up on the black market where the corn is dumped at extremely low prices. Local farmers may as well put down their hoes right away; no one can compete with the UN’s World Food Program. And because the farmers go under in the face of this pressure, Kenya would have no reserves to draw on if there actually were a famine next year. It’s a simple but fatal cycle.

And it just gets better after that. It included an admission from a tyrant that they indeed waste the aid, a exposure of exaggerated AIDS numbers for profit, and an African biochemist stuck being a chauffeur to aid workers. You simply must read the whole thing. It really turns on its head the idea that huge amounts of aid helps a nation, or even a continent. Giving to the poor is one thing. Destroying the individual spirit by destroying their livelihood is entirely another. The interview concludes with the journalist, playing the part of the liberal to the hilt (and, based on the full interview, not really play-acting) asking in desperation…

SPIEGEL: What are the Germans supposed to do?

Shikwati: If they really want to fight poverty, they should completely halt development aid and give Africa the opportunity to ensure its own survival. Currently, Africa is like a child that immediately cries for its babysitter when something goes wrong. Africa should stand on its own two feet.

Rugged individualism, combined with personal, not massive, charitable giving. That is the responsible position.

Technorati Tags: Africa, James Shikwati, foreign aid, United Nations, World Food Program, Kenya, AIDS, poverty