4-8-07 Easter Morning Breakfast
As I sit here at my computer, I can plan ahead for my next meal. Since I got up so early this morning, that next meal will be breakfast. My wife and I talked last night about going out for breakfast this morning. I suppose we'll go out to Bickford's, since they have such nice large booths, and the service is quite good.
Meanwhile, this story in the NY Times describes how people in Zambia are planning their meals. It also describes how those meals get to Zambia. It's an interesting article. It's the kind of article that, I suppose, many Americans will have read while eating breakfast yesterday. Just one of many articles, and probably read with some interest, here and there.
I didn't find that article by reading the NY Times, however. I found it as a link within a commentary in a blog that I read. Tom Barnett is a blogger that I read nearly every day, basically for his insights into what's going on in the world. He's a person whose activities place him in a unique position to be able to point things out to the rest of us who aren't in such a unique position. He's also a very optimistic person, in my opinion, because his two books have been an inspiration for some of the most realistic solutions and proposals for our future that I've ever come across. He's a bit miffed about that article, however, and in an atypically ranting style has provided the story behind the story in the Times.
His objections, however, do miss one aspect of the Bush push for quicker disposition of foodstocks in Zambia. The only reason I can possibly imagine as to why Bush would be in favor of investing American tax dollars into a cash flow outside our borders instead of inside would be that it would make it SO much easier for some ripe bundles of that cash to magically disappear into badly accounted pockets. That sort of thing has been quite a lucrative windfall for Bush cronies, buddies and pals over the past six years. Push the cash into programs that can later be cited for "bad accounting", apologize that it was an admittedly poor level of accountability, but then point out that "we really only wanted to expedite things, get these people helped more quickly..." and so forth. It's an old story with this administration.
Essentially, whether the system of American-only apparatus being given the funds, or the cash for foreign crops system gets used, the people in Zambia who could be fed (but won't be fed in time to prevent their deaths) will simply continue in its status quo. No change in the method equals up to 50k dying. Changing it will blow the cash into Bush crony's pockets, however... otherwise the Bush administration wouldn't be in favor of the change.
In about an hour, my wife and I will calmly make our way over to Bickford's and choose a booth by a window. We'll be served coffee, and we'll sip our coffee while we deliberate over the menu selections, and at some point the waitress will take our order. Then, after a few idyllic minutes of chit-chat and gazing out the window, we'll be served our individual breakfasts and we'll savor every bite. When we've eaten all we can manage to eat, and when we're both fully sated, I'll ask for the check, and calculate a 20% tip for the waitress, put the money on the table and we'll then we'll go back home.
And during the period of time between when I began writing this and when my wife and I will drive back home from breakfast, I can be certain that some insanely large number of human beings in Zambia will have died from starvation. They will have died, but could have been saved, for one reason and one reason only... greed in Washington, DC.
Meanwhile, this story in the NY Times describes how people in Zambia are planning their meals. It also describes how those meals get to Zambia. It's an interesting article. It's the kind of article that, I suppose, many Americans will have read while eating breakfast yesterday. Just one of many articles, and probably read with some interest, here and there.
I didn't find that article by reading the NY Times, however. I found it as a link within a commentary in a blog that I read. Tom Barnett is a blogger that I read nearly every day, basically for his insights into what's going on in the world. He's a person whose activities place him in a unique position to be able to point things out to the rest of us who aren't in such a unique position. He's also a very optimistic person, in my opinion, because his two books have been an inspiration for some of the most realistic solutions and proposals for our future that I've ever come across. He's a bit miffed about that article, however, and in an atypically ranting style has provided the story behind the story in the Times.
His objections, however, do miss one aspect of the Bush push for quicker disposition of foodstocks in Zambia. The only reason I can possibly imagine as to why Bush would be in favor of investing American tax dollars into a cash flow outside our borders instead of inside would be that it would make it SO much easier for some ripe bundles of that cash to magically disappear into badly accounted pockets. That sort of thing has been quite a lucrative windfall for Bush cronies, buddies and pals over the past six years. Push the cash into programs that can later be cited for "bad accounting", apologize that it was an admittedly poor level of accountability, but then point out that "we really only wanted to expedite things, get these people helped more quickly..." and so forth. It's an old story with this administration.
Essentially, whether the system of American-only apparatus being given the funds, or the cash for foreign crops system gets used, the people in Zambia who could be fed (but won't be fed in time to prevent their deaths) will simply continue in its status quo. No change in the method equals up to 50k dying. Changing it will blow the cash into Bush crony's pockets, however... otherwise the Bush administration wouldn't be in favor of the change.
In about an hour, my wife and I will calmly make our way over to Bickford's and choose a booth by a window. We'll be served coffee, and we'll sip our coffee while we deliberate over the menu selections, and at some point the waitress will take our order. Then, after a few idyllic minutes of chit-chat and gazing out the window, we'll be served our individual breakfasts and we'll savor every bite. When we've eaten all we can manage to eat, and when we're both fully sated, I'll ask for the check, and calculate a 20% tip for the waitress, put the money on the table and we'll then we'll go back home.
And during the period of time between when I began writing this and when my wife and I will drive back home from breakfast, I can be certain that some insanely large number of human beings in Zambia will have died from starvation. They will have died, but could have been saved, for one reason and one reason only... greed in Washington, DC.
posted by Jeff Barnard at 7:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home