3rd world countries question, and solution

[speedgod^s13]

Everyone has seen the infomercials where all they film all the poor kids, in these poor countries, and ask for donations, right? I mean, there are just tons, and tons of kids. Now, if you don't have food or water, how the fuck do you have the energy, to make so many fucking kids? Why would you even consider bringing kids into this world, knowing damn well, that they are going to live a life just as fucked up, if not worse than yours??!! What I think these countries need, is for us to send them a shit load of condoms, along with the food, water, etc. Seriously, no joke. Teaching them safe sex practices, will benefit them on an epic scale. Now, I know a lot of them won't use the condoms and or reject the idea of safe sex, but imagine how much of in impact it would have, if just half them did!!! These countries seriously need population control, and I think this is one of the ways it's possible.

[jspaeth]

Originally Posted by speedgod^s13

Everyone has seen the infomercials where all they film all the poor kids, in these poor countries, and ask for donations, right? I mean, there are just tons, and tons of kids. Now, if you don't have food or water, how the fuck do you have the energy, to make so many fucking kids? Why would you even consider bringing kids into this world, knowing damn well, that they are going to live a life just as fucked up, if not worse than yours??!! What I think these countries need, is for us to send them a shit load of condoms, along with the food, water, etc. Seriously, no joke. Teaching them safe sex practices, will benefit them on an epic scale. Now, I know a lot of them won't use the condoms and or reject the idea of safe sex, but imagine how much of in impact it would have, if just half them did!!! These countries seriously need population control, and I think this is one of the ways it's possible.

Agreed....even in the US, too....having kids when you can't afford them makes so many people poorer than they need to be.

.."but everyone should have an equal right to have children"...........yes i agree, but I shouldn't have to pay for that.

[speedgod^s13]

Originally Posted by jspaeth

Agreed....even in the US, too....having kids when you can't afford them makes so many people poorer than they need to be.

.."but everyone should have an equal right to have children"...........yes i agree, but I shouldn't have to pay for that.

You know, I think i'm going to edit the title. You are right, it happens everywhwere. Not just other countries. Here in Hawaii where I live, (i'm sure it ain't different anywhere else!) it's a much too common site, for a family with 7-8 kids, using food stamps. Yes, everyone should have the right to bear children, but when you have the means to do so. To me, it seems as though the children are just a way of getting a bigger check from the government every month. I think that there should be restrictions for people that are on welfare, to not be allowed to have children, or only X amount of children. I know that this will never happen, but i'm sick and tired of seeing my hard earned money, go to these irresponsible parents. If you can make kids, you can get a job. I should make a shirt like that, but i'd probably get mobbed from these welfare bastards.

[I LUV MY S13]

lack of education and birth control

[HyperTek]

yeah I agree, and i think they jus fawk as a good thing/something to look forward to get their mind off the hard times. They gonna do it anyways, at least educate them so they can enjoy it more without the consequences of children and STDs.

[flip3d]

We need to put like a valve or something on peoples nuts so they cant have kids unless they qualify for it. Here at least. You can't fix the problem in 3rd world nations. Just let nature run its course.

[ronmcdon]

Originally Posted by jspaeth

Agreed....even in the US, too....having kids when you can't afford them makes so many people poorer than they need to be.

.."but everyone should have an equal right to have children"...........yes i agree, but I shouldn't have to pay for that.

well if you're going to talk ethics (everyone have a right to have kids),
then likewise bringing a kid into the world of pain & suffering is about the most selfish thing one can do.
I think in the US (where there is education & cheap contraceptives), that's just unforgiveable.
By having the kid (or worse, several) when you just aren't ready to do so,
you are effectively jeopardizing the to-be-born kid's chance of a future.

It's not just about having money either.
Some parents just don't have the time or patience to properly raise kids.
They should just acknowledge that beforehand and make the considerate choice.

Places in the 3rd world countries don't have that luxury of education we have & needed contraceptives.
It's more difficult to condemn circumstances far different from your own.

About the 'donations'.
It's not like you're forced to send $ over.
Whether or not your sympathy (or lack thereof) justifies your expense is your decision to make.

[fortezza]

Originally Posted by speedgod^s13

Everyone has seen the infomercials where all they film all the poor kids, in these poor countries, and ask for donations, right? I mean, there are just tons, and tons of kids. Now, if you don't have food or water, how the fuck do you have the energy, to make so many fucking kids? Why would you even consider bringing kids into this world, knowing damn well, that they are going to live a life just as fucked up, if not worse than yours??!! What I think these countries need, is for us to send them a shit load of condoms, along with the food, water, etc. Seriously, no joke. Teaching them safe sex practices, will benefit them on an epic scale. Now, I know a lot of them won't use the condoms and or reject the idea of safe sex, but imagine how much of in impact it would have, if just half them did!!! These countries seriously need population control, and I think this is one of the ways it's possible.

finally someone with some the same view as me. well kinda. I am tired of seeing people gripe about all the starving kids in the world, for 84 cents a day I can clothe feed and send a child to school.



its like that here in california too. the thing i know about my self, i am not able to barely provide for myself, why am i going to bring a child into my life, and create a burden for me, and everyone around me.

yes i like to have sex, i think all people do. but wrap it up wear a condom,

i'd like to keep my 84 cents, heck i get food stamps, and i only get $200 a month, that is not enough to live off of. each dependant you have i think you get $50 more, but what i learned in economics in school was from the time the pregnancy begins to the time that the child turns 18, it will cost over $1 million for just 1 child. thats about $52910.05 a year you would need to spend on the child. that might be a little excessive though.

i doubt these people donated that much anyways, the aids healthcare foundation donates 97 cents on each dollar donated, and i am pretty sure they'll give free condoms away too

[I LUV MY S13]

Originally Posted by HyperTek

yeah I agree, and i think they jus fawk as a good thing/something to look forward to get their mind off the hard times. They gonna do it anyways, at least educate them so they can enjoy it more without the consequences of children and STDs.

haha hell yeah sex is a natural thing, maybe they don't even know thats how babies are made? what condoms are/for?

[theicecreamdan]

As bad as it seems to us, their conditions are most likely all they have ever known. Having a family whether times are good or bad, improving or declining is going to happen. I agree we should be helping by bringing education and infrastructure to people that don't have it.

But who the fuck are we to say these people shouldn't have any kids and we should.

[blueshark123]

we can consider stds as Gods population control. I always said that if your financially unfit to take care of urself u should be forced to get ur tubes tied

[Phlip]

It is far too easy to sit back and say "send them some condoms with the food they're supposedly sending," or to say things like "they're selfish bringing kids into the world." In fact, it is quite silly to do so without looking at the whole of the situation.
I saw mention of the fact that the conditions that these people know is ALL they have known, due to the raping of their resources and the profitability of keeping them from being industrialized, even in the face of lip-service "efforts" to feed/clothe/medicate them... One must add to that the most natural of human reflexes is procreation, why in the FUCK would you expect people who know nothing other than being alive (even if only BARELY that) to not do the ONE thing that mammals do?

My issue, though, is with the (usually catholic) churches that go on missions to these places. Yes, they bring food and t-shirts saying "Orlando Magic, 2009 NBA Champions" (yes, really!), but they ALSO bring an archaic and damned fucking near nihilist approach to the one thing that would help to stem the tide of STD and overpopulation in that they REFUSE to concede that perhaps, just damned maybe prevention is better than cure.
Honestly, it is selfish to say "if you're unfit to take care of a kid, then you need your tubes tied" without first addressing the fact that these countries have no fucking health systems and the nations that left them in these spoils (usually France, in the case of Africa and Haiti to an extent) did nothing to right their wrongs that caused the situation they now find themselves in.
Again, the people in these countries are very rarely at fault for their own shortfalls, and I refuse to victim-blame any single damned person in these countries. I blame the fake-ass "charitable efforts" for missing the damned point and therefore hemorrhaging cash into the problem without thinking to actually SOLVE the problem.

The problem is that there is more profit in the treatment of a problem than the elimination of it.

[ronmcdon]

Idk if its fair to fault the entire Catholic church for the misfortunes of 3rd world nations.
I would think if anything, its better than nothing at all.
The church usually provides some aid that wouldnt be there otherwise.
Better a lousy t-shirt than none at all.

Its not like other sects or faiths wouldnt have their shortcomings.
I know I would prefer the Catholic presence over that of a hostile fundamentalists.

The Catholic Churchs position on birth control isnt helping things anywhere in the world.
But then again some level of personal responsibility should also be considered.
Most followers of the church dont exactly obey everything the church preaches.
Its convenient to find somebody else's agenda to justify your own.

[Phlip]

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

Idk if its fair to fault the entire Catholic church for the misfortunes of 3rd world nations.
I would think if anything, its better than nothing at all.
The church usually provides some aid that wouldnt be there otherwise.
Better a lousy t-shirt than none at all.

Oh, I don't fault the catholic church for everything in this, but their apprach is terribly misguided and seems quite disingenuous to me. Yes, it is beyond sad that we have to apply the "well at least they're trying" thing to this, but speaking specifically to the birth control and STD prevention thing, they are complete and utter fucking fail, if only for failing to separate belief from preservation of human life.

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

Its not like other sects or faiths wouldnt have their shortcomings.
I know I would prefer the Catholic presence over that of a hostile fundamentalists.

The Catholic Churchs position on birth control isnt helping things anywhere in the world.

Agreed and agreed, but only with the concession that "hostile fundamentalists" are not a mutually exclusive group belonging to one religion.

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

But then again some level of personal responsibility should also be considered.

That is victim blaming in my opinion. It is nigh impossible and borderline irresponsible for holding someone accountable for something that they've had NO control over for generations.
Haiti would be an example of this.

Originally Posted by ronmcdon

Most followers of the church dont exactly obey everything the church preaches.
Its convenient to find somebody else's agenda to justify your own.

Yes, and therein lies my issue. "Look, we'll help you with the things that you have been institutionally unable to access if you agree to believe what we believe," is how it comes across many times.

I know it seems like I am going in on the Catholic church. I would be less so inclined to do so if their approach was not so seemingly self-serving, which serves as the polar opposite of what they're supposed to be teaching.
This thread isn't about that, so I will leave that back there.


My issue and offering to this discussion would be to beckon people to think about what it is they're saying before laying blame on a set of victims for things they were powerless to create and are even MORE powerless to change.
Since Haiti is the topic of world conversation this week, i will use their plight as an example:

Haiti was forced to pay France for its freedom from slavery. Let us not forget that they didn't enter this slavery voluntarily. When they couldn’t afford the ransom, France (and other countries, including the United States) helpfully offered high-interest loans. By 1900, 80% of Haiti’s annual budget went to paying off its “reparation” debt. They didn’t make the last payment until 1947. Just 10 years later, dictator François Duvalier took over the country and promptly bankrupted it, taking out more high-interest loans to pay for his corrupt lifestyle. The Duvalier family, with the blind-eye financial assistance of Western countries, killed 10s of thousands of Haitians, until the Haitian people overthrew them in 1986. Today, Haiti is still paying off the debt of an oppressive dictator no one would help them get rid of for 30 years.

The rest of the world continues to refuse to forgive this debt.

That, gentlefolk, is one example of how a third world country is born. The specifically described set of circumstances is the perfect storm that creates the poorest country in the western world.

[SlideWell]

some people want to help people that are HIV posative and still having sex and producing children when they cant even feed themselves properly. people had big families here in the old days, and a lot of which had farms that need young kids to help run, haha. anyway, i agree on the condoms and sex education. Africa, seen on many informercials seeking help, has a 60%+ HIV/AIDS population. im not about to send money over there. if im going to donate money, it will for stem cell research and others. i believe there should be a cap on how many children people can have and who can have them, but thatll never happen here, not in 100 years. maybe in a few thousand like in the movies

[flip3d]

Do you guys honestly even care?

I really don't. Just leave them alone and let them evolve naturally.

If they have something we want, we can trade for it. Isn't that how shit came to be in the first place?

[Phlip]

I would like to think that there are decent enough people left in the world to actually care about the plight of those other than themselves...
Apparently, I was wrong. Why should we care about those people? Hell, they were gonna die anyway, why drag it out?

[victorw210]

we had an international student panel at my school and the kid from nigeria who is in his early twenties said that condoms are very rare and safe sex is not practiced where he is from in nigeria, just a random tid bit of info

[TheWolf]

one can argue that foodstamps created this class of "welfare moocher".

You know why you didn't see families with 7-8 kids living on welfare and foodstamps before in the 50's-60's?

Because they all died.

Sure I sound like an insensitive prick but this is a classic example of how the gov't moved in to "help the poor" people and the result is they created more poor people. The truth though is they have created a whole indigent class of permantly poor voters that will vote for what gets them more free stuff. It's like rigging your own game. These people have never been off assistance and will never get off assistance. They are permanently attached to the liberal tit of america. 1-8 kids now will eat food stamp meals at somepoint. 1 IN 8! Thats either because the rich quit having kids or the poor starting having a shit ton of them. Well actually if you look at it. Families that make over 75k a year have on hand 1.2 kids. Families that survive on government assistance have on had about 2.5 kids. More than double. The error is also in that there are more kids without parents in the poor bracket so many are going unclaimed so 2.5 is a conservative number.

In africa, they breed to survive. I have 10 kids knowing 6 will die before 16. But in america. This is "inhumane". Yet no one wants to tackle this "inhumane problem" outside of their own backyard. So it's inhumane if it happens here but not over there. Africa, pit of death, america, save everyone. Liberal Logic in action.

In america, liberals want it all. They want to believe in evolution over creation. They want to believe spending is not related to taxing. Credit will last forever. Kinda if we build it they will come principles. But when it comes to seeing these theories in action. To seeing the raw side of darwins theory on natural selection. They don't want that and thus interrupt and skew the natural circle. We can't have poor peoples kids dieing. That's not right. We'll give them free food, rent assistance, even cash, free electric and water. A stimulus. A discounted car. And the guy who's working hard, it's all at his expense. At his future social security check, his future medicare, all goes because we can't have this in our backyard. It's good to save the poor. But this programs original intention wasn't to provide a comfortable living for people but to allow people to not starve to death, to exist. Exist and comfortable living are not the same. They've got away from it's intention. It wasn't designed to be a safety net for the middle class. It was designed to be a safety net for the poor. If you couldn't make it in the USA at the poor class. This would keep you from dieing. It was a disgrace to be on foodstamps and welfare. No man would admit it. That was ultimate fail. Now it's the "in thing". Why work when you can get a minimum wage job for free. Stay home and play xbox all day with your friends who don't work. There's a whole societal class created by this program. The single mom with 8 kids. Well she gets a hefty tax credit for each one. They already get free health care. Free food. Free rent. They get free utilities or heavily subsidized. Mom even gets a little cash.

The best part is how they trade them out for cash. See how do you take a foodstamp and turn it into cash back. Well surprise folks, the poor maybe poor but they are crafty. So mom walks into the local quickie mart, buys a $7 gallon of milk, a $5 loaf of bread, and gets $5 back for a pack of cheap smokes. When uncle sam threw up the idea of a "price ceiling" for staples, ghetto quickie mart owners claimed they were infringing on their right to make a profit. While all at the gov't expense. It's quit common for poor people to pay 3x "normal rate" for wic staples. This is due to the underhanded cash back. Merchant gets paid. Has reciepts. Can even claim the missing money is "theft" and deduct it off his taxes. It's ok though. if you're caught trading foodstamps for cash you could face upto a 12 month suspension from the program. The enforcement here is what you call lack luster.

In short. Why do you see a single mom with 8 kids? Because liberals and the gov't created them.

[ryguy]

I feel that I am usually a compassionate person, but I will never give money to those charities. There are a few reasons, and one is sorta like what TheWolf was talking about with liberal America. If we give these people money now, we will be giving their children money, and their children's children money, and their children's children's children's money, for the rest of eternity. As harsh as it sounds, nature never intended for that many people to survive with the scant resources many of these people have.
Another reason is that I believe that money should go towards education, such as agricultural education, not an "African soup kitchen." It's like the proverb "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime." Somebody needs to TEACH these people how to sustain themselves, and give them aid with their endeavors by helping them farm, etc. Don't just take them on as a pity case, giving them a bowl of rice here and there, for the rest of forever.

[SR240DET]

Originally Posted by TheWolf

one can argue that foodstamps created this class of "welfare moocher".

You know why you didn't see families with 7-8 kids living on welfare and foodstamps before in the 50's-60's?

Because they all died.

Sure I sound like an insensitive prick but this is a classic example of how the gov't moved in to "help the poor" people and the result is they created more poor people. The truth though is they have created a whole indigent class of permantly poor voters that will vote for what gets them more free stuff. It's like rigging your own game. These people have never been off assistance and will never get off assistance. They are permanently attached to the liberal tit of america. 1-8 kids now will eat food stamp meals at somepoint. 1 IN 8! Thats either because the rich quit having kids or the poor starting having a shit ton of them. Well actually if you look at it. Families that make over 75k a year have on hand 1.2 kids. Families that survive on government assistance have on had about 2.5 kids. More than double. The error is also in that there are more kids without parents in the poor bracket so many are going unclaimed so 2.5 is a conservative number.

In africa, they breed to survive. I have 10 kids knowing 6 will die before 16. But in america. This is "inhumane". Yet no one wants to tackle this "inhumane problem" outside of their own backyard. So it's inhumane if it happens here but not over there. Africa, pit of death, america, save everyone. Liberal Logic in action.

In america, liberals want it all. They want to believe in evolution over creation. They want to believe spending is not related to taxing. Credit will last forever. Kinda if we build it they will come principles. But when it comes to seeing these theories in action. To seeing the raw side of darwins theory on natural selection. They don't want that and thus interrupt and skew the natural circle. We can't have poor peoples kids dieing. That's not right. We'll give them free food, rent assistance, even cash, free electric and water. A stimulus. A discounted car. And the guy who's working hard, it's all at his expense. At his future social security check, his future medicare, all goes because we can't have this in our backyard. It's good to save the poor. But this programs original intention wasn't to provide a comfortable living for people but to allow people to not starve to death, to exist. Exist and comfortable living are not the same. They've got away from it's intention. It wasn't designed to be a safety net for the middle class. It was designed to be a safety net for the poor. If you couldn't make it in the USA at the poor class. This would keep you from dieing. It was a disgrace to be on foodstamps and welfare. No man would admit it. That was ultimate fail. Now it's the "in thing". Why work when you can get a minimum wage job for free. Stay home and play xbox all day with your friends who don't work. There's a whole societal class created by this program. The single mom with 8 kids. Well she gets a hefty tax credit for each one. They already get free health care. Free food. Free rent. They get free utilities or heavily subsidized. Mom even gets a little cash.

The best part is how they trade them out for cash. See how do you take a foodstamp and turn it into cash back. Well surprise folks, the poor maybe poor but they are crafty. So mom walks into the local quickie mart, buys a $7 gallon of milk, a $5 loaf of bread, and gets $5 back for a pack of cheap smokes. When uncle sam threw up the idea of a "price ceiling" for staples, ghetto quickie mart owners claimed they were infringing on their right to make a profit. While all at the gov't expense. It's quit common for poor people to pay 3x "normal rate" for wic staples. This is due to the underhanded cash back. Merchant gets paid. Has reciepts. Can even claim the missing money is "theft" and deduct it off his taxes. It's ok though. if you're caught trading foodstamps for cash you could face upto a 12 month suspension from the program. The enforcement here is what you call lack luster.

In short. Why do you see a single mom with 8 kids? Because liberals and the gov't created them.

Evolution, the scientific observation of how organisms evolve over a period of time. How different species of organisms share a common ancestor. To say believe in evolution is the same as saying do you believe in gravity, atoms, biology, etc.

In other words, what atheist say is true. Secular humanism treats life as if it is our only one, so we try to bring the community together and help each other out for no reason, other than, to support the human race. No rewards, no punishment or judgment from a supernatural entity, just caring for our fellow humans because we give a shit. While from a creation view point is you should let them die off, survival of the fittest right? Sounds mighty darwin of you.

[RB24_S14]

I aggree with the condom idea. Kids dont have to come to this world to suffer.. But everyone has a right to have children. Its up to the parents, if they decide to have kids they should think about how they are going to support it first. And when they have a kid on "accident"..it really isnt. If they think it was an accident then their stupid f**ks if they dont know sex makes kids.

[Vision Garage]

Wheres the welfare line?



Altho we should be compassionate about the welfare of others, I think we should first worry about our own economy. Shit put a infomercial about donating to help fix our streets or donate to build a facility that takes in the homeless, clean them up and help them find jobs. I think these would be more beneficial to us at this point in time.

If you give a man a fish, he will be full for a day.
If you teach a man to fish, he will be full for life!

[theicecreamdan]

Originally Posted by Vision Garage

Wheres the welfare line?

Altho we should be compassionate about the welfare of others, I think we should first worry about our own economy. Shit put a infomercial about donating to help fix our streets or donate to build a facility that takes in the homeless, clean them up and help them find jobs. I think these would be more beneficial to us at this point in time.

If you give a man a fish, he will be full for a day.
If you teach a man to fish, he will be full for life!

Most of us make donations to fix streets and build homeless shelters, its called taxes. Just like any charitable entity though most of the money we "donate" is lost through administration and bureaucracy.

The reason we should care about people in these other countries is that historically we have benefited from the exploitation of these people's resources. And somebody is going to be exploiting them in the future, either for our good, or for our harm.

[MELLO*SOS]

So many kids in these poor countries, IMO come out of two things. First is the machismo attitude that most poor/undereducated people seem to have. They feel that somehow by having a lot of kids they are prolonging their legacy -- even if their legacy is nothing and their kids/country/world suffers as a result. The second comes from religions which require/suggest ppl have as many kids as possible, and/or forbid any kind of birth control. Which also has to do with the high rate of STDs and other social/medical problems. At some point people are bound to realize that, for the most part, religions cause more problems than they cure. If nothing else they give broke, uneducated, disease ridden people something to quarrel and kill over. Also as a justification for ruining this world we're in now, in the (false) promise of some glorious afterlife.

[allntrlundrgrnd]

Birth control may not be the end all solution but it sure as shit has a greater impact on poverty, crime, etc than conventional means like law enforcement.

Truly is a shame the Catholic Church would rather save theoretical life and further the condition of 3rd world countries than just accept that birth control NEEDS to be used, EVERYWHERE.

[ronmcdon]

Originally Posted by SR240DET

Evolution, the scientific observation of how organisms evolve over a period of time. How different species of organisms share a common ancestor. To say believe in evolution is the same as saying do you believe in gravity, atoms, biology, etc.

In other words, what atheist say is true. Secular humanism treats life as if it is our only one, so we try to bring the community together and help each other out for no reason, other than, to support the human race. No rewards, no punishment or judgment from a supernatural entity, just caring for our fellow humans because we give a shit. While from a creation view point is you should let them die off, survival of the fittest right? Sounds mighty darwin of you.

That wasn't what I got out of it.
Wolf didn't seem to be condemning all aid.
Just the type of aid in the US, thats subject to abuse & doing nothing to improve the issue of poverty in the long run.

I don't agree it's some grande conspiracy set by Liberals.
More likely, it's just your usual bureaucratic inefficiency.
The optimal alternative would be having the govt distribute food rations directly to the ppl.
Even then, ppl could hypothetically 'barter' food for other things.
It's hard to develop a system thats entirely immune from abuse.

Besides, it's not like there isn't other forms of aid such as govt student aid,
free public education (its not perfect, but it's free)
& relatively affordable public adult education.

You probably shouldn't starve your ppl to death.
However, it's also going a bit too far when you have ppl leeching off the system like the octomom.
There needs to be a more reasonable middle ground somewhere imo.

[theicecreamdan]

Also think about long term here.

Here in the US its pretty easy to prepare for retirement. We save money, buy insurance, depend on social security.

Over there, if you're too sick to go work the field you either starve or you depend on your family to feed you. Big family means more kids working the field so you and your wife eat. And you cant really depend on one or two kids, because the odds are good that they will end up being sick too.

[ronmcdon]

Yeah, in any agriculture based society, kids are an asset.
If you owned a farm/ranch in the US, i suppose the same could apply to some extent.

Otherwise (financially speaking) kids are a liability.
I read somewhere years ago, it costs approx $100-150k to raise a kid to 18yrs old today in the US.
This is from a medium income house-hold.

Think of that.
It doesn't make a lot of financial sense of to have a lot of kids.
Well, at least not if you're going to be directly finacially responsible for them.
Even having one kid isn't easy in this day & age.
I don't know how ppl can afford to finance a house & have children

[TheWolf]

Originally Posted by theicecreamdan

Most of us make donations to fix streets and build homeless shelters, its called taxes. Just like any charitable entity though most of the money we "donate" is lost through administration and bureaucracy.

The only problem is that if I quit making my yearly "donations". After several letters, certifieds, court hearings. Eventually an agent from the government will come out and take my house and evict me by force from my own dwelling. It's not really a donation but more everyone is compelled by gunpoint of our own government.

On that point though. Everyone has been on Wycleff Jean's nuts about the "efficency" of his haiti organization. 36 cents of every tax dollar collected from you that is spent on a welfare goes to someone with some "administrative" role. That would rank them at "D" in the world of charitable organization.