President Obama's Speech in Ghana

Well said Alison, I completely agree with you. If we only live to help ourselves, what's the point of living? You can't better yourself and allow everyone else to fall to the wayside at the same time.

See how quickly the topic of the well being of the people of Africa fell to the wayside in this discussion? Its like a microcosm of the world.

Again, I'll say that I think its taken far too long for something like African genocide to be addressed on this scale, in this kind of manner.

alieliza

See how quickly the topic of the well being of the people of Africa fell to the wayside in this discussion? Its like a microcosm of the world.

It's sad, really, how true that is. We live in such a 'ME' society - if something isn't benefiting US, we see no point in it. (we being a general term) People forget that there are other people out there that are suffering more than they are. Yea, we may be hurting here - but our problems are nothing like they are in Africa and other third-world countries.

erica1989

 We live in such a 'ME' society - if something isn't benefiting US, we see no point in it.

This is OT, but it reminds me of something going on in CA now.  There's a movement afood to discontinue all medical care to undocumented aliens and for the life of me I can't understand how anyone could think this is going to be beneficial to the state as a whole.  First, it will create chaos in already overcrowded ERs and second, it has the potential for creating a situation where major epidemics can break out.  If people are unable because of lack of money or afraid because of their legal status to seek medical care, do we think they're going to be concerned about getting themselves or their kids vaccinated? Or even to take routine health precautions?

Joyce

fuzzy_dogs_mom

erica1989

 We live in such a 'ME' society - if something isn't benefiting US, we see no point in it.

This is OT, but it reminds me of something going on in CA now.  There's a movement afood to discontinue all medical care to undocumented aliens and for the life of me I can't understand how anyone could think this is going to be beneficial to the state as a whole.  First, it will create chaos in already overcrowded ERs and second, it has the potential for creating a situation where major epidemics can break out.  If people are unable because of lack of money or afraid because of their legal status to seek medical care, do we think they're going to be concerned about getting themselves or their kids vaccinated? Or even to take routine health precautions?

Joyce

There is no doubt in my mind that this post will take things even further off topic, and I'll be the first to do so! :p

I don't know why, but every time I hear of something going on in California that negatively affects immigrant populations, I am always stunned. You would think that I'd get used to it by now. Be it Proposition 227 & the work of Ron Unz (the outlawing of bilingual education in public schools), or this denial of medical care to undocumented immigrants. It just doesn't make any sense at all to me, not just for the people who will clearly be affected in diverse communities, but, as Joyce pointed out, for society at large. I guess I just assumed that a state with such a large population of immigrant people would be providing, not taking away, services to a community that so desperately needs them. The reality that they are facing in the States is surely nothing like they imagined, the vision that brought them here in the first place.

Before I went to Africa I thought (ignorantly) that if we just increased a bunch of aid, it would make things better.  Having been there, my views changed almost 180.  For one, you cannot get a handle on the lack of infrastructure and how negatively that effects development until you have experienced it yourself.  How do you even deliver and dispense aid, assuming that's a viable solution?  I see a lot of people thinking on such a grand scale and overlooking the real, tactical issues.

Another main issue is that money/aid/donations are just a band aid.  They might provide a quick fix but don't really improve the economy.  People simply need the tools to develop on their own.  That's why things like micro-loans, Heiffer Int'l, teaching people better farming techniques, opening fair trade textile factories, etc are so much more effective and have more of a balloon effect than just giving someone money or a sack of food.  People don't need a meal they need a job.

For example, one day we visited a man out in the country who had been HIV+ for 6 years before any treatment.  The government had drug programs, so money and cost of drugs was not the issue....but how to you get drugs when there is no road?  One hospital serving 200,000 people with one nurse, one general surgeon, and no decent paved road for someone to even bring in a supply of the free treatments.  The man did not need money and donated drugs.  Someone gave him an old bicycle and a goat, which probably cost about $100 total (which is a lot less than donating money to cover even a few months of treatment).  He used the bike to get to his treatment facility, and he used the goat to sell milk and breed more goats.  For $100 he has access to treatment, he has an income, and he has milk and food to support his family indefinitely.

Also I've seen a bit how large aid orgs work and IMO I am dissatisfied with the amount of money and resources spent on administration and bureaucracy.  Not much really trickles down.  If you're going to give money or support, give it to a grassroots org that works from the bottom up and in some way helps people support themselves so they are able to participate in their local economies and have a say in the democratic process.

Liesje

People don't need a meal they need a job.

Yeah, it's the "teach a man to fish" philosophy that a lot of philanthropic organizations are trying to do over there. 

What makes me angry is when supplies that are supposed to be meant for the people who need them are stolen by the governments in African countries.  Honestly, what joy do these people receive in making their fellow man suffer?  I'll never understand that.

alieliza

 Be it Proposition 227 & the work of Ron Unz (the outlawing of bilingual education in public schools),

OT for sure but after CA was purchased from Mexico, didn't the then Governor of CA sign the *Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo* which provided for bilingual education in all CA schools?  I've never understood why so many people have a problem with that since it serves a two-fold purpose. The Spanish speakers wouldn't get so far behind and the English speakers would pick up another language. And how easily they forget that what a disaster it would be if all the undocumented aliens left CA.  Who do they think is out there picking the fruits and vegetables?  If farmers have to pay union wages how are they going to feel about paying $10 for a head of lettuce?

Joyce

There is "bilingual education" which falls into two categories:

1. "Transitional Bilingual Education" which serves to transition non-English speakers from a program that starts with a 70:30 ratio of, say, Spanish to English, and transitions them into classes conducted 100% in English. This is a short term program that eases learners into English-only schooling. This is the least effective method of Bilingual Education. Not only is this program frequently implemented improperly, but it also serves not to validate the first language and culture of non-native speakers of English. The pros of this program are that second language learners are still learning content and academics (in their first language) while they are getting a stronger grasp on the English language. Many children, and even more true with older learners, lose out on learning while they are struggling to master the English language. Better than nothing, though, these programs are becoming less and less in favor of English only programs, like the one I teach, English as a Second Language.

2. "Maintenance Bilingual Education" which serves to not only validate the first language and culture of non-native speakers of English, but also helps to develop "balanced bilinguals", or people who are equally fluent & literate in two languages. This is a phenomenal program as it fosters pride in one's culture, helps our nation to produce well educated individuals who are prepared to participate in the global world, and helps entire communities to succeed not only in our society, but allows them to maintain a working understanding of their own language and culture. Such programs are practically non-existant in New York, and likely around the country.

Along the lines of "bilingual education" but even more progressive and wonderful, IMO, is "Dual Language" programs, which is what you were referring to. "Dual Language" programs are such where the class consists of 50% speakers of a language other than English, and 50% native English speakers. Class is conducted 50% in English and 50% in the language other than English. Not only does this kind of a program level the playing field for English Language Learners, but it helps to produce American children who are not only fluent and literate in a world language, but who are globally mindful and culturally aware. These programs are growing in popularity, but I'm not sure what their status is in California, as it doesn't necessarily fall under the category of "bilingual education" in its traditional form.

Ron Unz carefully packaged an "English for the Children" political initiative, where he presented "bilingual education" as harmful, denying the children of a "proper English education." The people of California ate it up, and now, in a state where it is needed most, bilingual education is outlawed, and entire communities of people are being denied the most effective form of education for them, and for the community at large (which is the point you were making in your post about the denial of healthcare to undocumented immigrants).

It is really unfortunate that bilingual education is so demonized. Studies show that bilingual individuals perform better academically than monolingual students. Speaking (and reading) two languages presents enormous (both measurable and immesurable) benefits to citizens of our global world.

I guess all I am saying is that if all the things that obama plans to put in place here go into effect very shortly we will not be in any sort of position to help anyone.

I don't begrudge the trip to Ghana and bless Obama for reaching out to them. And, as he says, no one can save them, except themselves and they should seek solutions themselves. And it will be easier to seek solutions if they can have affordable power, which is most often coming from coal, then some from natural gas. But they won't be able to afford to do so if capped and traded by the desires of the G-8 summit, which wants a limit on CO2 production. And I don't think they have the technology for nuclear power and everyone gets their underwear twisted over nuclear power. My BIL does maintenance on a nuclear power plant. And he still doesn't glow in the dark. And all of his kids are healthy and strong, including our 9 year old nephew.

I really do want to see Obama do well and I'm waiting for him to look at both sides of the issue, rather than just the far left and whatever Gore has to say. By the way, Gore will become a billionaire with his carbon offset investments company. Oh yeah, they plant to have tradable stocks in carbon offsets. Which means that the more taxes we pay in power, the more he makes on the offsets. And not share it with anyone else.

Obama could best help the impoverished countries of Africa by allowing them free trade and access to easy power to develope exportable items, which would mean an about face on his energy stance. Yes, you can get power from solar and wind. But it is not near the quantity, stability, or affordability of coal. And we already have clean coal plants. Their only output is CO2, which is now painted as a pollutant. It is not a pollutant. It is plant food. Some professional nurseries pump additional CO2 into their hot houses. Many plants can withstand and absorb up to three times the normal levels of CO2 and the proliferate like crazy. On the other hand, the greatest danger to COw absorbing trees is this erroneous fascination with ethanol, which is corn alcohol. You have to clear off the trees and rake over the soil. And it takes so many bushels of corn to make one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol burns hotter than gas and doesn't have as much power per gallon. And it dries out the seals and gaskets in a normal motor. So running motors on ethanol will create more heat and since you are burning hydrocarbons, you will still have CO2 output. Fortunately, CO2 does not raise the temperature, contrary to popular fantasies shared by the IPCC and the G-8 summit. The science is out there, you don't have to believe me.

By the way, the IPCC is not a scientific org, it is a political one. The reason that John Christy dropped out of it as lead author is that they removed whole pieces of his report, such as there is no discernable connection between man-made CO2 and global climate change. That wasn't what they wanted to hear, so they took it out. He left but it took over a year and threat of legal action for them to remove his name from the list.

 There are ways that we can help Ghana and I think it would be great to help them but I don't think telling them they can't build for electricity and the only option they have is systems not even we can afford that won't answer all their needs.

And I do appreciate that Obama has done what he can to meet other nations and put a better face on America, so to speak. He is a way better speaker than Bush or McCain ever were.

Alison,  there's something even scarier than that going on here.  It's not enough to prohibit bilingual education and try to deny medical care, but there's a group (a loud, vocal group) that's working to actually prohibit the children of undocumented aliens from attending public school -- period. doG help us all if the citizens are short sighted enough to vote in something like that.

Joyce

I'm pretty conservative, politically.  I have always believed that the less control government has over our daily lives, the better off we would all be.  But the fact remains that in human society for thousands of years, the strong take care of the weak.  We may not think it's fair and sometimes the "weak" have made themselves weak but all in all we have to retain our basic humanity.   Unfortunately, in a society as large as ours has become, someone has to make some rules and we do elect those people ourselves. 

FYI, Jackie, I'm not disagreeing with you here, simply expanding upon your post.  

I love this quote, and the woman behind it is a hero of mine.

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."
-Ayn Rand

The strong can take care of the weak, but they should not be punished for being strong.  Americans are some of the most philanthropic, giving people on the planet.  We certainly don't need the government to put the proverbial gun to our head to make us help out our fellow man.

Anyone watching the ALL STAR GAME? His little sashay thru the lockerroom...dude is COOL. Dat's all I have to say.