The Shotgun Blog
Monday, November 26, 2007
This is What We Have to Deal With
From the Daily Times: Taliban burn aid agency food: officials
Local Taliban militants seized and burned thousands of kilogrammes of food destined for pregnant women from a hospital in South Waziristan, officials said on Sunday.
The food, mainly lentils and cooking oil, had been supplied by the aid charity Save the Children to feed pregnant women suffering from malnutrition.
Originally posted at Ranting Owl
Posted by Leah Dowe on November 26, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference This is What We Have to Deal With:
My guess is the Taliban read this awful report put out by Save The Children linking global warming to human activity, and they divided to act against junk science and maybe send a message to liberal Australian voters too. At least someone's taking a stand eh?
Posted by: Steve | 2007-11-26 12:56:04 PM
Left leaning people don't actually care about women or children, they simply admire those who have absolute control over them.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-11-26 1:10:19 PM
Phil, [mind if I call you Phil?] Just ballpark figures—we can back it up later with markered-out blog posted receipt JPEGs—what percentage of your income and of your time, do you give to women and children? Just so we can qualify the words, "care about".
Posted by: Steve | 2007-11-26 1:18:26 PM
"I feel your pain." ~ Bill Clinton
That's Leftoid crapola for showing they care - before they go back to doing nothing but whining & complaining about how conservatives don't care.
Fact is, conservatives donate to charity at a much higher rate than socialists, because the latter think that government will take care of the needy - so they don't have to.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 1:42:32 PM
You are on the mark today! Absolutely! And conservatives will also volunteer to help others--both here and in other countries--whereas socialists will only go and help if they get paid to help.
The taliban are seeking to control the women by destroying anything that will give women and children freedom from these dominating monsters.
What they did is a small setback--that is all.
And the socialists want the Americas to pull out, so they can force a revolution and impose socialism. Thing is, they simply do not have what it takes to see the situation through.
taliban know, that as long as the people are desperate--they will blame whatever goes wrong an the Americas, and they will use the lack of food as a mechanism to force their own into deeper submission. They do that all the time in Africa. Aid that arrives is communicated as being there, not out of charity, but as repayment for suppossed bad things--that were never instigated by the Americas, and were actually instigated by the moronic forces of ignorance.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-26 1:49:45 PM
Virtually all of my taxes goes to women and children one way or another, whether I care or not.
(most goes to the addministration of various causes that champion women and children)
Of course the women who get it don't have any test to indicate whether they cared to get married or stay married or were able to support the children that they had.
In addition, it doesn't matter whether it is Canadian women and children that are the recipients of my taxes or if it is in foreign aid, health care, or military and police protection.
What is a point worth making, is that the Left encourages women to get pregnant out of wedlock, to leave their marriages out of dissatisfaction, encourages women to have babies and then leave them to pursue careers which in any event are necessary because of over taxation to pay for social welfare schemes and Unionized Health care and Unionized Education,(both of which are major driving forces of inflation, and now the Left is the champion of the creation of Unionized government Daycare).
To sum, if there weren't enough poor people in Canada(which are the Left's core voting base) to champion, the Left would import and create poor people where there was none before.
Not surprisingly that is exactly what the Left has done and are doing, importing and creating poor people that is
So YES, the Left cares about poor women, poor children, and poor people in general.
The idea that someday Canadian society might reduce the numbers of poor and become a nation so prosperous and truly just that the poor or any identifiable group who receives government largess may become vanishingly rare horrifies the Left because the Left is all about dividing people into classes and exploiting those classes for political gain.
The Left really don't want an equal classless society, if they did there would be no class warfare to exploit and no need for the Left.
(not that there really is a need for them, the Left is the disease rather than the cure)
So YES, the Left really cares, but not in a good humanitarian selfless way.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-26 2:13:22 PM
Look how much we have achieved with giving money to the needy children:
"Child poverty rate flat nearly 20 years later"
Campaign 2000, an anti-poverty lobby group, is urging the federal government to spend any savings from debt reduction to help revive a 1989 pledge to eliminate child poverty.
"Let's not just get out of debt, let's get out of poverty," said the report released Monday.
"We also urged the government to make a major investment," Campaign 2000's national director Ann Decter told CTV.ca.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 2:21:04 PM
Rather than spend savings from debt reduction, if poverty levels have flat-lined then the answer is to revise the criterion for poverty, redefine poverty the way the Liberals redefined CO2 as a toxin, and Voila' no more poverty.
It really is that simple because there really is no poverty in Canada that a government program can alleviate.
The poverty that does exist in Canada is a matter of individual and cultural choice, neither of which can be fixed by the government
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-26 2:32:00 PM
Hate to inform you of this, but the majority of your taxes does not go to support poor women and poor children.
Fact is, most women who have children do not end up poor and miserable--and those who end up on welfare do not tend to stay there. The reasons for women getting onto social assistance are about the same as ever before. The single parent rate was pretty much the same in the year 1900 as it was the year 2000, give or take a percentage point.
The problem is not "women", the "left" or any of that--it is the fact that women have a biological clock and are limited to generally ahving children while they are younger. The younger they are when they have their children, the more likely their children are to be healthy. And yet it is a fact that young people work to get a house and have a family, usually around the same years as those healthy maternal years. So, instead of jumping up and down on the young people, and getting your knickers all in a twist about young people having a hard time, why don't you put your mental coils in a better place to make improvements for young people. They improvements do not necessarily have to be social welfare--it could be supporting young people to get into education and training, so they can get the jobs they need to raise the children we need to have a healthy Canadian Society. Why? Because unlike what your momma told you when you were growing up, when people cannot have babies born the natural way--there is no stork. Our Society is having a baby deficit, and people like you make them feel as though being in their fertile years is an impossition.
Good societies know that children are not a burden; they are a blessing. And good Societies know that--and they also know that it takes more than the woman staying home and the man to go to work to raise a family. The notion that women did not work while they had children is a misnomer. Women always worked--just not according to your way of thinking about it. And it is not a left invention--it is the real world.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-26 3:24:13 PM
Yes Lady! Yes! Yes! Yes!
Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-11-26 3:42:17 PM
Perhaps I am brain-dead tonight but all this ranting about Leftiods begs the question....
Does it really matter what the motives are for trying to feed a group of pregnant women?
Posted by: atric | 2007-11-26 3:56:24 PM
Atric, motives don't matter in this instance. My point was that Save The Children was at ideological odds with most of the folks here, but their suffering at the hands of the Taliban was being capitalized on for a shot at our enemies. I twas a case of "the enemies of my enemies happen to be my enemies this time so my enemies are my friends just long enough to post a breathless diatribe about my enemies". It's just a very handy bit of timing that Save The Children's position on man-caused global waring hadn't surfaced before their being attacked by the Taliban did.
Posted by: Steve | 2007-11-26 4:09:50 PM
The motives of these do-gooders should not matter.
But the obvious actions of the Taliban tells us all we need to know about THEM.
There are still Lefties like Taliban Jack who think we should be negotiating with these cut-throats.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-26 4:17:08 PM
>"Hate to inform you of this, but the majority of your taxes does not go to support poor women and poor children.
Fact is, most women who have children do not end up poor and miserable--blah, blah, blah,...."
Posted by: Lady | 26-Nov-07 3:24:13 PM
You don't hate to inform anyone about anything, no matter how vapid the content of your screed, you brain-dead blowhard.
"Most women don't end up poor and miserable", well I nominate you, Lady, for the 2007 No Shit Sherlock Award.
Fact is, and you really don't know this, the welfare state exists because of women and children, NOT men, women and children.
Women and appeals to the irresponsibility of women are why women vote so overwhelmingly for the welfare state and are a targeted identity group for so many welfare programs.
It doesn't matter that most women and children don't end up poor and miserable or even happily contentedly poor, it is about the expense of the programs and their administration not the sheer numbers, twit.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-26 4:44:43 PM
God Speller, just when you start making good sense you go and say something comlpetely ignorant. Lady is bang on. And you are completely WRONG!
Posted by: epsilon | 2007-11-26 11:55:57 PM
Giving milk and juice to pregnant women and children means people grow up healthier. It is more important to support women and children, when they are down and vulnerable than it is to save a penny in your pocket.
And people who would withold milk and juice from pregnant women and children are beneath the scum of the earth.
You get pissed about the obvious, and recant into rhetoric--but when push comes to shove Mr minisule man that you are, it is the real world that matters. You can recant your words, but five years of malnourishment in childhood can never be reversed, no matter how apologetic a person might become.
And you speak about how marvelous it is that we stand up for freedom, and then mizer yourself, that you cannot for the life of you, see the good in what we have in this society. If there were no such thing as taxes, and everyone was like you, pregnant women and children would be dieing like millions of Irish died during the potatoe famine.
I think it is time you, Speller, went back and read your New Testament--the part where it says that charity/love is more important than faith and hope. If you are not going to do that, then you should go buy yourself a spanker, and spank yourself silly.
And as for everything I have written being obvious--of course it is! So, which part of this realistic picture do you NOT understand?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-27 9:46:17 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.