Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A thought about Haiti.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Point_n_click Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:48 AM
Original message
A thought about Haiti.
I was wondering if perhaps moving the united Nations to Haiti might be a step toward encouraging international assistance over the long term for that beleaguered nation. Thoughts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sure, we can just cut that part of Manhattan off and let it float away and sail it ti Haiti
:sarcasm:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunatica Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. How would that help?
I don't get your point. Do you want the UN to leave? Would the earthquakes cease in Haiti?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. Clown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Wow.
Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Maybe that was harsh...but its oh so true
Moving the UN to Haiti? I mean, c'mon? Who thinks that? And if you do think that, keep it to yourself because you will get ridiculed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
4. They're getting plenty of international assistance now. They just need the US to stop
f'n up their nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. Not every thought is worthy of expression.
Edited on Sun Jan-17-10 09:14 AM by MineralMan
This thought of yours fits perfectly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. Population Control
Haiti is overpopulated, and reducing population growth would materially improve their living standards.
They should emulate the experience of Singapore.
This is from a website:

<snip>
Since the mid-1960s, Singapore's government has attempted to control the country's rate of population growth with a mixture of publicity, exhortation, and material incentives and disincentives. Falling death rates, continued high birth rates, and immigration from peninsular Malaya during the decade from 1947 to 1957 produced an annual growth rate of 4.4 percent, of which 3.4 percent represented natural increase and 1.0 percent immigration. The crude birth rate peaked in 1957 at 42.7 per thousand. Beginning in 1949, family planning services were offered by the private Singapore Family Planning Association, which by 1960 was receiving some government funds and assistance. By 1965 the crude birth rate was 29.5 per 1,000 and the annual rate of natural increase had been reduced to 2.5 percent. Singapore's government saw rapid population growth as a threat to living standards and political stability, as large numbers of children and young people threatened to overwhelm the schools, the medical services, and the ability of the economy to generate employment for them all. In the atmosphere of crisis after the 1965 separation from Malaysia, the government in 1966 established the Family Planning and Population Board, which was responsible for providing clinical services and public education on family planning.

Birth rates fell from 1957 to 1970, but then began to rise as women of the postwar baby boom reached child-bearing years. The government responded with policies intended to further reduce the birth rate. Abortion and voluntary sterilization were legalized in 1970. Between 1969 and 1972, a set of policies known as "population disincentives" were instituted to raise the costs of bearing third, fourth, and subsequent children. Civil servants received no paid maternity leave for third and subsequent children; maternity hospitals charged progressively higher fees for each additional birth; and income tax deductions for all but the first two children were eliminated. Large families received no extra consideration in public housing assignments, and top priority in the competition for enrollment in the most desirable primary schools was given to only children and to children whose parents had been sterilized before the age of forty. Voluntary sterilization was rewarded by seven days of paid sick leave and by priority in the allocation of such public goods as housing and education. The policies were accompanied by publicity campaigns urging parents to "Stop at Two" and arguing that large families threatened parents' present livelihood and future security. The penalties weighed more heavily on the poor, and were justified by the authorities as a means of encouraging the poor to concentrate their limited resources on adequately nurturing a few children who would be equipped to rise from poverty and become productive citizens.

Fertility declined throughout the 1970s, reaching the replacement level of 1.006 in 1975, and thereafter declining below that level. With fertility below the replacement level, the population would after some fifty years begin to decline unless supplemented by immigration. In a manner familiar to demographers, Singapore's demographic transition to low levels of population growth accompanied increases in income, education, women's participation in paid employment, and control of infectious diseases. It was impossible to separate the effects of government policies from the broader socioeconomic forces promoting later marriage and smaller families, but it was clear that in Singapore all the factors affecting population growth worked in the same direction. The government's policies and publicity campaigns thus probably hastened or reinforced fertility trends that stemmed from changes in economic and educational structures. By the 1980s, Singapore's vital statistics resembled those of other countries with comparable income levels but without Singapore's publicity campaigns and elaborate array of administrative incentives.


http://www.country-studies.com/singapore/population.htm...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bad Idea.
But it would make many right wingnuts happy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Point_n_click Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
9. I can see open discussion isn't welcome here.
I put something forward to get a discussion started about the possibility that having the UN HQ in a desperately impoverished nation might force wealthier nations to have to see what their lack of compassion leads to, and to create a steady flow of money into Haiti's economy, and what do I get in response?

Personal insults.

A lack of willingness to discuss pros and cons.

More insults.

How sad that DU has fallen to being almost as bad as freeper ville.

Even though I mostly lurk this is it for me on this forum. Piss off, all of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Because you don't explain in any meaningful way why this would help.
You also don't explain why Haiti is more worthy than any of the dozens of other impoverished nations with no functional infrastructure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
11. If it hadn't been for my horse
I'd have never spent that year in college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-17-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
12. The whole point of putting the UN in NYC was that it would be in a politically and economically...
stable location. That way, delegates can easily get to and from meetings, they need not fear political repression (Imagine what the UN would be like if HQed in Belarus), and if there were a catastrophe in the city there would be a strong system government to restore order and get things back together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC