Here's a piece of news about the Thanksgiving party thrown in Rome by the US ambassador, Tony Hall:

Guests of Tony Hall, the US ambassador to the United Nations food agencies in Rome, were confronted with the reality of living off cups of rice. When they arrived for his party, they were asked to draw raffle tickets, placing them in three categories of wealth.

The richest were served with the customary gourmet meal. Others were handed portions of rice and beans. But there were strained smiles among those who drew the "poorest" tickets. They found themselves shut out of Mr Hall's residence in the elite suburb of Caracalla and left in the darkness to pace the garden.

These diplomats were then presented with a few handfuls of cold rice. A leaflet explained they were representing the 60 per cent of the world's six billion people who struggle to find each meal.

The meagre portion of rice would, added the leaflet, fail to supply the "minimum calories you require". Confronted with this meal, many diplomats simply refused to eat. They were eventually allowed inside for the traditional feast.Copied off Telegraph, here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/26/wrome26.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/11/26/ixportal.html

I must say, I'm pretty appreciative of this initiative. Sounds harsh and probably it had to take a superpower representative to pull that one off, but the officials gathered at the party will surely remember the lesson. Question is, for how long?

Woah, that was a pretty good idea he got.

The answer is, not very.

Question: How long till he gets fired?

Hah, he probably won't get fired. All he'll get is a memo saying don't do it again. But I think that he got his point across.

That was quite a profound deed. Who is this Tony Hall guy?

Former Democrat congressman.

At my old church's youth group, we did this activity...twice. The first time, I was a person in a second world country; that was probably four years ago. The second time, about two years ago, I was in a third world country. It was very enlightening. However, the sad things was that, after a month or two, it left most of the group's minds.

Some people may not have trusted it, though, considering one of the leaders was a self-identified Canadian socialist. Americans tend to have difficulty with both Canadians and socialists (although I am not sure that most Americans can identify the policies of socialism...), so this makes some degree of sense.

Thanks, Chev. And thanks for posting this story, which otherwise would have gone under the radar screen here. A quick search of both CNN and MSNBC turned up no results. But I found this on Fox (of all places). But it is a year old story.

http://www.peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2017579.html

Far more than most citizens realize - or Congressional critics would credit - many Members of Congress have dedicated themselves to causes that transcend career advancement, party advantage and even the welfare of their immediate constituents. Some Members make their mark by strengthening national defense, advancing medical research or reforming the election system.

Few Members, however, can match the example of Rep. Tony Hall's (D- Ohio) dedication to the cause of fighting hunger in America and around the world - a dedication that has led to his decision to leave Congress and become U.S. ambassador to United Nations food and agricultural agencies.


[ November 28, 2004, 04:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

There are problems with trying to help the people in third world countries.

First is the Corruption on our end. I heard somewhere that there's a guy in that program that sponsors starving kids that gets 2 cents a day out of that money to each child. Couldn't those administrative costs be better used to help the people we donate to help?

The second is corruption on the other end. Are the governments or local warlords taking a cut off the top for themselves while the people still starve. Money won't solve the problems, perhaps military force is required or international law to be looked at more closely...

[ November 29, 2004, 05:42: Message edited by: Gnarfflinger ]

There are problems with trying to help the people in third world ****ries.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, - spare the cynicism. I guess that's another good reason to "send the fleet" everytime something happens that some don't agree with. It's become the solution of choice: If we can't help feed them, let's just blow them up. :rolleyes:

Makes sense to me--either way, their problems are solved!

...why are you looking at me like that? Stop it!

Nice idea. You don't really appreciate how much help some people could benefit from until you've lost everything, even if it's just for a few hours. If you have a roof over your head and food in your belly, you're doing better than most.

@ Chandos: I wouldn't dismiss Gnarfflinger's comments automatically - corruption and misdirection of aid monies are a serious issue in assisting developing nations, although I don't think the use of force should ever be the first and primary option for "assistance".

What I mean is that we need to make sure that if we are going to help these people, then we need to make sure that they get the aid, and not some rich fat cat or a local bully. I'd get pissed off if i went to give a kid $100 for clothes only to have a friend scoop $50 off the top as "his cut" and have the kid get beaten up for the other $50...

The problems of corruption and local bully-boys are well-known and documented. That does not mean that we should stop making an attempt to help in places like the Sudan. And that is not my main complaint. This started out as a very postitive thread about Tony Hall and his attempt to call attention to world hunger. Most everyone already knows about the problems associated with the attempts of trying to get aid to those who are in need of it. But we don't hear very much about the positive attempts to help.

But, I did think that sending the military is a poor solution. Look at what happened in Somalia -what did they call it? Operation Hope, or something? And I don't think that the local warlords have much respect for international law either.

Then these warlords need to be ousted and replaced with those who can do something about it. Send in peacekeepers and make sure that the local warlords know that any actions against the aid workers or peacekeepers will be a declaration of war...

Speaking of bullies, aid funds and "his cut", sometimes when you take a closer look on a charity, you will notice more management benefits than you like. That's the part they don't tell you: how much the organisation's cut is.

Yes, there were some frightening figures about fifteen years ago for the British "Help the Aged" (I think) where only about 10% of donations actually made it to the elderly. I understand it's got a lot better now though.

And that's where the Law needs to step in. Some of that money would be needed to maintain the organization, but if it gets too much, then isn't that fraud?

The organization almost always has to pay its workers a fair salary, or at the very least (as in the case with the Peace Corps) provide for living arrangements and food. All of these things cost money, and it is rare for any organization to not spend at least 10% of its donation on its work force. Now, 90% as Carcaroth says is extreme, but you never see a situation where 100% of donations go towards aid.

Again, audit it closely. If enough of that money isn't going to the cause, then it's fraud...