There is a rule acknowledged by all who ply their trade in politics that whatever one has written or said in the past easily can be interpreted in the future as having a different meaning than originally intended. Depending on how one desires to be considered currently, this can have either a positive or negative impact. This is the case with James Yong Kim, MD, nominated to be the head of the World Bank Group that has been built around what was originally named the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). Dr. Kim up to now has been the president of Dartmouth College and is the former head of the HIV/AIDS program of the World Health Organization. It is unusual to nominate someone for this post whose background is in the field of public health rather than in some aspect of economics and/or management. It has been the theme of the Obama administration, however, to emphasize and separate out social concerns from economic issues to the point of judging economic growth by what liberal social benefits it might provide. Dr. Kim and two co-editors published a book in 2000, Dying for Growth. The key element in this book that has brought his nomination into question is found in the introduction: “The studies in this book present evidence that the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men.” Supporters of Dr. Kim have rushed to interpret this key statement as meaning that inequitable distribution of gains (meaning life-style improvement) often occurs in relation to generally calculated economic growth. In simple terms Dr. Kim and his collaborators decided to present arguments to show that advantages gained from major projects subsidized by international organizations — public and private — while possibly raising the computation of “gross domestic product” did not equitably improve life for those on the lower rungs of socio-economic life. What a shock to learn that in spite of the success of a given project the distribution of that success to the general population is unequal in the underdeveloped world. And everywhere else if the truth be told! The implication that Kim and his friends make is that the principal benefit goes to participating corporations seeking to (horror of horrors) make profits. Apparently there still are people who do not recognize that the experiment in state ownership and direction of all phases of life was proven false with the lesson of the Soviet Union. The World Bank originally was created for the express purpose of stimulating and investing in major infrastructure projects aimed at a long-term impact. Dams and related hydroelectric projects far too expensive for newly independent nations were made a priority. There are massive electric power grids spread across sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the less-developed world as a result of this investment and development. Translating this essential infrastructure creation into a quantitative advance for the local populations is beyond specific calculation, but every village with electric power for water pumping and minimal lighting knows well the gain. The real problem is that the host governments do not convert the income they gain from the industries that are created from the major investment projects into the needed social and economic benefit within their country. The pattern of governmental corruption is consistent in most of the developing world. This is neither the fault of the international institutions that have provided the development capital — in whole or part — nor of the extractive and manufacturing industries that provide the expertise and management to build and market the products created. There is a convenient vocabulary used by the academic element concerned with international economic development. Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, who has had little field experience in the area of economic development, used the well-worn slogan that economies needing to grow require “…expanding opportunities for their people, in healthcare and in education.” He might have added that before such needy economies get to that point, they must root out the ingrained corruption that appears to afflict the political life of not only less-developed areas but also some of the most highly developed. As with the appointment of the Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Steven Chu, whose work in nuclear physics and molecular biology gave him little background suitable for directing a bureaucratic agency such as the Energy Department, Dr. Kim’s excellent record in HIV/AIDS health care and as president of an elite liberal arts college does not qualify him to head the World Bank. The Obama Administration seems to be entranced with the academic and social credentials more than actual experience in the operational and development aspect of the field they are considering. Aside from the politically motivated aspect of Dr. Kim’s nomination, there is a convoluted logic in attempting to assess the effectiveness of the World Bank as Tim Geithner has instructed. It is his stated view that what the World Bank has done to promote economic growth in the poorer sectors of the globe should be judged through how productive its projects have been in “expanding opportunities for their people in healthcare and education.” The job of leading the World Bank requires serious skills and experience in economic development in less developed areas of the world. Such experience and knowledge per force includes subsets of political and social issues, but it does not call for the questioning of whether economic growth sufficiently “and automatically lead to a better life for everyone,” as Kim’s co-editor has written in support of his candidacy for the international banking position. The reality of investment and development in large-scale projects in the less developed world is that it requires both extensive and hard-headed experience in the field. However, it also demands leadership and diplomatic skills in the rough and tumble of the financial management of a globally oriented multi-billion dollar enterprise. It is doubtful that even Dr. Kim would view himself as qualified under those requisites. Jim Kim may be brilliant. He may be perceptive of the world’s needs. But he is not qualified to be the leader of the World Bank Group. And neither is anyone else who believes GDP growth and corporate profits work against socio-economic well-being.
Go here to see the original:
A World Bank Nomination Goes South
Or as the MSM calls it, mission accomplished. (CNN) — One month after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, nearly three out of four Americans say the police should arrest the neighborhood watch volunteer who pulled the trigger, according to a new national survey. And the CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also indicates that three-quarters
Read the rest here:
CNN Poll: 73% of Americans Want Police To Arrest Zimmerman For Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin…
Earlier this month I posted on the attack by Lisa Miller, the Washington Post’s egregiously stupid religion correspondent, on Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney because they had large families . Miller found large families to be vaguely threatening to her self esteem and indicative of a “smug fecundity” and not valuing women for anything other than their ability to reproduce. Today Miller doubles down and accuses Rick Santorum of being a “cafeteria Catholic.” For those who aren’t familiar with the term, a cafeteria Catholic applies to Catholics who dissent from Church dogmas . These are the “smells and bells” Catholics who have some cultural attachment to the Church but find that its teachings on sodomy, birth control, etc. gives them hives and boils on their butt. For her evidence, Miller trots out the following killer evidence. 1. Rick Santorum has supported capital punishment. 2. Rick Santorum supports torture. 3. Rick Santorum would support bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities if they are not open to inspection. 4. Rick Santorum is against illegal immigration. Before getting down to the specifics, let’s take a moment to examine Miller’s qualifications to challenge Santorum’s Catholicism. Short answer: she has none. According to her bio, she is Jewish. Her husband is Episcoplian. And even if her bill of indictment is correct does that make Santorum a “cafeteria Catholic?” No, it doesn’t. Surprisingly, Wikipedia picks up on the key issue. The term is less frequently applied to those who dissent from other Catholic moral teaching on issues such as social justice, capital punishment, or just war; this is because these areas of Catholic teaching are not definitively dogmatically defined by the Magisterium, and therefore not unchanging infallible (from a Catholic standpoint) dogmata. Of the issues Miller raises, only one is even vaguely applicable. The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is nuanced : Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” To say the least, given the ability of a prisoner to kill other prisoners and prison staff or the chance that a very dangerous person will be released to kill again . This falls well within the exercise of prudential judgment expected of every Catholic. The others are nothingburgers. Just because Miller calls something torture doesn’t mean that it is torture. I don’t want to revisit the whole argument on this because I support John Yoo’s definition. Catholic Just War doctrine , again being something governed by the prudential judgment of the policy maker, would not be violated by an attack on Iran and naturally we expect the Church to speak for peace and to teach peace. Miller u ses a quote from a letter by Bishop Richard Pates , representing the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, to Hillary Clinton: In Catholic teaching, the use of force must always be a last resort. Discussing or promoting military options at this time is unwise and may be counterproductive. Miller’s pull quote is nothing short of dishonest. The actual letter reads as follows: “Before military options are considered, all alternatives, including effective and targeted sanctions and incentives for Iran to engage in diplomacy and cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), need to be exhausted,” he added. “In Catholic teaching, the use of force must always be a last resort. Iran’s bellicose statements, its failure to be transparent about its nuclear program and its possible acquisition of nuclear weapons are serious matters, but in themselves they do not justify military action,” Bishop Pates said. “Discussing or promoting military options at this time is unwise and may be counterproductive. Actual or threatened military strikes are likely to strengthen the regime in power in Iran and would further marginalize those in Iran who want to abide by international norms. And, as the experience in Iraq teaches, the use of force can have many unintended consequences,” he said. “Iran is an example of the significant threat posed to global security by a proliferation of nuclear weapons. The specific situation of Iran should be viewed within the wider search for a just and peaceful world built on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. A morally responsible nonproliferation strategy must be tied to a clear strategy for reducing and ultimately ending the reliance on nuclear weapons by any country. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty itself ties nonproliferation to eventual nuclear disarmament.” Not only did she portray the quote without indicating that she had excised a key sentence but she presented it completely out of context. Taken in full it actually conforms to Santorum’s position. And while it is true that the Church has an expansive view of the right or people to move from one polity to another, that view should be given grave weight by any Catholic but the ultimate decision is based, again, on the prudential judgment of the individual. It is really a crying shame when a religion reporter at a major paper can dishonestly attack a candidate’s religious orthodoxy but that is exactly what Lisa Miller did. Either she couldn’t be bothered to learn anything at all about Catholicism or she chose to ignore Catholic teaching to attack Santorum.
Read the original:
Washington Post’s Lisa Miller Is An Idiot. Part 2.
Terrorists have won at least one victory. The above video was taken of a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) inspection of an injured three year old boy from Spring of 2010. This video makes me want to cry for this child and for a nation that allows this to happen on a daily basis. You can read the full story at the Daily Mail . The inspection of the three year old child, in addition to TSA searches of other toddlers , the elderly , and a Senator is strong evidence that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, and subsequent allies who attempted similar attacks, have provided the federal government with an excuse for invasive screening. Treating every breathing human being as you would a potential terrorist is not an effective and efficient means to prevent aviation terrorism. Yet this same TSA wants to terminate the armed pilot program . Dan Mitchell at International Liberty has hosted an interesting graphic that is the ultimate TSA take down . Common sense has been tossed out the door. What has happened to us?
Read more:
What Has Happened To Us?
My column at CFIF last week .
