Well, I would like to inform that there are organizations which are doing great to help the needy. United Nations is one such organization which has initiated a campaign to End Poverty by 2015. The campaign revolves around 8 major goals which, if accomplished, would ensure eradication of poverty. By the way, the campaign also has a community http://www.orkut.co.in/Community...px? cmm=47234928 .

@ ayesha I visited that community its a really good one .I ll let all my friends know about this.Thanks anyway.

> United Nations is one such organization which has initiated a campaign to End Poverty by 2015.

My aching sides.

Firstly, when you say "campaign", what you really mean is "organisation", and that organisation employs lots and lots of people. So, come 2015, you think those people will say that they've succeeded, poverty's gone, and they can all now lose their jobs? Or is it a little more likely that they'll always need a bit more money and a few more years? If you can give me an example of a bureaucracy that has willingly declared its job complete and thus ensured its own demise, I'd be interested to know about it.

Secondly, organisations like the UN insist on defining poverty in relative terms these days, which means that it cannot, by definition, ever be ended.

Finally, the UN has a bad track record at this. Whenever they get involved with poor people in bad situations, they manage to keep them poor. Given decades, they've not managed to eradicate poverty in even small local areas. Why do you think they can do it to the whole world in seven years?

Even Gordy Broon-troosers delusional belief that he can eradicate child poverty in Britain, remains that, a delusion.

It always galls me to hear the mealy-mouthed social worker types wringing the hands over "child-labour" in third world countries. What is the alternative for these people?

It's either the kids go to work and contribute to the meagre family income or some well meaning organisation prevents the children from working and the family income falls even further and the family starves. Or worse, the children are sold into slavery or prostitution.

Of course we would like all children to go to school and be educated and you'd think that with all the money that has been poured into 3rd world shitholes by Western Governments and Live Aid concerts the situation would have improved. It hasn't, so ask yourselves this; where's all the "fucking money" that Bob Geldoff and Bono keep asking for gone?

"Finally, the UN has a bad track record at this. Whenever they get involved with poor people in bad situations, they manage to keep them poor."

Well, not always. Some assistance does make it through to the poor, and in a very direct fashion too. I suspect though that people like Ayesha won't like that kind of 'work' any better....

Good post!

James

Your post makes sense on many points. However, it is only one possible outcome of protesting the dependency on foreign cheap labor. Yes, there are people who are all talk and no action, pulling the ladders, as you say. I liken this somewhat to anti-abortion protesters that never lift a finger to help unwanted, abandoned children or single parents abandoned and struggling to make ends meet. It's only looking at one side of the coin and calling the job done.

Personally, given any opportunity, I purchase items made through efforts of so-called 'fair-trade' or locally made goods, for many reasons including my aversion to reliance on horrendously cheap labor of children.

It is a fact of life, as you address, and an almost unavoidable one given our current luxurious circumstances. But we don't have to assume that's the end of the story.

> there are people who are all talk and no action

The problem isn't no action. The problem is the wrong action.

> Personally, given any opportunity, I purchase items made through efforts of so-called 'fair-trade' or locally made goods

In other words, you're one of the people my post is criticising, but you appear not to have understood that.


> anti-abortion protesters that never lift a finger to help unwanted, abandoned children or single parents abandoned and struggling to make ends meet.

I hesitate to go off at this tangent, but that argument's utter bollocks. I have to ask: do you have a problem with people who oppose tax cuts but, once those cuts have occurred, don't voluntarily pay extra money into the state treasury? Or those who oppose the death penalty but do nothing to help the families of the victims of convicted murderers who were released to kill again? Or how about the millions who opposed the Viet Nam war but never provided food and shelter to any Boat People?