USAID has released an an announcement (.pdf file) to declare that we will soon commit to saying something quite definite, in no uncertain terms. Here's the quote everybody is bouncing around the Internet today:

In September 2009, President Obama launched a study of U.S. development policy and will be issuing a new development policy in the near future. The policy will focus on achieving sustainable development outcomes by promoting broad‐based economic growth and democratic governance, investing in game‐changing innovations that have the potential to solve long‐standing development challenges, and building effective public sector capacity to provide basic services over the long term. The policy also puts a premium on selectivity, on leveraging the expertise and resources of others, on mutual accountability, and on evidence of impact. This new development policy will guide the U.S. approach to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

This all sounds warm and fuzzy, which is why it is the money quote (that, plus it's right at the beginning of a 15-page report about a plan to announce a plan). But let's fisk it, shall we? My comments are (in parenthesis).

********

In September 2009, President Obama launched a study

(Yet another commission. How original.)

of U.S. development policy and will be issuing a new development policy in the near future.

(BREAKING NEWS! We will soon be announcing a plan to do . . . something!)

The policy will focus on achieving sustainable development outcomes

(because Government is the answer)

by promoting broad‐based economic growth and democratic governance,

(growth by what means, and democratic like Greece or democratic like USA circa 1779?)

investing in game‐changing innovations that have the potential to solve long‐standing development challenges,

(we will be announcing an attempt to misappropriate taxpayers' take-home wages and throw them at things that sound like really good ideas, but which are as-yet unproven (and may not pan out but hey it's worth a shot!))

and building effective public sector capacity to provide basic services over the long term.

(We're also going to be adding HUGE numbers of people to the public welfare roles, if we can possibly manage to sneak it under the radar)

The policy also puts a premium on selectivity,

(We will be emphasizing sexism and racism, as appropriate)

on leveraging the expertise and resources of others,

(we're going to pay consultants -and hire our cronies for- HUGE salaries!)

on mutual accountability,

(we will tell you everything. We hope you will tell us some things)

and on evidence of impact.

(they probably meant effectiveness vs. impact, but they really mean we want to see if this stuff helps, after we've poured our money down the drain to make it work)

This new development policy will guide the U.S. approach to the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs).

(It's a guide. We'll be sure to vary from the guide in any way that suits our nepotism, racism, sexism, fancy, and pocketbooks, thank you very much)

********

As an extra bonus, let's remember that the USA pays the lion's share of the UN's bills, and then read (from farther down in the report, which I did skim):

We will also place the United States on a trajectory to meet our long‐term Copenhagen commitment to jointly mobilize $100 billion per year in public and private sources by 2020 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency from developing countries.

(excuse me, WHOSE Copenhagen commitment? Run that by me again? And for HOW MUCH?!)

Careful students of the Bible know that we will always have extreme poverty in the world. Attempting to mitigate it by charitable measures is fine. Taking from my wallet to do it -at gunpoint- without so much as a 'by yer leave' is Not Cool.

Bombs. Time for Bombs.

Well . . . not quite time for bombs. It's getting to the point of Something Must Be Done, anyhow. This is America. You can't run national politics like you run Chicago politics, and you can't run border town police men like you do down there.

The drug cartels run Mexico. We understand that and don't like it. We really don't like how the Presidente de Mexico is trying to disarm the civilians in America because he can't crack down on crime in his own country. After I am elected President, the conversation may* go something like this:

********

President VFD: Hey Calderon, I've got a deal for you.

Presidente Calderon: Que tal, VFD?

President VFD: We're going to send two divisions to Matamoros. We're going to kick ass, take names, and hold the city with a regiment, then move on to Reynosa. Once we get all the way to Tijuana, we're going to push South until we get to Puerto de San Bonito or thereabouts. During this time, we'll be giving free arms to everyone who will take an oath of loyalty to the government of Mexico, and teaching them how to use them. Cash bounties will be put on the heads of major drug lords, and small-time dealers, smugglers, mules, and other traffickers will be shot on the spot. Corrupt local and federal policemen in cahoots with the drug gangs will be hanged in the town square of their jurisdictions. Then we'll leave, and God help you if you try to disarm all those Mexicans we just gave guns to.

Presidente Calderon: . . .

President VFD: Then, if you let the drug cartels take over your country again, we're going to steamroll through again and just annex it all the way to Guatemala. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated, but not necessarily required. Oh, and we'll be appropriating fuel from your refineries down there to operate our vehicles with it. Y'all have a nice day now!

********
*or not. You sometimes have to use a little more politically-correct speech with foreign dignitaries.

The whole situation is so unnecessary, but their culture was built up on different religious roots than ours. Mexico should by rights be a prosperous first-world economy, with their mineral resources and tourist attractions, and vast pools of willing low- and semi-skilled labor. Instead, you have drug cartels running gun wars in the streets and corrupt politicians from top to bottom preventing any real reforms. It's a real pity, but what are you going to do?

N. Korea Making A Risky Bet

On one hand, we have a bunch of sympathetic co-religionists fellow-travelers Democrats running the United States, and they are already stretching their military resources thin over in the Middle East. They are unlikely to want to START a war with us, and they may be loath to jump in a war we start with the South, because they are Capitalist Pigs in the South.

On the other hand, Hillary is bumbling toward war talk, and their President is obviously able to be swayed by public outcry, at least sometimes. Plus, they did kick our [deleted] last time we were involved in a war with the USA and the South.

. . . but you know, it sure would be nice to have all that industrialized goodness down there, and it would show what a great leader I am, to win a war over the South . . .

If You Were In A Haitian's Shoes . . .

Imagine you live in a place where nobody has any extra money for construction. Everyone is either a corrupt government official or else he is dirt-poor. No savings. NO cell coverage, no land line telephones, no electric service to speak of. There are no police, and there is barely a small volunteer fire department. Then there is an earthquake that kills 100,000 to 500,000 people.

This is the situation faced by those who live under the corrupt government in Haiti.

The United States is flush with money (relatively speaking) and we ARE the world's police force. We got into this position because we are a Christian nation with a Capitalist economy replete with the private creation of wealth. Then we elected slightly soft-headed bleeding heart liberals who like to meddle.

Whatever the cause, we already have boots on the ground, giving relief to the people of Haiti. Love us or not, love him or not, thank God for the USA. If you can afford it, take a moment to donate a few dollars. If you can afford to donate, or if you can't: Christian, pray for the people of Haiti. It's a mess down there.

Next, We'll Buy Our Bullets From China.

So Boeing lost the bid, subject to appeal and political posturing.

An European company is going to be getting gobs of US taxpayers' cash ($100B-ish, total, probably) to build the next generation of mid-air refeuling tankers for the USAF. Some folks say it doesn't matter because they'll be assembled here. They'll be "made in USA of foreign and domestic components", as it were. Sort of like the Toyotas rolling out of San Antonio.

The next logical step, of course, is to have them assembled there and flown here. It's commercially advantageous as well, because you don't have to fly them to European and Middle Eastern purchasers from the USA. You know, why don't we just outsource our entire military manufacturing infrastructure to China, because it would surely be low risk and way cheaper. Political prisoner slave labor is way cheaper than US American Union labor after all.

Reductio ad absurdum? Unfortunately, not to some strict internationalist capitalist types.

We need to be able to make our own military hardware. What happens if we are at war with the companies making our war machines? We have been at war with Germany before, and some of the parts for this plane are from there (for example). If we STOP making stuff here, then NEED to make stuff here, we won't be READY to make stuff here when we NEED to.

Can you say defeat through attrition? I knew you could.

I heard a caller to a radio show who couldn't understand why it were a bad idea to make electronics critical to US national security in China. He just couldn't get the idea thru his thick head that China is only our friend until they are an enemy. Also it seemed hard to grasp that an enemy wouldn't necessarily sell us things required to kill them, no matter how much we were willing to pay. (no mention of the fact that we probably would be borrowing the money from them in the first place).

You're not like that, are you? You do see, don't you, that we need to be able to make our own hardware which is critical to defending our country, in case we end up enemies with the other States which make the hardware?

or did you also go to government school?

A Million Schoolbooks for Liberia . . . Because?

President Bush has gone to Africa to make nice with the good people of Liberia. Fine.

We have given them most of a billion-with-a-B dollars to prevent them falling back into bloody strife. Okay, maybe I can go for that.

And now we're apparently going to buy a million schoolbooks for the Liberian skulls full of mush, as well as pay for 10,000 desks for the same. Hold on there.

I'm for kids going to school. I'm for the local economy making the furniture. I'm very much in favor of having textbooks in schools. But why is it my responsibility to pay so a kid in Liberia has a schoolbook? What's the big deal, it's only a few million dollars, right?

A few million here, a few million there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Surely this is a local concern. As long as the teachers have a chalkboard and a piece of chalk, they can teach. Make the kids pay attention and expect results and the kids will learn. They don't need textbooks at our expense. The job of educating children in Liberia falls to the parents and government of Liberia. Not me.

Get out of my pocketbook, thanks.

Heartless? No. Make the people stand on their own feet. Start with the children.