The much-vaunted political and economic model the world has so readily adopted and whose virtues so many have for so long expounded, simply does not work. The market-based economy is based on fundamentals too easily swayed by speculation and Social Democracy would have all the ingredients for a perfect mix, but for the fact that it is neither democratic, nor is its social component minimally sufficient to meet the needs of the citizens of the world. The current food crisis is a shining example of the disaster this model has become.
According to the UNO, at least 100 million people are at risk of enduring food shortages because of soaring costs – a growing trend which is particularly hard felt by families in the developing world, where typically up to 80% of the family budget is spend on feeding the family.
From 2006 to 2007, food prices rose by 37%, and from 2007 to 2008, by 56% while the price of cereals in the same period shot up by a staggering 74%. This unprecedented and unfettered jump in costs places the achievement of some of the Millennium Development Goals at risk.
The causes are many – growing populations and a growth in income leading to greater demand, weather conditions reducing supply and then a myriad of conditions imposed by greed and speculation. Soaring oil prices have led to a high in transportation costs and fertilisers, meaning that in some areas farmers have been forced to cut their production by two-thirds, which in turn pushes the prices up higher. Panic buying and gambling on commodities – a favourite pastime which underpins today's economic systems – has done the rest.
Those worst hit are as always women and children in general, orphans in particular, along with the ill (AIDS And HIV patients), refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, pastoralists and the urban poor.
The concrete effect for those affected are three stark choices: between eating something every day or skipping meals, spending money on food or medication and sending the children to school or to work in the fields.
The UNO has stressed that the situation is not uniformly dire in all areas but nevertheless warns that over 100 million people are at risk. It has drawn up plans for a three-pronged offensive: in the short term, a fact-finding mission to assess needs, identify the vulnerable and target distribution; in the medium term, there are distribution programmes for seeds, fertilisers and for the expansion of credit and finally, long-term plans include policy reforms to bolster production and investment in sustainable safety nets.
However, how telling it is of today's international community that the United Nations' World Food Programme is currently struggling with a shortfall of some 755 million USD in funding, in a world more intent on wasting hundreds, if not thousands, of billions of dollars on wanton acts of butchery such as we see in Iraq than on providing public services on a global scale. Such is the wonderful capitalist-monetarist system the world has embraced as its economic and social Manna.
More than a feather in the cap, the world food crisis is a shining jewel in the crown of an economic and political system whose only raison d'Ãªtre was from the beginning to be a thorn in the side of Socialism and which did not rest until trillions of dollars had been wasted in sabotaging the model. The result is crystal clear to behold: chaos in the international financial system, chaos in the world economy, chaos in the supply of a basic need such as food on the table for hundreds of millions of people.
This system does not deliver.
Source: Pravda. May 2, 2008
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)