4 ms·

> The agency of Americans is also contributing to this reccuring. I’m going to push back very, very hard on ascribing any sort of blame on anyone other than th

> The agency of Americans is also contributing to this reccuring. I’m going to push back very, very hard on ascribing any sort of blame on anyone other than those who are committing these acts. Least of all the American taxpayer, regardless of whether or not dismantling USAID is a good idea. If the rest of the world is so helpless that all hope depends on Americans to solve even problems such as this and it’s our fault for not doing so, then I don’t want to hear a peep about us taking any other actions in the world that we deem just. You can’t have it both ways.

oliwarner 1y ago
If a major consumer of a product decides it doesn't care to inspect and regulate an import, the global supply for it gets tainted. You're so busy cutting red tape, you lower the standards everywhere. I do absolutely agree, it's not your fault that cheaper, dirtier, methods of production are being used, but your lack of standards is a major contributing factor. This is the reason the EU and UK exclude so much US produce. To allow it would lower local standards too.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  The article is principally about tumeric that was brought by individuals into the US, not tumeric that was imported by companies for sale in the US. Imports are regulated, the FDA actually inspects foreign food facilities that are exporting to the US, and outbreaks are carefully monitored and traced back to their origin.
steveBK123 1y ago
Right, I'm 100% against the dismantling of our foreign aid programs, USAID included.. However, the world playing both sides of the coin on "US World Police" being bad when it does stuff but also bad when it doesn't do stuff is part of how we end up where we are. It's a minuscule part of our budget, but an easy sell for right wingers to say "well the world isn't grateful for it and its all a bunch of waste so we are killing it" then get if not majority support, less than 50% disapproval.
- refurb 1y ago
  I think it’s important for people to educate themselves about USAID. International aid isn’t the point, it’s a channel for shaping the world according to the US’ goals. For example, look up the role of USAID in the Vietnam war. It was used to fund village self defense forces and the Phoenix program which used targeted apprehension and assassination to combat the Viet Cong. Sure it dug a few wells but net net I don’t think anyone can argue USAID had a positive impact for Vietnam. USAID is 98% political interference and 2% aid. You’d think people who oppose US interference in other countries would applaud shutting USAID down. But apparently not.
  - specialist 1y ago
    You prompted me to learn something about USAID. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_A... I've always kind of assumed the USA's hegemonic "soft power" (Peace Corps, USAID) was an outgrowth of Civil Affairs Units. Likewise, I assume the USA's chaotic, neurotic policies are the result of the never-ending food fight between liberals and reactionaries. Reflected in the tortured history of USA's domestic policy making wrt foreign policy. Carrots vs sticks. Regardless, hegemony is not great. Will a multi-polar world be better (overall)? Insofar as "soft power" prevents the greater evil of war, I'm all for it. (Per the cliché "war is the failure of diplomacy".) Obviously, reactionary tantrums (neocons, GWOT, Second Gulf War w/ Iraq, total failure in Afghanistan, etc, etc) are complete failures. Further, I am skeptical that any "soft power" can be more moral than not (on the balance). I acknowledge that the USA (and friends) have managed to pull off a few win/win scenarios, like PERPAR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_f... For future, I'm for whatever reforms or innovations or governance or moral progress or whatever which supplants hegemony with something better. The prospect of Pax Sinica, Pax Europa, Pax Indica, or whomever, is no more desirable than (our now waning) Pax Americana.
  - account42 1y ago
abeppu 1y ago
The article makes clear that the initiative, though announced by USAID with other partners, was funded primarily by philanthropy. > The money – most of it from Open Philanthropy – will go to more than a dozen countries from Indonesia and Uganda to Ghana and Peru. From other sources, I think the US _financial_ commitment was actually pretty minimal ($4M). But if USAID had been providing important governance, administration or coordination, withdrawing its involvement could still destabilize an effort that otherwise could have been impactful. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/us-government-commits-4-million-to-tackle-lead-poisoning/ https://healthpolicy-watch.news/us-government-commits-4-mill... "Blame" is a loaded word. But is it really so strange to you to think that the richest and most powerful country might have some role to play in international problems that arise from comparative poverty? And that the country with the largest military in the world also should be held to a high standard in how it uses that tremendous force? If we were just some average-sized middle-income country, then no one would expect that we should play a disproportionate role in helping things at an international level, or that the use of our military is more criticized than any other. But we're big and rich and powerful and we've had some military presence in other continents pretty much continuously since WWII, and we shouldn't expect to be able to act with impunity.
- dgfitz 1y ago
  > The article makes clear that the initiative, though announced by USAID with other partners, was funded primarily by philanthropy. So, it doesn’t seem like it matters much if USAID was dismantled then. > But if USAID had been providing important governance, administration or coordination, withdrawing its involvement could still destabilize an effort that otherwise could have been impactful. But, if. “Maybe we can make a lot of assumptions about a lot of things and pretend they’re true, and make an argument about it.” Isn’t the play. Not a real point, or something to even debate. > “Blame" is a loaded word. But is it really so strange to you to think that the richest and most powerful country might have some role to play in international problems that arise from comparative poverty? And that the country with the largest military in the world also should be held to a high standard in how it uses that tremendous force. You completely lost the plot here. You can’t have it both ways. Sure would be pretty neat if _any other country in the WORLD_ stepped up and did… something. Anything. Your argument really died here.
lostlogin 1y ago
The problem is present in America, per the article. ‘In the early 2000s, New York City's health department noticed a perplexing blip: A surprisingly large number of Bangladeshi children in New York City were showing up in their lead database.’ For the cost of the research mentioned in the article, that seems a small sum to pay relative to the result achieved. ‘Soft power’ is not valued by many anymore, but cut it all and it’ll be interesting to look back in a generation or two and see the result.
- ericmay 1y ago
  Personally I do value soft power, I specifically take issue with taking away agency from other people and throwing it at the feet of the United States and saying “this is your fault and your problem to fix”. It’s counter productive and that’s why we got rid of USAID. Enough Americans were annoyed about about these exact things. I disagree but sympathize. I’m not actually sure that the juice is worth the squeeze though with respect to your first paragraph and I think you are stretching. The better argument instead is just the appeal to soft power or Conservative “we need to save the world” sensibilities aka Bush Jr. and AIDS for example.
- account42 1y ago
  The article also states that it was mainly tumeric the affected persons imported themselves, not that there is a lead problem with tumeric on US shelves.
bigbadfeline 1y ago
> I’m going to push back very, very hard on ascribing any sort of blame on anyone other than those who are committing these acts. Pushing back to remove blame from anybody that could potentially solve the problem? And place it exclusively on those who have all incentives to perpetuate and grow it? That kind of blind moral grandstanding is why we live in idiocracy.

oliwarner 1y ago

If a major consumer of a product decides it doesn't care to inspect and regulate an import, the global supply for it gets tainted. You're so busy cutting red tape, you lower the standards everywhere. I do absolutely agree, it's not your fault that cheaper, dirtier, methods of production are being used, but your lack of standards is a major contributing factor. This is the reason the EU and UK exclude so much US produce. To allow it would lower local standards too.

Amezarak 1y ago
The article is principally about tumeric that was brought by individuals into the US, not tumeric that was imported by companies for sale in the US. Imports are regulated, the FDA actually inspects foreign food facilities that are exporting to the US, and outbreaks are carefully monitored and traced back to their origin.

steveBK123 1y ago

Right, I'm 100% against the dismantling of our foreign aid programs, USAID included.. However, the world playing both sides of the coin on "US World Police" being bad when it does stuff but also bad when it doesn't do stuff is part of how we end up where we are. It's a minuscule part of our budget, but an easy sell for right wingers to say "well the world isn't grateful for it and its all a bunch of waste so we are killing it" then get if not majority support, less than 50% disapproval.

refurb 1y ago
I think it’s important for people to educate themselves about USAID. International aid isn’t the point, it’s a channel for shaping the world according to the US’ goals. For example, look up the role of USAID in the Vietnam war. It was used to fund village self defense forces and the Phoenix program which used targeted apprehension and assassination to combat the Viet Cong. Sure it dug a few wells but net net I don’t think anyone can argue USAID had a positive impact for Vietnam. USAID is 98% political interference and 2% aid. You’d think people who oppose US interference in other countries would applaud shutting USAID down. But apparently not.
- specialist 1y ago
  You prompted me to learn something about USAID. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_Inter... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Agency_for_International_Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_A... I've always kind of assumed the USA's hegemonic "soft power" (Peace Corps, USAID) was an outgrowth of Civil Affairs Units. Likewise, I assume the USA's chaotic, neurotic policies are the result of the never-ending food fight between liberals and reactionaries. Reflected in the tortured history of USA's domestic policy making wrt foreign policy. Carrots vs sticks. Regardless, hegemony is not great. Will a multi-polar world be better (overall)? Insofar as "soft power" prevents the greater evil of war, I'm all for it. (Per the cliché "war is the failure of diplomacy".) Obviously, reactionary tantrums (neocons, GWOT, Second Gulf War w/ Iraq, total failure in Afghanistan, etc, etc) are complete failures. Further, I am skeptical that any "soft power" can be more moral than not (on the balance). I acknowledge that the USA (and friends) have managed to pull off a few win/win scenarios, like PERPAR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%27s_Emergency_Plan_f... For future, I'm for whatever reforms or innovations or governance or moral progress or whatever which supplants hegemony with something better. The prospect of Pax Sinica, Pax Europa, Pax Indica, or whomever, is no more desirable than (our now waning) Pax Americana.
- account42 1y ago

abeppu 1y ago

The article makes clear that the initiative, though announced by USAID with other partners, was funded primarily by philanthropy. > The money – most of it from Open Philanthropy – will go to more than a dozen countries from Indonesia and Uganda to Ghana and Peru. From other sources, I think the US _financial_ commitment was actually pretty minimal ($4M). But if USAID had been providing important governance, administration or coordination, withdrawing its involvement could still destabilize an effort that otherwise could have been impactful. https://healthpolicy-watch.news/us-government-commits-4-million-to-tackle-lead-poisoning/ https://healthpolicy-watch.news/us-government-commits-4-mill... "Blame" is a loaded word. But is it really so strange to you to think that the richest and most powerful country might have some role to play in international problems that arise from comparative poverty? And that the country with the largest military in the world also should be held to a high standard in how it uses that tremendous force? If we were just some average-sized middle-income country, then no one would expect that we should play a disproportionate role in helping things at an international level, or that the use of our military is more criticized than any other. But we're big and rich and powerful and we've had some military presence in other continents pretty much continuously since WWII, and we shouldn't expect to be able to act with impunity.

dgfitz 1y ago
> The article makes clear that the initiative, though announced by USAID with other partners, was funded primarily by philanthropy. So, it doesn’t seem like it matters much if USAID was dismantled then. > But if USAID had been providing important governance, administration or coordination, withdrawing its involvement could still destabilize an effort that otherwise could have been impactful. But, if. “Maybe we can make a lot of assumptions about a lot of things and pretend they’re true, and make an argument about it.” Isn’t the play. Not a real point, or something to even debate. > “Blame" is a loaded word. But is it really so strange to you to think that the richest and most powerful country might have some role to play in international problems that arise from comparative poverty? And that the country with the largest military in the world also should be held to a high standard in how it uses that tremendous force. You completely lost the plot here. You can’t have it both ways. Sure would be pretty neat if _any other country in the WORLD_ stepped up and did… something. Anything. Your argument really died here.

lostlogin 1y ago

The problem is present in America, per the article. ‘In the early 2000s, New York City's health department noticed a perplexing blip: A surprisingly large number of Bangladeshi children in New York City were showing up in their lead database.’ For the cost of the research mentioned in the article, that seems a small sum to pay relative to the result achieved. ‘Soft power’ is not valued by many anymore, but cut it all and it’ll be interesting to look back in a generation or two and see the result.

ericmay 1y ago
Personally I do value soft power, I specifically take issue with taking away agency from other people and throwing it at the feet of the United States and saying “this is your fault and your problem to fix”. It’s counter productive and that’s why we got rid of USAID. Enough Americans were annoyed about about these exact things. I disagree but sympathize. I’m not actually sure that the juice is worth the squeeze though with respect to your first paragraph and I think you are stretching. The better argument instead is just the appeal to soft power or Conservative “we need to save the world” sensibilities aka Bush Jr. and AIDS for example.
account42 1y ago
The article also states that it was mainly tumeric the affected persons imported themselves, not that there is a lead problem with tumeric on US shelves.

bigbadfeline 1y ago

> I’m going to push back very, very hard on ascribing any sort of blame on anyone other than those who are committing these acts. Pushing back to remove blame from anybody that could potentially solve the problem? And place it exclusively on those who have all incentives to perpetuate and grow it? That kind of blind moral grandstanding is why we live in idiocracy.