This is an interesting press release about the HIV/AIDS crisis in the world and the response by the US. I would not go as far as they did in criticising Pres. Bush, but I would say we as a nation often at meeting global crises that do not impact us economically.
Africa has nothing to offer. It is a money pit. Who cares if the average person cannot afford to buy condoms? I know this is harsh on my part. We do give.
Some would say that "we cannot save everyone," and yet we have this cultural bias against those who are weakest. We often say "these things happen" or "the world is hard" or worse..."they are lazy," "they are mooching off of our efforts." We do not want to help other countries. This, I think, may be the wrong attitude entirely.
It is not a question of want. It may be a question of duty. But it is a question of national vocation. We have to help because we are called to do so, to do less would be to be less ourselves. No one person is responsible, though the one can carry the blame. We are all culpable. I am culpable.
There are over 10,000 homeless youth in Chicago. There are 100 beds allocated to serve them each night. This is my fault. This is my problem. This is our failing as many and as one.
Posted by tripp at December 13, 2003 10:17 AMI'm having trouble following your thought in this post.
Are you saying that proximity breeds greater responsibility for action? That we're more responsible for the welfare of the people physically close to us than we are for those far away?
Posted by: Megan at December 15, 2003 09:54 AMI have trouble following my posts of late as well.
I am not suggesting anything about proximity except to provide a place of focus for those who do. Proximity means nothing.
Except, sometimes it is easier to act upon ills that are geographically distant. They are less emotionally oppressive...though this is a sad excuse.
Posted by: Tripp at December 15, 2003 10:15 AM