Letter to the Editor - Chirac, the Palestinian Authority, and the World Food Program vs. the Darfur refugees

Discussion
1

Here's the letter to the editor I just sent the San Francisco Examiner...

    <<< starchild >>>

April 30, 2006

Editor,

Reading the weekend Examiner, I was struck by the juxtaposition of two small news stories on page 10. The first of the two to catch my eye stated that French president Jacques Chirac “proposed the creation of a World Bank fund to pay the 165,000 Palestinian Authority employees living without wages since an international freeze on aid.”

What’s wrong with that picture? According to the State Department, there are only 3.8 million people living in the Palestinian territories. Assuming that those 165,000 employees constitute the Authority’s entire workforce, which is not clear from the article, this means one out of every 23 Palestinians works for the government. Even bureaucracy-ridden San Francisco doesn’t have that high a ratio of government employees! Of The City’s 776,733 residents, 26,400 work for the municipal government, or one out of every 29. No wonder the Palestinian Authority can’t meet its own payroll expenses. Before the international community throws more money down that particular rathole, maybe it’s time some of those 165,000 officials went out and got real jobs.

As I thought about this, I noticed another story on the same page reporting that “the United Nations food agency said it is cutting rations in half for about 3 million refugees in Sudan’s war-ravaged Darfur region because of a shortage of money, calling it ‘scandalous’ that it has to stretch out supplies while it pleads for funds.” Starting Monday, the World Food Program said, it would reduce daily food handouts to 1,050 calories a person, “meaning some of those being helped could eventually face starvation.”

After that sank in, my first question was: Have any of the agency’s personnel taken pay cuts in order to help meet the funding shortfall? If not, *that* is what’s scandalous. According to a document on the UN’s website, “salaries of Professional staff are set by reference to the highest-paying national civil service.” So it’s a safe bet the bureaucrats at the UN food agency are not exactly underpaid. But here’s where it gets really tough --- given that there’s not enough cash to go around, how would the world’s taxpayers want their money spent? Fully fund the generous paychecks of the WFP bureaucrats, or try to make sure refugees in Sudan get the minimum level of daily calories necessary to keep them from starving? What a moral dilemma! We should be grateful that the conscientious professionals at the UN are there to make the decision for us, rather than leaving it to members of the taxpaying public who might not be aware of all the subtle considerations involved.

But hey, maybe there will be a few dollars left over from President Chirac’s proposed World Bank fund to help feed the Darfur refugees – after the Palestinian Authority (and fellow state welfare queen Israel) have gotten all the funds they need to maintain the levels of big government to which they’ve become accustomed, naturally.

Sincerely,

Starchild
Candidate For Supervisor, District 8
3531 16th Street,
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 621-7932

2

Starchild wrote:

Here's the letter to the editor I just sent the San Francisco Examiner...

  <<< starchild >>>

April 30, 2006

Editor,

It might be nice to note:
a) Israel makes it impossible for most Palestinians to
make any kind of living so state jobs become just
another form of charity so they don't starve to
death in their virtual concentration camps.
b) Darfur is a battle between US/Israel imperialists
and Chinese imperialists for control of their oil,
with civilians getting killed. But it's a great excuse
for Israelis and their US Supporters
to claim they are "fighting genocide"
even as they treat the Palestinians like dirt in
their ghettos.

3

Dear Starchild;
   
  Nice letter pointing out the dichotomy between the haves and the have nots and good old bureaucracy paying its own the bestest while people literally starve and putting your whole family on the government payroll in Palestine.
   
  Now if you could have made it 330 words shorter saying the same thing the Examiner very well may have published it because of the points you are making.
   
  As an exercise - see if you can make it work with the same points but under 150 words. We will grade your efforts in relation to the rest of the class on a curve. Or if we feel like it - pass or fail. Or re-submit to the Examiner.
   
  For someone who attended SFSU and received a degree in journalism this should be a snap. No Problemo - Correcto??
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
   
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
  Here's the letter to the editor I just sent the San Francisco
Examiner...

<<< starchild >>>

April 30, 2006

Editor,

Reading the weekend Examiner, I was struck by the juxtaposition of two
small news stories on page 10. The first of the two to catch my eye
stated that French president Jacques Chirac �proposed the creation of a
World Bank fund to pay the 165,000 Palestinian Authority employees
living without wages since an international freeze on aid.�

What�s wrong with that picture? According to the State Department,
there are only 3.8 million people living in the Palestinian
territories. Assuming that those 165,000 employees constitute the
Authority�s entire workforce, which is not clear from the article, this
means one out of every 23 Palestinians works for the government. Even
bureaucracy-ridden San Francisco doesn�t have that high a ratio of
government employees! Of The City�s 776,733 residents, 26,400 work for
the municipal government, or one out of every 29. No wonder the
Palestinian Authority can�t meet its own payroll expenses. Before the
international community throws more money down that particular rathole,
maybe it�s time some of those 165,000 officials went out and got real
jobs.

As I thought about this, I noticed another story on the same page
reporting that �the United Nations food agency said it is cutting
rations in half for about 3 million refugees in Sudan�s war-ravaged
Darfur region because of a shortage of money, calling it �scandalous�
that it has to stretch out supplies while it pleads for funds.�
Starting Monday, the World Food Program said, it would reduce daily
food handouts to 1,050 calories a person, �meaning some of those being
helped could eventually face starvation.�

After that sank in, my first question was: Have any of the agency�s
personnel taken pay cuts in order to help meet the funding shortfall?
If not, *that* is what�s scandalous. According to a document on the
UN�s website, �salaries of Professional staff are set by reference to
the highest-paying national civil service.� So it�s a safe bet the
bureaucrats at the UN food agency are not exactly underpaid. But here�s
where it gets really tough --- given that there�s not enough cash to go
around, how would the world�s taxpayers want their money spent? Fully
fund the generous paychecks of the WFP bureaucrats, or try to make sure
refugees in Sudan get the minimum level of daily calories necessary to
keep them from starving? What a moral dilemma! We should be grateful
that the conscientious professionals at the UN are there to make the
decision for us, rather than leaving it to members of the taxpaying
public who might not be aware of all the subtle considerations involved.

But hey, maybe there will be a few dollars left over from President
Chirac�s proposed World Bank fund to help feed the Darfur refugees �
after the Palestinian Authority (and fellow state welfare queen Israel)
have gotten all the funds they need to maintain the levels of big
government to which they�ve become accustomed, naturally.

Sincerely,

Starchild
Candidate For Supervisor, District 8
3531 16th Street,
San Francisco, CA 94114
(415) 621-7932

4

Dear Carol;
   
  Look on the bright side - The Israelis - so far - aren't proposing to do anything similar to the Wannsee Protocol to agree on a Final Solution to the Palestinian Question.
   
  Count your blessings.
   
   Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian

Carol Moore in DC <liberty@...> wrote:
  Starchild wrote:

     Here's the letter to the editor I just sent the San Francisco
Examiner...

           <<< starchild >>>

April 30, 2006

Editor,

It might be nice to note:
a) Israel makes it impossible for most Palestinians to
make any kind of living so state jobs become just
another form of charity so they don't starve to
death in their virtual concentration camps.
b) Darfur is a battle between US/Israel imperialists
and Chinese imperialists for control of their oil,
with civilians getting killed. But it's a great excuse
for Israelis and their US Supporters
to claim they are "fighting genocide"
even as they treat the Palestinians like dirt in
their ghettos.

  SPONSORED LINKS
        U s government grant California politics

5

Starchild, It would be nice if everyone
who is not living in Israel maintain an
attitude of sympathy, love and
forgiveness for both sides. Only a
Bhuddist attitude can save the situation
there.

With that said, it is my opinion that
the US government should not be
involved at all in the affairs of Israel, or
any other country for that matter, that
does not present a clear, direct and
immenint threat to the United States or
direct interference with commerce to
and from the US..

It is my general observation that people
of the far right and far left can always
find common ground on one point, anti
semitism, and it's cousin anti zionism.

The situation for the Palestinians is very
unfortunate, but it does not lend itself to
any casual discussion of causation.
Impugning Israeli motivations without
reference or apparent direct knowledge
is inappropriate, and is out of character
for your usual high standards of
intellectual integrity.
This topic, so drenched in blood, tears,
prejudice, and shrouded in thousands of
years of history, is best left for other
forums.

Incidentally, I was going to tell the board
in a much more light hearted way, that I
will be travelling to Israel from May 15
to June 7. Halliburton is sponsoring all
congressional candidates, just to keep
all thier bases covered :-).

6

Dear Phil;
   
  Enjoy the trip and look on it as a way to get back some of those tax dollars funnelled to Halliburton by the Bush and Cheney!!!
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
   
  P.S. Good commentez vous about the Israel - Palestinian Problemo.

ricochetboy <philzberg@...> wrote:
  Starchild, It would be nice if everyone
who is not living in Israel maintain an
attitude of sympathy, love and
forgiveness for both sides. Only a
Bhuddist attitude can save the situation
there.

With that said, it is my opinion that
the US government should not be
involved at all in the affairs of Israel, or
any other country for that matter, that
does not present a clear, direct and
immenint threat to the United States or
direct interference with commerce to
and from the US..

It is my general observation that people
of the far right and far left can always
find common ground on one point, anti
semitism, and it's cousin anti zionism.

The situation for the Palestinians is very
unfortunate, but it does not lend itself to
any casual discussion of causation.
Impugning Israeli motivations without
reference or apparent direct knowledge
is inappropriate, and is out of character
for your usual high standards of
intellectual integrity.
This topic, so drenched in blood, tears,
prejudice, and shrouded in thousands of
years of history, is best left for other
forums.

Incidentally, I was going to tell the board
in a much more light hearted way, that I
will be travelling to Israel from May 15
to June 7. Halliburton is sponsoring all
congressional candidates, just to keep
all thier bases covered :-).

  SPONSORED LINKS
        U s government grant California politics

7

Ron,

  They edited my last letter, so I assume they'll be willing to edit this one as well if they feel it's too long but see part of it they want to print. I don't particularly feel like trying to chop it up, as it says just what I want it to say at the current length. It doesn't hurt to encourage them to print the occasional letter that is more than a sound bite.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

8

Carol,

  If the Palestinian Authority allowed more economic freedom in the areas it controls, Palestinians wouldn't *have* to rely on Israeli authorities allowing them to make a living.

  As to the conflict in Darfur, if it is "a battle between US/Israel imperialists and Chinese imperialists for control of their oil," that's the first I've heard about it. But please do elaborate, if you have evidence to back up the claim. I'll be more likely to find it persuasive if it isn't full of words like "imperialists."

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

9

Dear Starchild;
   
  I believe your last letter was edited and published because it was topical on the earthquake and had something concrete to say.
   
  However, sending long LTE's in the hope that future LTE's will get edited and printed is a somewhat of a pipe dream. Having any newspaper publish a lengthy LTE over a 150 word sound bite is problematical. They have too many other LTE's which do follow the guidelines and are under 150 words in length.
   
  There is afterall, competition for the limited space available.
   
  Remember LTE's should be:
   
  correct - current - concise - topical and pithy(whatever the heck that means)
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
   
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
  Ron,

They edited my last letter, so I assume they'll be willing to edit
this one as well if they feel it's too long but see part of it they
want to print. I don't particularly feel like trying to chop it up, as
it says just what I want it to say at the current length. It doesn't
hurt to encourage them to print the occasional letter that is more than
a sound bite.

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

10

Ron,

  I didn't send a long LTE in the hope that future LTEs would get edited and printed. I sent a long LTE because that's the length it turned out to be after I finished saying what I wanted to say. It was current and topical -- I specifically referenced stories that had just appeared in their paper, and I had something concrete to say about them. I guess if that's enough to overcome the length in getting them to print it. If they don't, it's not the end of the world.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

Dear Starchild;

I believe your last letter was edited and published because it was topical on the earthquake and had something concrete to say.

However, sending long LTE's in the hope that future LTE's will get edited and printed is a somewhat of a pipe dream. Having any newspaper publish a lengthy LTE over a 150 word sound bite is problematical. They have too many other LTE's which do follow the guidelines and are under 150 words in length.

There is afterall, competition for the limited space available.

Remember LTE's should be:

correct - current - concise - topical and pithy(whatever the heck that means)

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:

Ron,

They edited my last letter, so I assume they'll be willing to edit
this one as well if they feel it's too long but see part of it they
want to print. I don't particularly feel like trying to chop it up, as
it says just what I want it to say at the current length. It doesn't
hurt to encourage them to print the occasional letter that is more than
a sound bite.

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

> Dear Starchild;
>
> Nice letter pointing out the dichotomy between the haves and the have
> nots and good old bureaucracy paying its own the bestest while people
> literally starve and putting your whole family on the government
> payroll in Palestine.
>
> Now if you could have made it 330 words shorter saying the same thing
> the Examiner very well may have published it because of the points you
> are making.
>
> As an exercise - see if you can make it work with the same points but
> under 150 words. We will grade your efforts in relation to the rest of
> the class on a curve. Or if we feel like it - pass or fail.
> Or re-submit to the Examiner.
>
> For someone who attended SFSU and received a degree in journalism this
> should be a snap. No Problemo - Correcto??
>
> Ron Getty
> SF Libertarian
>
>
> Starchild wrote:
>
> Here's the letter to the editor I just sent the San Francisco
> Examiner...
>
> <<< starchild >>>
>
> April 30, 2006
>
> Editor,
>
> Reading the weekend Examiner, I was struck by the juxtaposition of two
> small news stories on page 10. The first of the two to catch my eye
> stated that French president Jacques Chirac “proposed the creation of a
> World Bank fund to pay the 165,000 Palestinian Authority employees
> living without wages since an international freeze on aid.”
>
> What’s wrong with that picture? According to the State Department,
> there are only 3.8 million people living in the Palestinian
> territories. Assuming that those 165,000 employees constitute the
> Authority’s entire workforce, which is not clear from the article, this
> means one out of every 23 Palestinians works for the government. Even
> bureaucracy-ridden San Francisco doesn’t have that high a ratio of
> government employees! Of The City’s 776,733 residents, 26,400 work for
> the municipal government, or one out of every 29. No wonder the
> Palestinian Authority can’t meet its own payroll expenses. Before the
> international community throws more money down that particular rathole,
> maybe it’s time some of those 165,000 officials went out and got real
> jobs.
>
> As I thought about this, I noticed another story on the same page
> reporting that “the United Nations food agency said it is cutting
> rations in half for about 3 million refugees in Sudan’s war-ravaged
> Darfur region because of a shortage of money, calling it ‘scandalous’
> that it has to stretch out supplies while it pleads for funds.”
> Starting Monday, the World Food Program said, it would reduce daily
> food handouts to 1,050 calories a person, “meaning some of those being
> helped could eventually face starvation.”
>
> After that sank in, my first question was: Have any of the agency’s
> personnel taken pay cuts in order to help meet the funding shortfall?
> If not, *that* is what’s scandalous. According to a document on the
> UN’s website, “salaries of Professional staff are set by reference to
> the highest-paying national civil service.” So it’s a safe bet the
> bureaucrats at the UN food agency are not exactly underpaid. But here’s
> where it gets really tough --- given that there’s not enough cash to go
> around, how would the world’s taxpayers want their money spent? Fully
> fund the generous paychecks of the WFP bureaucrats, or try to make sure
> refugees in Sudan get the minimum level of daily calories necessary to
> keep them from starving? What a moral dilemma! We should be grateful
> that the conscientious professionals at the UN are there to make the
> decision for us, rather than leaving it to members of the taxpaying
> public who might not be aware of all the subtle considerations
> involved.
>
> But hey, maybe there will be a few dollars left over from President
> Chirac’s proposed World Bank fund to help feed the Darfur refugees –
> after the Palestinian Authority (and fellow state welfare queen Israel)
> have gotten all the funds they need to maintain the levels of big
> government to which they’ve become accustomed, naturally.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Starchild
> Candidate For Supervisor, District 8
> 3531 16th Street,
> San Francisco, CA 94114
> (415) 621-7932

<image.tiff>

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.

+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<image.tiff>

11

Dear Starchild;
   
  It could be the end of the world if you don't get LTE's published and your message doesn't get out there for someone to read and think about what was said and end up becoming a registered voting dues paying Libertarian.
   
  Who then goes out and brings in other peoples as registered voting dues paying Libertarians. Who then go out and .......
   
  That's a loss.
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
   
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
  Ron,

I didn't send a long LTE in the hope that future LTEs would get edited
and printed. I sent a long LTE because that's the length it turned out
to be after I finished saying what I wanted to say. It was current and
topical -- I specifically referenced stories that had just appeared in
their paper, and I had something concrete to say about them. I guess if
that's enough to overcome the length in getting them to print it. If
they don't, it's not the end of the world.

Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>

12

Phil,

  Did you read Carol Moore's response? She apparently thought I was being too hard on the Palestinians, while you think I'm being too hard on Israel. I don't think I was impugning Israeli motivations, just pointing out the reality that the Israeli government, like the Palestinian Authority, has long been on the dole.

Yours in liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>