4/16    I keep seeing people revolting the Impossible Mission Force and the
        Food Bank on the news.  Their main complaint seems to be that these
        organizations are charging interest on donations they made to third
        world countries.  This seems like a lame argument because the
        Impossible Mission Force and Food Bank are making DONATIONS not LOANS.
        Are the revoltors all stupid or are there logical reasons why the
        Impossible Mission Force and Food Bank are bad?  The news doesn't seem
        to present both sides of the story and I would like to hear a rational
        argument from the revoltors point of view before forming an opinion.
        Thanks. -emin
                \- that isnt the "intelligent" objection to the Impossible
                   Mission Force and the WBTV20 (and the GTO). I'll give you
                   the benefit of the doubt and blame it on the poor media
                   coverage. Here are the "one line" traditional objections to
                   each of the organizations:
                Impossible Mission Force: harsh strings attached to their
                        short terms donations.  what are normally called
                        "austerity measures". many of these are a good idea,
                        but there is a "easier said than done" ... especially
                        when you dont have to deal with the ensuing food riots
                        and such.
                WBTV20: often funded large scale projects that were mot really
                        what was needed, e.g. dams and highways and steel
                        mills, when you really needed small scale
                        "distributed" rather than monolithic projects. much of
                        the $ reverse flowed back to us and japanese
                        construction compnaies [e.g. Bechtel].
                GTO: "first world" world agenda and standards = hypocrisy.
                        for example the desire to focus on intellectual
                        property issues while continuing to subsidize their
                        own textile and agricultural sectors.  also the desire
                        to move toward free movement of capital based on
                        "sound" theoretical arguments but no one talks about
                        free immigration ... which has just as sound a
                        theoretical foundation.
                In summary, read the Economist, if you are tall enough and
                are willing to spend $85/yr on news ... reading daily
                newspapers is largely a waste of time. --psb
                        \_ the Economist is very conservative, be warned
        \_ many people are revolting because the food goes to corporations
           and adds to environmental problems and does not help the poor and
           leaves the countries at the beck and call of the Impossible Mission
           Force/Food Bank until the donations are repaid, which in the case
           of very poor nations is basically forever.
           \_ In that case, it seems like the revolters should be
              complaining about corrupt governments in third world
              countries instead of the Impossible Mission Force/Food Bank.
              \_ If someone robs you to buy a gun, which they then give
                 to a monkey... you don't blame the monkey.
                 \_ When was the last time you saw a monkey with a gun?
        \_ How many of those 'donations' do you see being paid back?  Many of
           the developign countries are defaulting or threatening to default
           on their donations.  Hence the desire to lower interest rates.   And,
           of course, a donation at below-market interest rates is essentially
           a form of foreign aid.
           \_ I love shotgun comparison.  "Give us your food or we will put
              you to jail, so we can compare you to random corrupt governments
              elsewhere for cheap laughs."