In a comment section at Tim Lambert's weblog, I came across Ronnie Horesh and his ideas about Social Policy Bonds. It's an interesting market-based approach to solving problems.
It's kind of inspiring: He has a novel social idea, he develops it and devotes a lot of effort to promoting it. As some may recall, I've had a social idea myself, but it never left the drawing board, so it's great so see someone that went a step further.
He deserves more feedback, though, so I'm discussing it with him at his blog right now. My current objection is that it may be expensive to pay out actors who profit in an anti-social way from a problem (but we'll see what he writes).
For problems that arise not out of someone's ill will, but more as a result of unfortunate circumstances, I think the bonds may be a very good idea. Horesh mentions reducing female illiteracy in afghanistan as an example, and wouldn't it be great if someone experimented with that?
I learned from Body and Soul about the american media host Rush Limbaugh's disgusting comments about the captured peace workers in Iraq. Well, just in case anyone thought US right-wingers had a monopoly on disgusting statements about the situation in Iraq, here's what a far-left winger wrote in the Christian newspaper Vårt Land recently:
Oh, and don't worry, I will translate afterwards. The article is quoted here in its entirety, for the purpose of discussing its contents. (That should be fair use according to copyright law):
"MISJONÆRER I BABYLON
Etter en periode uten store gisselaksjoner på vestlige TV-skjermer er de nå vendt tilbake igjen. Fire menn, to kanadiere, en amerikaner og en brite, tilhørende den kristne NGOen (ikke-statlig organisasjon) Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) skal ha blitt kidnappet i Irak. Deres kidnappere har truet med å drepe dem hvis ikke deres respektive hjemland, som på den ene eller annen måte deltar i okkupasjonen av Irak, løslater alle fengslede irakere og forsvinner ut av Irak.
Det er umulig med sikkerhet å si hvem som står bak aksjonen. Det kan være alt fra motstandsbevegelsen til okkupantenes egne dødsskvadroner. De fire kristne fra CPT sier at de er i Irak for "å skape fred", mens deres kidnappere sier at de er spioner for okkupasjonsmaktene. Hvem som snakker sant er uvisst, men en må jo spørre seg selv hvilken fred en kristen NGO kan skape i et muslimsk Irak, i skyggen av en væpnet frigjøringskamp.
Det er verd å minne om at parallelt med den ulovlige invasjonen av Irak veltet det inn hundrevis av såkalte uavhengige NGOer til landet. De kom sammen med okkupantene og de irakiske landsforræderne fra eksil i vesten. Det burde altså ikke forundre noen om irakerne er skeptiske til alle disse vestlige gruppene. 3 års amerikansk okkupasjon, som har kostet 100000 irakere livet, har ikke lettet på denne skepsisen.
Som organisasjon arbeider CPT innenfor okkupantenes rammer. Begreper som "okkupasjon", "motstandskamp" og "ulovlig krig" er fraværende i organisasjonens offisielle språkbruk. Til gjengjeld er "makten overgitt til irakerne". Okkupantene er "multinasjonale styrker" og "okkupasjonen opphørte med FN-resolusjon 1546". Det er faktisk vanskelig å se forskjell på CPTs og okkupantenes egen retorikk.
Det kristne CPT gjør i Irak er det samme som de gjør i for eksempel. Colombia. De taler pasifismens sak ovenfor de undertrykte. I Irak anvendes religionen til å spre pasifistiske holdninger til det okkuperte og undertrykte irakiske folket. Hvem tjener på det? Okkupantene eller det irakiske folk, når vi vet at væpnet motstand har vist sin kolossale suksess ved å tvinge land etter land ut av Irak og nå peker veien fram mot frigjøringen?
Det er ingen tvil om at CPTs holdninger objektivt sett tjener okkupantene.
Noen av Vårt Land sine lesere vil kanskje innvende med at organisasjoner som CPT jo også forteller verden om USAs overgrep mot den irakiske befolkningen. Og det er ganske korrekt, men poenget er at det foregår på okkupantenes betingelser og ikke gir uttrykk for at disse overgrepene og okkupasjonen henger sammen. CPT ønsker fred i Irak, men på hvem sine premisser?
Hvis CPT ønsker en rettferdig fred på irakernes premisser måtte de støttet den irakiske motstandsbevegelsen. For det er kun de som kan tvinge okkupantene ut og bygge et nytt Irak, for irakere og ikke vestlige oljeselskaper.
Kristian Kårbø, Komiteen for et Fritt Irak, Bergen"
"MISSIONARIES IN BABYLON
After a period without large hostage situations on western TV-screens, they have now returned. Four men, two canadians, one american and one briton, belonging to the christian NGO (Non-governmental organization) Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) are allegedly kidnapped in Iraq. Their kidnappers have threatened to kill them unless their respective homelands, which in one way or another patricipates in the occupation of Iraq, release all Iraqi prisoners and leave Iraq.
It is impossible to tell with certainty who stands behind the action. They can be everything from the resistance movement to the death squads of the occupants themselves. The four christians from CPT say that they are in Iraq "to create peace"[1], but their kidnappers say that they are spies from the occupation forces. Who tells the truth is unknown, but you have to ask what peace a christian NGO can create in a muslim Iraq, in the shadow of an armed liberation struggle [2].
It's worth reminding that in parallel to the illegal invasion of Iraq hundreds of so-called independent NGOs came to the country. They came along with the occupants and the iraqi traitors from exile in the west. It should therefore not suprise anyone if the Iraqis are skeptical to all these western groups. 3 years of american occupation, which have taken the lives of 100000 iraqis [3], have not lightened this skepticism.
As an organisation CPT works within the occupants limits. Terms like "occupation", "resistance struggle" and "illegal war" are absent from the organisation's official language. In return "the power is returned to the iraqis". The occupants are "multinational forces" and "the occupation ended with UN-resolution 1546". It's hard to see the difference between the rhetoric of CPT and the occupants, actually [4].
The christian CPT do the same in Iraq as they do in for instance. Colombia. They preach the case of pacifism to the opressed [5]. In Iraq religion is used to spread pacifistic attitudes to the occupied and opressed iraqi people [6]. Who gains by that? the occupants or the iraqi people, when we know that armed resistance has shown it's colossal succes by forcing country after country out of Iraq and now shows the way ahead to liberation?
There can be no doubt that CPT's attitudes objectively serve the occupants [7]. Some of Vårt Land's lesere may object that organisations like CPT also tell the world about US abuses against the iraqi population. And that is quite correct, but the point is that it happens on the occupant's terms and it does not give an indication that these abuses and the occupation are connected [8]. CPT wants peace in Iraq, but on whose premises?
If CPT wish a just peace on the iraqi's premises, they should have supported the iraqi resistance movement [9]. For it's only they who can force the occupants out and build a new Iraq, for iraqis and not western oil companies.
Kristian Kårbø, The Comittee for a Free Iraq, Bergen"
[1] Actually, CPT describes their mission as "getting in the way".
[2] You could ask the palestinians. They are apparently quite glad that CPT is there. Even Hamas issued a statement calling for the release of the hostages, calling them friends of the iraqi people.
[3] Kårbø refers to the Lancet estimate. For once he's got the facts straight.
[4] It's quite easy to see the difference. Take a look at this, for instance. They may not use the approved left-wing language, but they leave no doubt about what they think about the occupation.
[5] Hardly. They "get in the way" by standing up for civilians who are abused, helping them in various ways. Their yearly report for 2004 gives an indication of what they do in Iraq and elsewhere.
[6] CPT is not a missionary organisation. They do not seek to convert people to their faith (except implicitly through their example). And while Kårbø in is confusion may think that reducing the violence in Iraq is a bad thing, he can rest assured that CPT work hard - even harder, probably - to spread their vile pacifistic propaganda at home. Does that "objectively support" the iraqi people or not?
[7] Oh, there's something naggingly familiar with this line...
[8] They do not ask anyone for permission before publishing their accounts, so it's hardly on the occupants terms. And as to the charge that they de-emphasise the occupation's responsibility for the abuses, I find it hard to believe Kårbø has actually read anything from their site. Or perhaps he's just upset because they don't link the occupation and abuses with the party-approved terms?
[9] Which one would that be? There are a lot of "resistance movements" in Iraq. Some want theocracy, some want democracy, some probably want a new secular dictator a la Saddam. Some are violent, some are peaceful, some try to win elections. It seems to me that CPT do in fact support the sane elements of what can be called the iraqi resistance.
To counter Norway's right-wing bloggers, who like to give the impression that all Norwegians are like this, or that statements like this are acceptable here, I invite RV local politician Torstein Skarbø to mail me and tell me whether you agree or disagree with this. If party support is any indication, he should be among the 1% reddest people in Norway, and yet I don't think he will support this garbage. Come on, Torstein Skarbø, I hope you google your own name now and then, and you were a CO too, right? As usual I can be reached at a gmail adress with vintermann before the @. (All comments go that route because of blogspam).