Derick quit his job at Wal-Mart!

[TaterTotRancher]

Yes babies can be raised in Nepal...in fact I believe it has been done successfully many times. The US isn't the only place a baby can be raised.

[formergothardite]

Hey now, let's all be cool about this.

I've done work in Leh, India on several occasions (it's right up there close to Nepal) and there are a lot of westerners doing charity/mission work. And while I volunteered my time as a teacher and coach for a few sports without any religious angle what so ever, most people I met there were doing work and spreading the Christian word. The one thing that was pretty clear to me, was most were there with honest intentions of helping people.

Did you have a skill that was actually needed and there was no one in that area who could do the job? That is the thing, having Westerners sweep in to do jobs for free instead of putting money back into the local community by hiring and training local people has a negative long term impact. If people who aren't highly skilled are going to developing countries to do work because they aren't willing to donate money so that the local workers can be hired, well they aren't actually helping, no matter what their intentions are.

And the world does not need people going to spread the Christian word. :angry-banghead:

[Pandie5]

Maybe they asked him to work for the Walton family PAC. They LOVE spending millions on messing with other states' education policies, lowering taxes, anti-union issues. They don't need or want an educated workforce. They fully support unfunded home schoolers and diverting taxes to religious schools with vouchers.

[formerlurkerchimingin]

So basically you think it is okay to cause long(and short) term harm to developing countries so that people can feel better about themselves?

If people are going to go over there just for themselves while giving no shits about how this impacts the lives of the people in the communities where they are traveling, they should at least be honest and not act like they are going to help others. These are real people, with real lives, they aren't objects to be exploited so people can feel good.

Yes, exactly, literally everything I just said is 100% endorsing the exploitation of poor people for selfish westerners. Where exactly did I say "give no shits about"? Do people who pay for shitty carwashes from children give zero shits about little league teams? Honestly, can no one possibly think in nuances? The literal ONLY POINT I was making is that there is almost no example of charity that comes with zero incentives (and I'm including tax write-offs for your own personal preferred method of writing a check and getting to keep a nice gulf between yourself The Great Unwashed so you don't have see them or smell them or feel bad because you're going to bed with food in your belly---see how easy it is to ascribe negative motivations to people you don't know?! How fun!)

Dreamworld, sure, we'd all give to any manner of charity or fundraiser just to give. No concerts, no rubber bracelets, no 10Ks, no pink Kitchenaids, no bake sales, no Christmas wreathes, no nothing. But newsflash: it's not a perfect world

*Part of* raising money for charity is getting people interested either by directly interacting with the people in question, or "getting something for their money". You can have a charitable intentions AND ALSO get something out of it. The two are not mutually exclusive (that's critical thinking speak for "they can exist at the same time--the one does not cancel the other out). Sure, of COURSE perfect dreamworld scenario, it would be different (also in a perfect dreamworld scenario there wouldn't be any children starving to death and people dying from drinking dirty water).

I'm not all for "voluntourism" and I am acutely aware of the problems that this phenomenon can create (CAN but not always there are many good international organizations that provide a very healthy mix of both), but I really don't think it's anyone's place to lecture *anyone* on how to spend their money, particularly if it is obvious to anyone but the folks on the highest of horses, that it is coming out of a genuine, if perhaps misguided place. Would you rather someone spend $2k on a vacation to the Dominican Republic and do nothing but laze around the resort gulping their umbrella drinks and maybe venturing out for a zipline in the jungle? All profits going to Sandals or whatever POS developer set up shop in countries chosen specifically for their non-existent labor laws where they'd be the biggest player in town, able to set their own prices for commodities and people, driving the economies down even farther? Or maybe getting out, trying to lend a hand and maybe learning something about the world in the process? Or just write the check and shut up and stay home? Next time, who should we all email before making these decisions? Or should we just pray to Jesus that we can all be as wise as you?

[formerlurkerchimingin]

Did you have a skill that was actually needed and there was no one in that area who could do the job? That is the thing, having Westerners sweep in to do jobs for free instead of putting money back into the local community by hiring and training local people has a negative long term impact. If people who aren't highly skilled are going to developing countries to do work because they aren't willing to donate money so that the local workers can be hired, well they aren't actually helping, no matter what their intentions are.

And the world does not need people going to spread the Christian word. :angry-banghead:

So which is it, "no matter what their intentions are" or "going to go over there just for themselves while giving no shits "?

Yeah, often (mostly with the for-profit voluntourism companies) it does not work as intended or can do damage (this is true for the Peace Corps, too). But not always. And regardless, the whole freaking point is YES it would be better to just write a check and be done with it. But that is true with literally 100% of charities. And in most instances, *something* is better than nothing (sending physical donations for sure does harm, though), the intentions are true if perhaps misguided. Look, I'm all for helping with self-sufficiency. But if the money for these jobs isn't there (how would the women pay a local teacher for classes, for example), a volunteer can help. The volunteer isn't taking a job, because there was no market for that job in the first place. Yet, at least. It can be a dynamic situation. Some of the better volunteer organizations do give part (the bigger the better) of their fees to hire local staff, to set up a self-sufficient system etc. And donations to the community generally. Something > nothing.

[DaisyD]

And HOW many of these charities we're supposed to write checks to have such high overheads that practically nothing actually gets where you want it to go? Nothing is perfect. I say help in whatever way you feel moved to help. Do it as responsibly as you can, but DO it.

[mebeforee]

Mercury's in retrograde, y'all. Fully evident here ;)

[mebeforee]

And HOW many of these charities we're supposed to write checks to have such high overheads that practically nothing actually gets where you want it to go? Nothing is perfect. I say help in whatever way you feel moved to help. Do it as responsibly as you can, but DO it.

For an organization of any kind (including charities) to be helpful, they need staffing and operational costs. The same way a school needs funds in order to adequately educate the children in it - there ARE external costs that happen when you're trying to do a good job. Charities that can't provide any resources to the people working within them are often crippled by that, because no matter how bighearted you are, it's rare for a person to have the financial stability to give their time away for peanuts. The bigger the charity, the bigger the cost. People often refuse to give money to charities with any measurable overhead because they believe the money is being wasted. I think it's better to look at the individual charity and how they distribute their funds, because many of them have legitimate reason for overhead costs. It takes money to help people and to ensure that they are getting high-quality help, too.

[damnliberal]

Gothardism really hits the being self-employed or doing things where you can be your own boss/manage yourself/set your own hours. (Real estate, car lot, the damn cell phone towers, the Bates' tree trimming business, being a doula, etc). A little bookkeeping business would be totally in line with that, or JB has him managing some sort of finances. I don't think WalMart could care less who their junior tax accountant is. I think this was something they were planning to announce pre-scandal.

[DaisyD]

I get that it takes money to get things done. How many of the execs at these charities make 6 figures a year? I don't know, but I've heard about quite a few...

My point though was, if you feel moved to write a check, write a check. If you feel moved to go and help, go and help. Just check it out beforehand.

Teaching women to be independent is in no way shame worthy. If no one was protecting them from rape, why would anyone help them become independent?

Writing a check to a good charity is in no way shame worthy. In most cases it does a lot of good.

How on EARTH is this a topic of arguement. FFS!

[halcionne]

Maybe they asked him to work for the Walton family PAC. They LOVE spending millions on messing with other states' education policies, lowering taxes, anti-union issues. They don't need or want an educated workforce. They fully support unfunded home schoolers and diverting taxes to religious schools with vouchers.

Huckabee's PR flunkie Chad Gallagher also runs Huck PAC. That's another potential employer.

[umsami]

I get that it takes money to get things done. How many of the execs at these charities make 6 figures a year? I don't know, but I've heard about quite a few...

My point though was, if you feel moved to write a check, write a check. If you feel moved to go and help, go and help. Just check it out beforehand.

Teaching women to be independent is in no way shame worthy. If no one was protecting them from rape, why would anyone help them become independent?

Writing a check to a good charity is in no way shame worthy. In most cases it does a lot of good.

How on EARTH is this a topic of arguement. FFS!

Charitynavigator.org will let you know how various charities rank on this.

[nastyhobbitses]

Why would it be stupid to bring a baby to Nepal? Nepal is great.

Nepal may be great, but their infrastructure right now isn't, what with the earthquake. And even before that, medical care was very limited. If they're planning on staying for a long time, they better be ready to pay out the nose for expensive private clinics or flying to Singapore, Thailand, or India for more advanced or specialized care. If Israel were an older child with a stronger immune system (babies are not known for having awesome immune systems), I'd tell them to go nuts and have an awesome time living in a fascinating country and (hopefully) immersing themselves in the culture. But a young baby wouldn't really appreciate Nepal that much, and medical resources should be directed as much as possible to Nepalese people, not unprepared white Americans who likely expect things to be up to Western standards.

[CorruptionInc.]

I think Derick is delusionnal. He's not a young, dumb, uneducated fundie like Ben. He has more experience, is educated knows something of the world.

But why did he choose to follow Jom Boob and get involved with one of his daughters with the purpose of quivering with a total stranger? And what about this Israel thing? Derick believes that when the state of Israel will get rid of all the Palestinians and own the holy land, it will be the time of the end of the times. He really believes that. And he wants to experiment the end of the world. So he choosed to name his son Israel.

This is not about fundamentalism. This is about psychiaty.

Quitting his job is just a part of a whole transition into desease and self exclusion. He needs care, and so does his whole family. This is sad.

I'm pretty sure Jesus was Palestinian if I remember correctly; he had darker skin.

[Yoshimi]

What Really Happened: Walmart Breaks Silence About Derick Dillard Controversy — Why Jill Duggar’s Hubby Is Out

Ignore the SENSATIONAL HEADLINE (apparently even Derick's dad spoke out in support for Josh from his grave :roll: ), but a spokesperson for Walmart confirms that Derick did indeed leave the company, on his own accord. No further details are given.

[mebeforee]

I'm amazed that publications can't seem to tell the difference between BEN'S father and DERICK'S father. The men keep their surname. How hard is that?

[Imagine20]

For the people saying it's okay to bring the baby to Nepal: have you ever experienced 3rd world medicine? I almost lost my hearing after an ear infection in Sri Lanka from the treatment by an ENT. An ENT who wanted to put me under general anesthesia to treat me, at first. (No, I wasn't a missionary or volunteer. I married a Sri Lankan and was visiting family.) This is 3rd world medicine.

If you think they'll just go to a Western doctor who's there volunteering or working, they'll be taking up resources a Nepali would be needing.

They need to sit still and think things through before running off to a place where cholera is common. They need to realize that there are consequences for bad parenting, and God doesn't stop diseases from killing small children no matter how much you pray.

[ncb]

I should have elaborated a bit... Of course babies can be and are raised well in Nepal and no, the US isn't the only (or even one of the best) place babies can be raised. That said, right now Nepal is still in crisis after the earthquake. It is my understanding from groups like Doctors Without Borders that much of the country is still lacking adequate medical care, housing, and clean water. I am only suggesting that right now might not be the best time for Derik and Jill to make an extended trip to Nepal with a baby.

Yes babies can be raised in Nepal...in fact I believe it has been done successfully many times. The US isn't the only place a baby can be raised.

[karen77]

I would say that raising kids in the US is inherently safer than in a earthquake ravaged 3rd world country....

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I would say that raising kids in the US is inherently safer than in a earthquake ravaged 3rd world country....

Do we even know that is where he going?

This Nepal thing had to be TLC scripted.

[lascuba]

I hate that I'm going to sort of defend these tools, but even in developing countries there are areas with high standards of living and good healthcare if you have the money. Whitey McWhiterson missionaries and their kids are just fine. And there's no way that missionaries are using local doctors if they have the option. If there are missionary doctors available, that's who's treating them. They're not going to give a damn about using up resources for the people they are their to "help."

[Firiel]

Yes, exactly, literally everything I just said is 100% endorsing the exploitation of poor people for selfish westerners. Where exactly did I say "give no shits about"? Do people who pay for shitty carwashes from children give zero shits about little league teams? Honestly, can no one possibly think in nuances? The literal ONLY POINT I was making is that there is almost no example of charity that comes with zero incentives (and I'm including tax write-offs for your own personal preferred method of writing a check and getting to keep a nice gulf between yourself The Great Unwashed so you don't have see them or smell them or feel bad because you're going to bed with food in your belly---see how easy it is to ascribe negative motivations to people you don't know?! How fun!)

Dreamworld, sure, we'd all give to any manner of charity or fundraiser just to give. No concerts, no rubber bracelets, no 10Ks, no pink Kitchenaids, no bake sales, no Christmas wreathes, no nothing. But newsflash: it's not a perfect world

*Part of* raising money for charity is getting people interested either by directly interacting with the people in question, or "getting something for their money". You can have a charitable intentions AND ALSO get something out of it. The two are not mutually exclusive (that's critical thinking speak for "they can exist at the same time--the one does not cancel the other out). Sure, of COURSE perfect dreamworld scenario, it would be different (also in a perfect dreamworld scenario there wouldn't be any children starving to death and people dying from drinking dirty water).

I'm not all for "voluntourism" and I am acutely aware of the problems that this phenomenon can create (CAN but not always there are many good international organizations that provide a very healthy mix of both), but I really don't think it's anyone's place to lecture *anyone* on how to spend their money, particularly if it is obvious to anyone but the folks on the highest of horses, that it is coming out of a genuine, if perhaps misguided place. Would you rather someone spend $2k on a vacation to the Dominican Republic and do nothing but laze around the resort gulping their umbrella drinks and maybe venturing out for a zipline in the jungle? All profits going to Sandals or whatever POS developer set up shop in countries chosen specifically for their non-existent labor laws where they'd be the biggest player in town, able to set their own prices for commodities and people, driving the economies down even farther? Or maybe getting out, trying to lend a hand and maybe learning something about the world in the process? Or just write the check and shut up and stay home? Next time, who should we all email before making these decisions? Or should we just pray to Jesus that we can all be as wise as you?

What is up with this false dichotomy?!

Listen, I believe that many people who participate in voluntourism have good intentions. I really do. And following that, I believe that those of them that have good intentions want to know how best to help. I'm offering up my opinion on that. I don't think it's best to spend $2000 on a trip to do "work" that could be contracted out to local workers which would a) stimulate the local economy and b) be cheaper, allowing the extra money to go to other important projects.

It's not spending $2000 on a mission trip OR spending $2000 on a vacation. I mentioned above what I think is ideal-- volunteering with local organizations and supporting efforts overseas financially, if possible.

[karen77]

Do we even know that is where he going?

This Nepal thing had to be TLC scripted.

I have no idea if they are going there or not, just was throwing that out there.

[SnazzyNazzy]

Meh, for me it all boils down, to when they would actually go. If they were to go next month, only 3 months after the earthquakes, then I would think they were acting foolishly and dangerously, especially in regards to Izzy. Not to mention they would probably be as useless as tits on a bull, but that is neither here nor there. If they were to go, let's say Novemeber, then I really wouldn't give a hoot.

[MalteseBaby]

IDK if Derick's family leave prior to and after Izzie was born was paid or unpaid or a combo of both, but when I was in management and an employee took paid time off, then resigned without coming back to work in the absence of illness or immediate family extreme needs, they most likely could not count on a positive reference from me. I'd just state the facts- took personal leave for X weeks, was scheduled to return on X date, resigned instead on X date. The fact that he apparently never went back to work post- leave is an unprofessional thing to do in most cases. In most cases of a professional, the employer is owed or has the right to expect 6 to 8 weeks' time to look for a replacement.

I have wondered if Jill has turned into cling wrap again, and something has caused him to be concerned or to seek employment closer to their house or out of their house... but that's the ISB rumbling, not factually based.

I always thought the " Nepal rescue trip" was about as likely as " Jessa and Bin are adopting children". Most of that seems to be sensational BS for attention, at least at present.