Mar 05

Freedom Through Acting, Not Guns

In Palestine, there is a city by the name of Jenin located in the West Bank.  A majority of the city’s population is made up of Palestinian refugees displaced from their homes.  Thousands of young children, teenagers, and college age youth grow up within the walls of this refugee city, and the future they look towards screams of disappointment and hopelessness.  High unemployment rates mean many young people will most likely be unable to find or hold a stable job.  Two schools, one which is forced to run double shifts, are struggling to accommodate students, and thus have difficulty keeping track of attendance records.  The city, which was subjected to intense violence during the Second Intifada, has been unable to fully recover from armored Israeli bulldozers plowing through infrastructure during the battle.

It is difficult to comprehend how the young people of Jenin live, and what it is that they feel, think, and believe about their circumstances.  According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jenin is a breeding ground for terrorism and violence, and the youth will inevitably become future terrorists.  Shedding this stigma is a difficult task, especially when it is so very easy for young people to obtain and carry a gun.  However, the young boys and girls of Jenin, as well as children from neighboring towns, have something better to hold in their hands—their art.

The Freedom Theatre, established by Juliano Mer-Khamis and Zakaria Zubeidi, is an institution that believes that the children of Jenin can bring about social change through music, plays, acting, and the arts in general.  It is an artistic haven that is open to both boys and girls, and supports youth and female empowerment.  The theatre theatreserves as an outlet for the frustration, pain, and hardships young people in Jenin experience on a near daily basis.  Instead of letting the youth become jaded and hardened, the community supports children by letting them imagine a different world, allowing them to step out of their shoes for a moment, and putting on productions that range from calling for non-violent Palestinian independence to exploring family dynamics within the refugee camp.

Nevertheless, violence has followed the theatre from its inception to its current state.  Zubeidi, one of the two founders, is a former Palestinian militant who was once number one on Israel’s most wanted list.  In 2007, he relinquished his guns, and abandoned militancy in favor of expressing resistance through the theatre.  Unfortunately for Mer-Khamis, a Jewish activist and actor who lived in Jenin, life was cut short when a masked gunman shot him five times outside his beloved theatre.  It was a tragic and senseless death, brought on by the very weapons Mer-Khamis urged his students to put down. juliano

It is interesting and inspiring to read about an artistic community that ties social and youth empowerment in a region like Palestine.  Developed and stable countries like the United States have a plethora of programs to help keep kids from dabbling in drugs, gangs, and violent activities.  Many times we are unaware of just how many youth programs we have in the US, and take for granted the mentors and activities available in every state.  The Freedom Theatre, however, is one of the only places in the West Bank where young people can channel their energies in a positive, healthy, and hopeful manner.  Despite the fact that one of the founders of the theatre has passed away, and the future of the institution is tenuous at best, it is still remarkable that a single institution is pushing for youth empowerment from within Jenin.  The theatre has become a refuge for children who are born and raised within a refugee camp.

Share

Mar 01

Nuclear Power will save the world

The Heading might sound outrageous. How can I possibly say that? Nuclear power will completely destroy the Earth or bring about a mass extinction. These are the thoughts, of many millions of people worldwide. It drives people to protest against nuclear programs, and even call for condemnation of those leaders, who seek to implement such programs. This is fair, considering the stigma around the word ‘nuclear’. When I think nuclear, I have this image of a big mushroom cloud, soaring into the sky, everything taking on a scary red glow, and everything being obliterated. These were my thoughts, until I started writing this article. It changed my mind about nuclear energy completely, and after reading this, I am sure it will change your minds too.

renewable-energy-indiaWith great and continued advances in solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power and other forms of clean energy, you would ask the question, Is nuclear power really needed? I would say: Yes, now more than ever. The fact is that today, many climatologists are in favor of nuclear power. It’s true. Evan Stewart Brand, the Author of the Whole Earth Catalog and many other publications about climate change, is now strongly advocating nuclear power. The fact is that the primary source of CO2 is due to the burning of Fossil fuels, and consumption of land i.e. through deforestation. Now think about the numbers, today CO2 emissions are much too high in the opinion of thousands of scientists around the globe, including UN scientists. So we are already in trouble. 5 out of 6 human beings live in developing countries, and as these developing countries will grow, more and more people are going to move to cities, and of course, demand more electricity. Think about what the level of CO2 emissions will be then? Today Base load electricity comes from 66.1% fossil fuels, 55.9% Nuclear power and 16.1% other. At this point, I wish I could add wind and solar but I cannot, for wind and solar are not nearly consistent enough, to add to a base load table. In other words, the sun does not always shine and wind turbines don’t always turn. Energy used by one person in his/her lifetime, will put out 19 000 tons of CO2 into the countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_world_map_deobfuscatedatmosphere. For the same amount of energy used, nuclear energy will put out enough waste to fill a soda can.

But the cost of nuclear power plants, are very high. Well yes they are, but once built the cost per Megawatt/hour of nuclear energy is much cheaper than even solar, wind and hydroelectric power.

It’s a risk management issue.

What would happen if terrorist groups get hold of materials, to make nuclear weapons? They could destroy large cities and kill millions of people. Yes this is a huge risk, and one that we all hope never happens.
Governments around that world, however, do not take nuclear threats lightly, many Governments know exactly when nuclear weapons are being made and tested. So, the risk is significantly less than first perceived. Did you know that those same weapons, that we fear, are actually good for fueling the nuclear plants? Russian stockpiles have been used to fuel many nuclear plants and US stockpiles are now also been used. The risk of nuclear weapons is being managed, but what about disasters like the one at Fukushima? Here is what the IAEA said in their annual nuclear report, “As a result of the Fukushima accident a number of countries have taken steps to improve their nuclear programs, some have even eliminated them altogether, as they could not meet standards. China, Germany and India , the main drivers of nuclear power, and rightly so as they are the main emitters of CO2 in the world, have taken drastic steps in shutting down older nuclear plant and bringing better and safer ones up.”

how-a-nuclear-plant-worksThe IAEA report further states “Nuclear (Power) remains an important option, not only to countries that have existing nuclear programs but to developing countries as well.” In my opinion nuclear power remains our only source of cheap power that will nullify, the present CO2 emissions.

I am not pro nuclear, I am pro arithmetic, and the numbers don’t lie.

Share

Feb 28

Five Thousand Dollar Bullets!

In the wake of the  Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the country’s focus is on  stricter gun control. This week Congress is expected to debate the broadest  the broadest gun control legislation in a generation. However, Bullets image 2I think ammunition control should be at the forefront of this debate. It is essential to focus on the gun control, but why pretend controlling guns is the central issue. “Guns don’t kill people; bullets do”.
Bullets over the years have become cheaper, easier to use, and more deadly. Without bullets the guns are useless. After the Newtown shooting  firearms were being stockpiled before regulators can clamp down. These guns can last for a century, but what if the gun owner only had enough bullets, to last two years. This would give the owners “some pause” in how they choose to use their bullets.

The comedian Chris Rock was genius in making the suggestion during his routine that bullets must be priced extremely expensive to stem violence. Here is an excerpt of his routine, warning it contains adult language.

I agree with Chris Rock bullets prices should be drastically increased and in addition mercilessly taxed. These increased prices and taxation should not be limited to specific ammunition’s, but to all ammunition’s across the board.

It is estimated there is about 10 billion bullets manufactured in the United States each year. The only limits on accessing these bullets are for illegal immigrants, dishonorably charged military servants, convicts, and those bullet image 1under 18. The laws differ from State to State but most laws on the purchase of ammunition are pretty slack.
Bullets can also be purchased over the internet very easily, with hardly any limits. In Georgia, ammunition is sold online, in some instances a 1,000 at a time. In 2009 Georgia was described as  having the 10th highest rate of crime gun exports. Anyone with $15 dollars can buy a bag of 50 bullets, no questions asked, under Georgia Law. This easy access to bullets is ridiculous, but Georgia is just one of many states with such negligent laws.
The loopholes in buying bullets need to be closed. The Price of bullets should be raised from $ 15 dollars a bag to $ 15,000 a bag. The taxes should be increased by increased by 200 percent. A purchase order form should be submitted in order to purchase bullets, with a 3-6 week delay on the response time for security checks. There should be a limit on how much bullets can be purchased at any one time. Purchasers should be required to be fingerprinted and a photographed for records. The gun which the bullets are being purchase for should be brought in upon purchase. These laws should be implemented across all the states, because gun violence is an issue in all the States.

The time is right for these changes to be made, the debate is ongoing and strong. Recent gun violence across the states is a clear indication that this issue will continue unless strong laws are implemented. A lot of people will not want such changes, but my stance is, if you are gun holder, with no preconceived notions to do harm, one will not be concerned with doing what is required to maintain their ammunition or weapon.

 

Share

Feb 25

Economics and Happiness

In the 1970s Richard Easterlin wrote an article titled “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence,” in which he described what is now known as the Easterlin Paradox and became the father of happiness economics. The Easterlin Paradox, simply stated, suggests that people do not get happier as they get richer.   Now, I’ve written a bit about the topic of happiness economics in the past, particularly the role that the Happinesssmall kingdom of Bhutan played in popularizing the concept, so I thought now would be a good time to look at some of the latest developments in the field.  Though Easterlin published his article in the mid-1970s, happiness economics did not really gain steam until the 2000s, and now more and more people are starting to look at happiness indicators as the world struggles to get out of the continuing financial crisis.   Even Ben Bernanke, current chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has given a few speeches on how measures of well-being and life satisfaction can influence economics and economic policy making.

One issue that has come up in recent years is that the Easterlin paradox just doesn’t seem to hold up to empirical scrutiny.  People are now beginning to report becoming happier as they get wealthier, the opposite of what Easterlin found almost 40 years ago.  This data, however, seems to come mainly from developing countries, rather than developed countries.  This is because, as some have suggested, poor people in poor countries have Happiness2fewer choices than poor people in wealthy countries, more children who die in childbirth, and other serious issues.  For people living on $2.50 a day, even a small increase in income can mean a huge gain in happiness, current studies are showing.  In wealthier countries a much larger change in income is needed for a gain in happiness, though overall people in wealthier nations seem to be happier than they were when Easterlin was conducting his research.

So what does this information mean for economic development?  Well, studies on happiness economics will certainly be of interest to policy makers, for one.  As one researcher points out, the goal of government is not only to maximize revenue, but to make citizens better off.  At the local level, happiness economics could provide valuable insight into what kind of projects citizens would benefit the most from, both in poorer countries and in wealthier countries.  Access to high quality healthcare, for example, is at the top of the list of non-material things that make people happier, as is clean air and water, while unemployment and inflation reduce happiness.  Accurate measurements for quality of life and life satisfaction indicators like these can help point policy makers in the right direction.  Additionally, happiness economics is helping to shine some light on economic decision-Happiness3making and how people react to perceived inequality, risk, and uncertainty.  The Arab Spring, for one, is partially based on inequality and uncertainty, and so more information on these subjects could be very beneficial.

What do you think about the growing field of happiness economics?  How could increased understanding of this field affect decision making and economics as a whole?  Or do you think it’s a worthless pursuit, and that we should continue to focus on traditional economic indicators?

Also, for those of you who might be interested, here is a video of Richard Easterly talking about happiness economics.

Share

Feb 22

Breastfeeding in Developing Countries

Almost 6.9 million children under five died around the world in 2011. Did you also know that almost 830,000 deaths could be avoided if every baby was breastfed within the first hour of life? As soon as the infant is born, the mother produces a special milk called colostrum. Colostrum is known to be the most potent natural immune system booster ever known in the field of science. It is considered the superfood for newborn infants and protects them from hunger and disease. Breastfeeding for at least six months prevents infant mortality and protects infants from diseases such as diarrhea and pneumonia. Despite the benefits of breastfeeding, global rates of breastfeeding have remained below forty percent for the past twenty years. Why? According to Carolyn Miles, the President and CEO of Save the Children, there are four main barriers to breastfeeding around the world. These barriers include: community and cultural pressures, the health work shortage, lack of maternity legislation, and inappropriate marketing of breastmilk substitutes. It is essential to tackle these barriers to save lives of children all over the world. There needs to be more aid resources allocated to promote breastfeeding among women and families in developing countries.
world-vision-breastfeeding-week
There is no strong campaign in the global health arena that truly advocates for more mothers to breastfeed their infants in developing nations. Many aid organizations invest in vaccines, medicines, and other methods to prevent child deaths under five. Out of all these methods, breastfeeding is the most effective in safeguarding children under five from diseases that can potentially kill them. It is surprising why global health aid organizations do not recognize the potential benefits of breastfeeding. In addition, breastfeeding is very cost effective. Breastfeeding not only protects a child from diseases, but it can also aid in preventing malnutrition. According to the Save the Children report, failure to ensure early initiation of breastfeeding  was linked to an increase of the child being underweight compared to their height. If more global health aid organizations see the potential for breastfeeding, there is chance that the barriers to  breastfeeding can be eliminated. These organizations can have the ability to increase the health workers to help teach new moms to breastfeed. In addition, the organizations can also advocate for maternity legislation and for the regulation of breastmilk substitutes.

baby-formula-rocket-fuel

Similar to tobacco companies, breastmilk substitute companies are able to market their products without any types of regulation in developing countries. They often undermine the benefits of breastfeeding to sell their products. Despite the international regulations, there is no concrete enforcement. Global health aid agencies may have the funding and the resources to combat this problem. Breastmilk substitute manufacturers have marketed their products by claiming these products have various health benefits. However, these claims are not very backed up by scientific evidence. There is no enforcement of false claims despite international regulations by the World Health Assembly. These manufacturers have influence over health care workers, clinics, and hospitals. Many clinics and hospitals allow manufacturers to market their products within the premises. According to a survey in Pakistan, 11% of mothers interviewed reported seeing or reading about a promotional campaign by these companies in a clinic or hospital. Many of these companies target healthcare workers by giving them gifts, posters or free samples to promote these products to their patients. Global health aid organizations can influence the clinics that they provide aid to not allow any advertisements for breastmilk substitutes. In addition, they can create a rule that health workers cannot receive any types of gifts or samples from these companies.

Breastfeeding can save many lives of young children. Breastfeeding not only is beneficial for the child but also the mother as well. As much as 13% of all deaths of children younger than 5 years could be prevented by promotional strategies to increase breastfeeding rates. If more global health aid organizations promoted breastfeeding as solution, that can make a big difference in decreasing child deaths under five. Why not market the simple and easy solution?

Share

Feb 22

The Dark Side of Social Media

Let’s talk about social media. Do you have Facebook? Twitter? I’m going to guess almost definitely. But are you extremely plugged in? With Pinterest? Foursquare? Instagram? Maybe somewhat less likely but the odds are still pretty high. I’ll admit, I use all of the social media outlets (plus a few more). So needless to say I’m a fan. These things all do a lot of good. They allow us to express ourselves, connect with other people, and really provide traction for social movements. The list is almost never ending.
But unfortunately there is also a dark side to social media. It can be used to target people in a very damaging andimages hurtful way. Both on an individual but also cultural level. Just this past week we saw too horrible incidents in these cases involving women’s issues. The first came from youtube sensation “Jenna Marbles”. She is an extremely popular video blogger who uses that forum to share her ideas regarding different cultural phenomenon. These are typically light hearted pieces; however, this week she chose to focus on women she calls “sluts” and made the tone much darker. One particularly harsh comment read: “The idea behind monogamy is that it is almost a state of higher evolution, anyone can be a slut, but it takes some logic and reasoning to say ‘I think I am going to be with one person and not sleep with the world.’” Of course there is nothing wrong with monogamy. But who is she to say how a particular woman should interact with a potential sexual partner. It is no one’s business other than the individuals involved what they choose to do. A woman should not have to worry about being dubbed a “slut” or being judged by other women in her daily life in person but also through social media.
But that wasn’t the only negative impact on women in social media this week. If you’re an avid twitter user, you probably saw the newest trending hashtag: LiberalTips2AvoidRape. A twitter hashtag that grew out of a misphrased argument from a Colorado House Democrat: Joe Salazar on Monday. Salazar is promoting a proposal to ban firearms on college campuses and in debate made a statement clearly implying that scared college kids carrying firearms might result in unintended casualties. However, conservatives jumped on his statement and used it to create a meme. They hoped to make him the new Todd Akin and to shift the focus of the War on Women Things-I-don-t-understand-about-girls-slut-editiondebate away from conservative politicians. They were not successful at these attempts and only succeeded in creating an extremely offensive twitter hashtag that include statements such as: “go for the Democrat politician look. You definitely won’t be raped…” Statements like these should never be considered funny and certainly shouldn’t be supported by politicians meant to represent our people and run this country.As you’ve probably picked up on, I have a HUGE problem with these two things. I think it is unacceptable for people to attack women via social media and I think it’s even worse when politicians and political groups are leading the charge. However, that’s not exactly what I want to continue talking about. Two of the articles I linked to above, as well as these articles have covered the topic extremely well and are definitely worth a read. Instead, I want to talk about how we’ve gotten to the point that things like this can occur, why they continue to happen, and how we can stop it.

I think a lot of the problems for us stem from a misunderstanding of exactly how many people we can reach. Social media has become a global phenomenon and connects people around the world. While that is an amazing feat that does bring some personal responsibility with it. Our thoughts don’t just go out into space Continue reading

Share

Feb 21

What’s in a Name?

The Social Security Administration has officially joined the club. Better late than never, you could say.

In August 2010, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed Rosa’s Law, which legally required the terms “mental retardation” and “mentally retarded” to be removed from all federal education, health, and labor laws. Just last month, the Social Security Administration officially announced their intent to change their own departmental language in the official Listings of Impairments. This is not the first time that the Social Security Administration has considered changing their language from “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability” (the agency issued a proposed rule to update the eligibility criteria for individuals with mental disorders back in 2010, however no action was ever taken on the proposal). However, public opinion has led the Social Security Administration to a change of heart once again, realizing that, “advocates for individuals with intellectual disability have rightfully asserted that the term ‘mental retardation’ has negative connotations, has become offensive to many people, and often results in misunderstandings about the nature of the disorder and those who have it”.

2013badge_animationFor a long time, I have supported legislation like Rosa’s Law. The work of campaigns like Spread the Word to End the Word. Initiatives that promote “people first” language, and realize the importance of creating a more politically-correct world.

However, I’m beginning to feel unsettled – like something more needs to be done. It’s great that the Social Security Administration has decided to change its language. However, the label is still there. The cultural stereotypes, assumptions, and presuppositions are still there. Why do we feel the perpetual need in our society to label people? To refer to individuals in accordance to their “condition”? Why can’t we simply take people for who they are, and call it a day?

The inevitable truth is that when we assign labels, we allow ourselves the liberty to see somebody only in accordance with their condition. Their “disability”. By the way they deviate from “normal” society. It allows us to justify cultural stigmatization. Even discrimination. It causes us to create a classification system, which allows us to all too quickly (and easily), draw the line between “Us” and “Them”.

If a person recovers from cancer, do we refer to him or her as “being cancer,” or he or her “is cancer”. No, because we know that cancer is something that we can recover from and be cancer-free. With mental illness, labels are made, “he is OCD,” “she is bipolar,” as if to say, the word “bipolar” sums up one’s whole existence, we don’t need to take that person’s actions good or bad too seriously, because it all comes down to the fact that he or she “is” this or that label. –Association for Natural Psychology

All too easily, the label becomes permanent, unchangeable. It becomes part of that person’s identity. The problem is that it ignores everything else about the individual themself. What about their thoughts? Their feelings? Their talents? What about everything else that makes that person special? Why are we always so quick to assign a label, and ignore the bigger picture?

crossword_stigmaI realize that monumental changes that have taken place in the mental health community in recent years due to campaigns like Spread the Word to the End the Word and legislation like Rosa’s Law, and I don’t want to discredit their widespread success. Such actions are steps in the right direction, which work to promote a more tolerant and accepting society, and have had profound impacts on individuals all over the world.

However, I caution before applauding such efforts, and simply calling it a day. Forty years ago, the federal government removed the term “feeble-minded”, and replaced it with “mental retardation”. After decades of stigmatization and discrimination, “mental retardation” has been removed, and has been replaced with the term “intellectual disability”. What’s to say that forty years down the road, “intellectual disability” won’t become riddled with the same negative connotations as “mental retardation”? As “feeble minded”? That it won’t be filled with the same cultural stereotypes, assumptions, and presuppositions? Who’s to say that we won’t be fighting the same battle again sometime soon, only this time against the term “intellectual disability”?

The problem is – there’s always a new word, a new phrase – but the ignorance lives on.

Share

Feb 19

On the issue of homosexuality missionaries must be univolved

MIssionary Work in Uganda

It is unacceptable for missionaries to use their resources to get polices passed into law in some African countries that they could never get passed in their own country. As is currently evident in the actions of American Evangelicals in Uganda and the kill-the-Gays bill. Missionary work” is often associated with the preaching of “the gospel”. But missionaries also offer services in the form of education, literacy, social justice, healthcare and missionary work 3economic developments. However, missionaries are cautioned to be aware of social justice issues and the dangers of cultural imperialism or economic exploitation disguised as religious conversion. Apparently, some American evangelicals missed the class on exploitation disguised as missionary work.
The evangelical, mission in   Uganda  seems to be geared towards creating an environment of persecution and hate against gays and lesbians. Their mission of persecution is a social injustice. Missionaries should not get involved in the local politics in the country they are serving, if their desired outcome is the persecution of its people. Most important it is wrong for missionaries to push their own personal agendas using political and cultural issues.

My concern with this issue of missionary groups and their efforts, pushed me to learn more about what other missionary groups are doing within the region, specifically Uganda.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints not only focuses on spreading “their gospel”. They offer  Humanitarian Services in the form of relief and developmental projects in countries all over the world, without regard to the nationality or religion of the recipients. Their missionary efforts include partnering with health organization and ministries of health around the world.

Through their partnership they offer five ongoing global projects. The  neonatal resuscitation project,  wheelchair initiative project,  clean water projects, measles vaccinations project and the  vision treatment  project. They have successfully worked with Ugandans offering their services, according to the needs of each specific village. The goal of the Church is to focus on the long term needs of each community. The missionary’s purpose is to teach the people to become self-reliant by teaching them skills, and providing resources for a self sustained life.

Which group do you think is doing “missionary work”?


missionary work 6After learning about the work of the Church of Latter Day Saints and their Humanitarian projects, I think this should be the real focus and activity for mission groups. They provide resources that are needed and instrumental in the lives of the people they seek to empower. Their mission work is organized to focus on the real needs of the people in whatever region they are serving.
Therefore, as individuals seeking to do missionary work or donating to specific missionaries, let us do our homework, as to who is really doing missionary work. Are we seeking to join missionaries that are genuinely working to empower the individuals they profess to help or are we empowering messengers of hate and negativity? In our quest to help others donate to organizations that provide resources that are life sustaining. When we speak about missionary projects that we are supporting let it be organizations that actually provide real “missionary” services.

Share

Feb 15

Mozambique under water…Again!

In late January disaster struck Mozambique. The Limpopo River which arcs across 4 countries burst its banks. Around 140 000 people woke up to severe flooding, and in an instant they had lost everything. The death toll currently stands at 105, with 250 000 people directly affected. UNICEF Mozambique estimates that $30 million is still needed for food and medical supplies.

Hasn’t this happened before?                  800px-Limpopo

Yes, and all too often. That particular region of Africa is considered the most disaster prone. Many Mozambicans have said that the last six years have been their hardest. In the year 2000, the numbers affected were much larger, and so was the cost of disaster relief efforts. We all know from climate change experts that the situation will only get worse globally. That surely means that, the situation in Mozambique will worsen. I am sure you will agree that these Band-Aid solutions, as admirable as they are, are not suitable. Mozambique and its people need more.

What is the permanent solution to the flooding?

I believe that there is a permanent solution that will solve the problem, instead of merely dealing with the consequences of the flooding. This solution is hydroelectric power. 90% of Mozambique’s power comes from hydroelectric systems. By building more hydroelectric dams, access water can be controlled while still ensuring suitable water levels for farmers.

wuhytypicalplant

What about the costs? Yes, it will be expensive. The expense though pales in comparison to the loss of life, the thousands of homes destroyed, the millions in Aid money needed for relief and the cost of managing the relief efforts in the aftermath.

If these dams were build with high capacity outputs, this solution would pay for itself. If the output is at 150% of Mozambique’s electricity requirements, the access could easily be sold to Mozambique’s neighbor South Africa, as one example, which has an increasing power supply problem and has bought power from Mozambique in the past.

Can this be done given that Mozambique is an under-developed country?

Mozambique is certainly under-developed. The UN refers to Mozambique as Africa’s great paradox, because of Mozambique’s economic growth between 1994 and 2006, which was at the rate of 8%. That rate is outstanding by any nation’s standards, more so by “Third World” standards. Despite this growth, Mozambique remains largely under-developed.

limpopo1

I would argue that the fact that Mozambique is under-developed is precisely the reason why this project will work. This is because Mozambique offers the cheapest electricity in Africa, and it has an open door policy to foreign investors, who are afforded the same treatment as local investors. These two facts will attract more investors, which it already has with the building of a large Aluminium smelter. By building these hydroelectric dams, Mozambique will be in a position to compound this effect. No more flooding and a growing economy. Certainly sounds like a great position to be in.

Should Mozambique do this alone?

No, I don’t think so. Mozambique is part of the SADC. Most of the heavy rainfall that brings floods takes place in South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Surely, being part of a free trade area means, supporting members in ensuring disasters are being averted. Wouldn’t this co-operation benefit all of the free trade area members?

I would certainly think so, and find it bizarre that the other members of the SADC have not engaged with Mozambique on a permanent solution as yet. All the while, the people of Mozambique continue to suffer. UNICEF has, just this week, announced that there is only enough clean water for half of the people affected, and only enough food and medical supplies for 2/3rds of those affected. This is not good at all. As you read this, the British Red Cross are sending medical teams to assess and prevent outbreaks of diseases like Cholera and Malaria. The situation remains dire. It is about time to end this kind of disaster permanently. Don’t you think?

 

Share

Feb 08

The Global Tobacco Epidemic

Did you know that at least one billion people are expected to die from tobacco use in the 21st century? We all know the horrible consequences of using any type of tobacco. Tobacco can increase a person’s risk for various types of cancer, respiratory diseases, and cardiovascular diseases. Despite all the risks, tobacco is not focused on as much as other global health issues such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and maternal mortality. The rates of tobacco use are rising in developing countries compared to developed countries. Fortunately enough, all these deaths can be prevented through effective tobacco control programs and policy. In fact, there are many tobacco control policies in place around the world. However, one or more of these policies do not apply to almost eighty-three percent of the world’s population. In addition, there is at least one tobacco related death every six seconds and every year more than six million people die from tobacco use worldwide.

As a result of restrictions in many developed countries for tobacco use and marketing, many tobacco companies have now moved their focus on developing countries as a new and emerging market. Many developing countries do not have effective laws in place for tobacco, thus tobacco companies have freedom to market and sell their product however they want. Why is this such a problem? Tobacco companies can use marketing techniques to lure children and teenagers easily. As a result, these children and adolescents become lifelong consumers as adults for these tobacco companies. World Health Organization, and international aid agencies should push for countries to develop their own tobacco control policy to combat marketing and use. Countries should be aware of all the resources available throughout the agencies. For example, the World Health Organization has a program called the Tobacco Free initiative. This program provides governments with a framework to create their own tobacco control policies.

en_tfi_tobacco_poverty

Here in the United States, we can probably remember learning about the consequences of smoking in our health education classes in elementary school. We learned about the breathing problems associated with smoking or how smokeless tobacco can cause mouth cancer. Luckily in the US, all public schools introduce the topic and spread awareness about tobacco use from the beginning of a child’s educational career. According to the Center of Disease Control, it has been shown that school health programs have shown to reduce the prevalence of health risk behaviors among children and adolescents In many developing countries, many schools may not incorporate health education programs based on tobacco.

Continue reading

Share