very real side-effects...of poverty

Several theories have emerged as to why all but one of the confirmed deaths from swine flu have occurred in Mexico. Much of it is speculation -- that Mexico City's 7,300-foot elevation exacerbates respiratory illnesses, that there may be a slight variation between the viral strain prevalent in Mexico and swine flu elsewhere, that Mexico is further along in disease transmission and other countries will eventually see severe cases.

Unfortunately, I bet that most people won't pause to think much about the fact that Mexico has taken the brunt of the Swine Flue "pandemic".  I bet that to the public, it will just reinforce the image that Mexico is a poor country, where conditions are bad, where people die... where I don't want to be.

However, the truth of the matter is that there are socio-economic forces at work that force people in poverty to make decisions that will hurt their health:

Delaying medical care is a characteristic of poverty. For people living close to the edge, taking off a day to visit a doctor or staying home sick is literally taking food out of their mouths.

- Paul J. Gertler, a professor of economics at the School of Public Health at the University of California at Berkeley, in response to why some in Mexico self-medicated before receiving hospital treatment for swine flu. (Source: The Washington Post)

are we willing to go all the way?

Seeing how "popular" it is nowadays to be "green" and environmentally friendly, I wonder how far are we really willing to go? I mean, coal and oil companies will certainly fight to maintain their market share, but how about normal consumers? Are we willing to purchase "green" products? Hybrid vehicles are more expensive than their non-hybrid equivalents, and they have proven popular. Using energy efficient light bulbs and other, simple home improvements has also proven doable. But here is something pretty extreme:

Are we willing to drink our own waste water? This article in NY Times "A Tall Cool Drink of... Sewage?" about a new treatment plant in Fountain Valley shows how you can actually make very, very clean water out of sewage. But here is an interesting and sobering conclusion:

You could argue that in coming to terms with wastewater as a resource, we’ll take better care of our water. At long last, the “everything is connected” message, the bedrock of the environmental movement, will hit home. In this view, once a community is forced to process and drink its toilet water, those who must drink it will rise up and change their ways. Floor moppers will switch to biodegradable cleaning products. Industry will use nontoxic material. Factory farms will cut their use of antibiotics. Maybe we’ll even stop building homes in the desert.

But these situations are not very likely. No one wants to think too hard about where our water comes from. It’s more likely that the virtuosity of water technology will let polluters off the hook: why bother to reduce noxious discharges if the treatment plant can remove just about anything? The technology, far from making us aware of the consequences of our behavior, may give us license to continue doing what we’ve always done.

It seems we're not yet ready for change. Apathy and "ignorance is bliss" wins again.

*nerd note* They do it in the space station - months at a time drinking 100% reclaimed waste water! *end nerd note*

remaining encouraged and inspired

Unfortunately, the LRA is still fighting, in Uganda and the DR Congo - abducting children, massacring villages, and forcing people to be displaced.

The rebels have attacked Congolese villages, massacring more than 900 people since the offensive began just before Christmas.

Mr Kony's long and brutal rebellion against the Ugandan government has left tens of thousands of people dead, driven some two million people from their homes and destabilised a swathe of central Africa.

Last year, the LRA leader refused to sign a final peace deal thrashed out at two years of talks in neighbouring South Sudan - prompting the Ugandan military to lead the latest offensive.

The LRA has insisted the war crimes indictments must be lifted before signing a deal to end the conflict. The rebels are accused of having raped and mutilated civilians, forcibly enlisting child soldiers and of massacring thousands during two decades of conflict.
- March 4th, 2009 BBC News | Africa

And this is just one of many global humanitarian injustices that I could be focusing on.

I acknowledge that I'm slightly biased towards Uganda, because I was there.  But I'm really encouraged by the efforts and effects of the Invisible Children campaign.  Check out the videos below: 

Invisible Children: The Rescue Plan




Invisible Children: TRI

Click here to see more videos about Invisible Children's mission.

what works = what's right

The Best Thing for the Economy, the Right Thing for the Poor

by Jim Wallis, 02-12-2009

First, economists across the political spectrum agree that the economy desperately needs to be stimulated by federal investment in things that will generate immediate economic activity and jobs. Second, the same analysts also agree that benefits to low-income families will result in immediate economic stimulation as people in distress will spend the money they receive because they have no other choice. In other words, directly helping vulnerable people works because it will quickly help stimulate the economy, and it’s right because it will immediately help poor and vulnerable people. How often do we get to do what works and what’s right at the same time?

...

Helping those who have fallen on hard times — and helping states avert cuts in a range of critical services — will do more to help the economy and create jobs than poorly targeted tax cuts.

So... what I want to know is, why in the world are we spending upwards of $2 trillion dollars on some complicated bailout bills for corporations, banks, the housing market, etc...?  Can you imagine if $2 trillion dollars were instead distributed directly to people starting at the bottom of our economic ladder?  Say... $10,000 per person... that would give the 200 million poorest people in the US a huge boost.   If the population of the US is around 400 million, that means we'd be helping out the poorest half of the country directly, instead of the richest top percentage.  And if there were restrictions on the money, so that it had to go towards paying off debt first, then it would also help corporations and banks who are not getting paid because people are defaulting on loans.

Anyway, just a thought. I'm no economist, so I'm sure some eloquent person could explain why such an idea wouldn't work...

yet another tale of 'ugliness revealed'

My roommate has a subscription to Time magazine and I usually don’t get around to reading most of the articles in there, but yesterday and today I discovered some articles that I feel are really worth sharing.

First, a disclaimer that I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other on the “Palestinian vs Israel” issue - I think both should have to learn to live with each other, but beyond that I haven’t really read enough about it to say how that peace should look. But one thing I do know for sure, is that when you stop just looking at numbers of casualties, and hear personal stories, then you know that ideologies just don’t matter. War is ugly! The killing must stop!

“I looked down and saw my 2-year-old daughter lying there with her insides spilling out. And then the soldier shot my two other girls. I’m not Hamas. My girls weren’t Hamas. Why did they do this to us?” - quote from the article “Voices from the Rubble” - TIME magazine, Feb 9 issue.

The above quote, from “Voices from the Rubble” is an article that tells the sad tale of a man in Gaza who had 2 of his 3 daughters slaughtered in front of him (all three were shot, 1 is paralyzed but survived) by an Israeli soldier for no apparent reason. Read the story for yourself… but to hear it told certainly makes you just despise the Israeli army for doing something like that. Especially when they deny it and claim “the Israel Defense Forces is an ethical army…”

And even though it is estimated that about 90% of Jews in Israel were supporting the 22-day offensive against Gaza, I read another article titled “Israel’s Lonesome Doves” which tells the story of peace activists within Israel and their losing battle at home.

“I listened to one of my neighbors telling Israeli TV that the sound of the bombing was like a symphony, that he’s never heard such powerful music before… And I was thinking, how many people are dying because of that ‘music’?” - an Israeli peace activist commenting on her neighbor’s response to news reports of the air strikes on TV.

But it is good to hear that there are still people in both Israel and Gaza who are in-touch with their humanity and desiring peace rather than continued conflict.