Tales

Friday, November 25, 2011

BBC News - In pictures: Cairo protests fill Tahrir Square

Truly impressive images.

BBC News - In pictures: Cairo protests fill Tahrir Square

Tuesday, August 02, 2011

Somalia famine: Minister warns of starvation in rebel controlled areas | Global development | guardian.co.uk

Curated by Stillmind
August 2nd- 2011.
Somalia famine: Minister warns of starvation in rebel controlled areas | Global development | guardian.co.uk


Somalia refugee drought
A Somali refugee drags a sack with food aid given to her at a food distribution point at the Dadaab refugee camp this week. Photograph: Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty

Somalia's deputy prime minister tells FAO meeting that people in areas controlled by Al-Shabaab may starve to death if aid does not reach them in the next few weeks

The vast majority of people in insurgent-controlled areas of Somalia may starve to death unless aid reaches them in the next few weeks, said Mohamed Ibrahim, Somalia's deputy prime minister.

Ibrahim's blunt warning came at an emergency summit in Rome organised by France, the current president of the G20, and the Foodand Agriculture Organisation (FAO) as the world community seeks to mobilise help to relieve Somalia's first famine in 18 years.

Somalia's deputy prime minister said the fundamental cause of the famine was the fragility of the state and enduring conflict that has hindered the provision of basic services. He also blamed insurgents who have blocked lifesaving aid.

"The plight of the Somali people is desperate," said Ibrahim. "We have witnessed suffering in the heart of the capital."

Access to affected regions has emerged as a key problem in the current crisis. Last week, the UN declared a famine in two regions of Somalia southern Bakool and Lower Shabelle. Somali Islamist rebels, who control these areas, last week denied lifting a ban on certain aid groups indrought-affected areas and rejected the UN's claim that there is a famine in the region.

Earlier this month, the rebel group al-Shabaab, which controls much of southern Somalia, had said earlier this month that it would allow all humanitarian groups access to assist with the drought response. But al-Shabaab spokesman Sheikh Ali Mohamud Rage told a local radio station on Friday that the ban on specific aid agencies, which was imposed in 2009 and 2010, still stands.

At the time, the rebels accused various humanitarian groups, including the UN's World Food Programme (WFP), which is expected to lead the current drought response, of damaging the local economy, being anti-Muslim, and of spying for the government.

An estimated 11.6 million people need humanitarian assistance in Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti, according to the UN.

As G20 leaders met in Rome, Save the Children warned that the number of malnourished children in 14 of its feeding centres in camps in Puntland, northern Somalia, has doubled from 3,500 to 6,000 in just two weeks.

The number of acutely malnourished children – and those who will die without emergency assistance – has also doubled, rising from 300 children to 600 in the last two weeks at the charity's clinics in Puntland.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said its feeding centres were operating beyond their original capacity and, compared to last year, they were receiving up to seven times more patients in certain locations each week. MSF said "spontaneous camps" are emerging in various locations, such as in the Lower Juba Valley.

Save the Children said if world leaders at the emergency meeting fail to plug a $1bn (£613m) funding gap for the east Africa aid effort, more than a million children could die in Somalia alone.

Save the Children pointed out that, despite organising the meeting, the French government has donated just £1.6m to the aid effort, lagging far behind the UK government's recent £52m donation. Italy – the host of today's summit and Europe's fourth largest economy – has contributed only £550,000. Norway told the FAO meeting that it was ready to contribute more money to the relief effort, while the EU has increased its funding to euros 100m. It hopes to increase this further to euros 160m.

Funding commitments

In a pointed intervention, Jeffrey Sachs, special adviser to the UN on the millennium development goals, said the world needed to turn to the Gulf states if it was serious about raising money quickly.

"We have to look to the Gulf states," he said. "It is the only place where the money really is. This is a room of governments without money."

In a later press conference, Kanayo Nwanze, the head of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a UN special agency, chastised the lack of political leadership in Africa in supporting agriculture.

"If Africa does not get its house in order and expects the world to help us out, we are dreaming," said Nwanze. "Thank goodness Tanzania, Kenya and Ghana are moving ahead with agriculture."

He criticised African governments for not keeping their 2003 promise to earmark 10% of their budgets for agriculture.

"Less than 10 countries have fulfilled that pledge," he said.

The World Bank promised to provide more than $500m to help drought victims. The money would be spent on projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and Somalia, including the worst-stricken areas in that country "where circumstances permit", the bank said.

"The recurring nature of drought and growing risk it poses to social and economic gains in this region calls not only for immediate relief from the current situation, but also for building longterm drought resilience," said Obiageli Ezekwesili, World Bank vice-president for Africa.

Opening the meeting, the FAO's director general, Jacques Diouf, said there was a need for greater co-ordination in response to the drought and famine in east Africa to "save our brothers and sisters of dying of thirst and hunger".

He said the world was faced with a similar crisis in the region in 2000, which prompted the then secretary general of the UN, Kofi Annan, to appoint an inter-agency taskforce to investigate what could be done to make the region more food secure.

The resulting report, The elimination of food insecurity in the Horn of Africa: A strategy for concerted government and UN agency action, recommended each of the seven countries in the area draft food security programmes, the implementation of regional food security programmes, expanding markets and trade opportunities, and improving in-country health and nutrition.

The report said large-scale infrastructure was needed alongside investment in small-scale projects, particularly in rural roads, livestock markets and basic services, "ensuring that these developments are community-driven".

Diouf drew parallels with the recommendations made in the report by the taskforce, which he led, and the situation now. He pointed out that irrigation was an important component in addressing the crisis. Just 1% of land in the effected region was irrigated in 2000, he said.

Little appears to have been done to increase this figure. An estimated 2% of land in eastern and southern Africa is believed to now have an irrigation system in place; only about 7% of land in the whole of Africa is irrigated, compared with more than 30% of land in Asia.

Diouf said the 2000 crisis was averted and international attention drifted to other issues. "Must history always repeat itself?" he asked. "And in the first few years of the 21st century, must the international community go through the agonising spectacle of seeing children and livestock dying, as in ancient Egyptian times?

"My hope is that the international community and the G20 in the next few years will marshal enormous resources so in the future such tragic events are nothing more than a bad memory ... that fields will be irrigated and roads will be built so the region will no longer weigh on our collective conscience."

The executive director of the World Food Programme, Josette Sheeran, said the current crisis stemmed from a "triple storm" of drought, soaring food prices and conflict.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Mass psychosis in the US - Opinion - Al Jazeera English


Mass psychosis in the US
How Big Pharma got Americans hooked on anti-psychotic drugs.
Last Modified: 12 Jul 2011 06:20


Drug companies like Pfizer are accused of pressuring doctors into over-prescribing medications to patients in order to increase profits [GALLO/GETTY]
Has America become a nation of psychotics? You would certainly think so, based on the explosion in the use of antipsychotic medications. In 2008, with over $14 billion in sales, antipsychotics became the single top-selling therapeutic class of prescription drugs in the United States, surpassing drugs used to treat high cholesterol and acid reflux.
Once upon a time, antipsychotics were reserved for a relatively small number of patients with hard-core psychiatric diagnoses - primarily schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - to treat such symptoms as delusions, hallucinations, or formal thought disorder. Today, it seems, everyone is taking antipsychotics. Parents are told that their unruly kids are in fact bipolar, and in need of anti-psychotics, while old people with dementia are dosed, in large numbers, with drugs once reserved largely for schizophrenics. Americans with symptoms ranging from chronic depression to anxiety to insomnia are now being prescribed anti-psychotics at rates that seem to indicate a national mass psychosis.
It is anything but a coincidence that the explosion in antipsychotic use coincides with the pharmaceutical industry's development of a new class of medications known as "atypical antipsychotics." Beginning with Zyprexa, Risperdal, and Seroquel in the 1990s, followed by Abilify in the early 2000s, these drugs were touted as being more effective than older antipsychotics like Haldol and Thorazine. More importantly, they lacked the most noxious side effects of the older drugs - in particular, the tremors and other motor control problems.
The atypical anti-psychotics were the bright new stars in the pharmaceutical industry's roster of psychotropic drugs - costly, patented medications that made people feel and behave better without any shaking or drooling. Sales grew steadily, until by 2009
Seroquel and Abilify numbered fifth and sixth in annual drug sales, and prescriptions written for the top three atypical antipsychotics totaled more than 20 million. Suddenly, antipsychotics weren't just for psychotics any more.
Not just for psychotics anymore...



Monday, May 30, 2011

Playing For Change | One Love

Playing For Change | One Love


Sunday, May 22, 2011

BBC News - Could the insurgents be defeated in Afghanistan?

BBC News - Could the insurgents be defeated in Afghanistan?

22 May 2011
(Video)>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12981618

Map locator





Suicide bombers storm Afghan police base

Suicide bombers wielding machine guns have stormed a government building in eastern Afghanistan, officials say.
Initial reports say at least three gunmen wearing suicide vests shot their way into the traffic police headquarters in Khost city.
Security forces have surrounded the compound and a gun battle is taking place, police say. At least one person is reported to have been killed.
The attack comes a day after a suicide bombing in Kabul killed at least six.
In the latest attack, a guard was killed in the initial assault which happened at about 0500 (0030 GMT) on Sunday, said Gen Raz Mohammad Oryakhail, army commander for Khost province.
He said the militants were on the second floor of the building and shooting down at police and soldiers outside.
However, a provincial police chief told AFP news agency that three police officers had been killed.
Another official said police and troops were trying to avoid a full-scale assault because they didn't want the gunmen to detonate their suicide vests.
In Saturday's attack, a suicide bomber detonated his device in a tent in the grounds of Charsad Bestar Hospital where medical students were eating lunch.
Although the hospital treats Afghan military personnel, the victims were all civilians and medical students, police said.
The Taliban said it carried out the attack.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Dangerous Supplements You Should Stay Away From

Dangerous Supplements You Should Stay Away From


Dangerous Supplements You Should Stay Away From


April 27- 2011
Curated by Rene Volpi via deefoster







Natural Does not Mean Safe!

We are living in a time when more and more people appear to be more health conscious than ever before. The health and wellness industry is a growing trend, accounting for billions of dollars in health and wellness products, such as herbal and natural supplements.
Many, however, do not realize that they are putting themselves in grave danger when taking natural supplements in an attempt to either improve their health or to combat certain illnesses and diseases.
I believe that too many believe the hype and buy in too quickly before taking the time to do the necessary research to ensure that what they are taking is not going to have any harmful side effects.
You should always remember, what is safe for someone else may not necessarily be safe for you. For example, there are some herbal supplements that can cause lethal side effects when taken with certain medications and may cause dangerous reactions if your have certain preexisting conditions, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, just to name a few.

Dangerous Supplements

Here are a list of supplements that have been identified has having some serious potential to cause a lot of damage. I recommend that you stay away from these supplements and at the very least do some further research before you take these.
  • Kava - Used for anxiety. This supplement may cause liver damage and has already been banned in Canada, Germany and Switzerland.
  • Comfrey - Used for the treatment of cancer, couch and also used to treat heavy bleading during menstrual cycle. Possible danger includes liver damage and cancer.
  • Germanium - Used in the treatment of liver problems, pain infections and arthritis. Possible side effects are kidney damage and even death.
  • Coltsfoot - Used for sore throat, asthma and bronchitis. Side effects include liver damage and cancer.
  • Bitter Orange - Used for allergies, nasal congestion and weight loss. Dangerous side effects include stroke, fainting, heart attack and even death
  • Aconite - Used for gout, joint pain and inflammation. Dangerous side effects include vomiting, low blood pressure, toxicity and even death.

Tips to Protect Yourself

If you are considering adding herbal and other natural supplements to your diet, here are some tips to ensure that you make the safest choices in natural supplements.
  1. See your Doctor. Always check with your doctor before adding any supplements to your doctor. Some supplements could cause dangerous reactions to any medication you may already be taking.
  2. Stay away from supplements for weight loss, body building and sexual enhancement. According to the FDA, these types of supplements could possible contain trace amounts of prescription drugs and steroids.
  3. Only purchase supplements that show the "USP Verified" seal. This organization verifies the quality and purity of the raw materials.
  4. Don't take more than indicated on the container. Taking more does not increase the benefits and could result in over dosing and toxicity.
  5. See your doctor immediately if you start to experience any symptoms as the result of taking supplements.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Libya: British photographer killed in Misurata - Telegraph

Libya: British photographer killed in Misurata - Telegraph

Curated by Stillmind on 4-20-2011

Libya: British photographer killed in Misurata

Tim Hetherington, a leading British photojournalist, has been killed while covering the fighting in the Libyan city of Misurata, the Foreign Office has confirmed.

Libya: British photographer reported killed in Misurata
Image 1 of 2
Tim Hetherington died from a mortar round while on the front line

Mr Hetherington, who had won a World Press Photo of the Year award for his coverage of Afghanistan and had also made prize-winning film documentaries, was said by friends and colleagues to have died from a mortar round while on the front line.

The photographer, who was on assignment for the news agency Panos, is the first known British casualty of the Libyan conflict.

An American colleague, Chris Hondros, who was working for Getty, was reported to be in a critical condition after sustaining brain injuries in the attack. Two other journalists were said to have been injured in the incident.

One of those injured was reported to be Guy Martin, a British photographer with Panos, who was receiving treatment in hospital last night.

The photographers were among a group caught by mortar fire on Tripoli Street, the main thoroughfare leading into the centre of Misurata, according to reports.

Spanish photographer Guillermo Cervera said: “It was quiet and we were trying to get away and then a mortar landed and we heard explosions.”

A colleague who was with them and was at the hospital confirmed the death on a Facebook page, prompting condolences from other foreign correspondents.

Mr Hetherington, 40, who was from Liverpool but had dual British and American nationality, read English literature at Oxford University before becoming a photographer and film-maker.

He spent eight years in West Africa, covering the Liberian and Sierra Leone civil wars there, before working in Afghanistan.

His first film, Restrepo, which covered the lives of a platoon of soldiers in Afghanistan, which was last year nominated for an Oscar.

Mr Hondros, 41, had been nominated for a Pulitzer prize in 2004 and also lectured and wrote on war in the United States.

Both men lived in New York.

James Golston of ABC-TV News USA, who worked with Mr Hetherinton on Nightline, a documentary about the war in Afghanistan, described him as “one of the bravest photographers and filmmakers I have ever met”.

He said: "During his shooting for the Nightline specials he very seriously broke his leg on a night march out of a very isolated forward operating base that was under attack.

“He had the strength and character to walk for four hours through the night on his shattered ankle without complaint and under fire, enabling that whole team to reach safety.”

Mr Hetherington last year described some of his experiences in Afghanistan as “pretty traumatic events”.

He said: “The thing about the wars in Afghanistan, they've been known as the ghost wars, you know, because not often does one really see the enemy.”

Mr Hetherington wrote on his Twitter profile last night: “In besieged Libyan city of Misurata. Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of Nato.”

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We are offering consular assistance to the family.”

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The Difference Between Darfur and Libya.

Intervention in Libya, why not Darfur?

Listen NowListen Now
imagePhoto of Darfur refugees in a camp along the Chad-Sudan border in 2007 (Image by Jeb Sharp)
International forces didn't intervene in the Darfur crisis, so why did it happen so quickly in Libya?
This story was originally covered by PRI's The World. For more, listen to the audio above.
The pace of the Libya intervention has stunned the people of Darfur and the activists who worked so hard to protect them. Back in 2004, the assumption was that if you raised a loud enough outcry, governments would act to stop mass atrocities. In Libya the outcry had barely begun when governments intervened. The difference has not gone unnoticed by Rebecca Hamilton the author of "Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide".
"What Libya has that Darfur never had, still does not have to the present day, and desperately needs, is a unified international commitment to do civilian protection," said Hamilton.
Hamilton says Libya underscores for her how the battle to protect civilians takes place in the realm of global geo-politics. In this case it was the Arab League's request to the UN Security Council to enforce a no fly zone and protect civilians that made the difference.
"Without that then you would have had China in particular doing what it did in Darfur–and which is its typical position–which is to threaten to veto anything that looks interventionist," said Hamilton.
"But with the Arab League specifically requesting to the UN Security Council that they do this, I think that led to China agreeing to abstain and let such a strong civilian protection resolution go through."
The Arab League was willing to forsake Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in a way it was never ready to forsake Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says a key motivating factor in the Libya intervention was the widespread desire to see Gaddafi fall.
"The Arab League generally has no love for Gaddafi," said Knights. "Many of the key players have a strong desire to see Gaddafi fall because of prior disagreements and bitter conflicts that they've had with him. Likewise the West has long-lasting grudges against Gaddafi whether they be the U.S., the British, the French."
Even so, it wasn't a given that the Arab League would sideline Gaddafi, notes Rebecca Hamilton. At the height of the outcry over Darfur, the Arab League stood by Sudanese President Omar al Bashir.
"I think what made the difference is the high-level defections of some of Gaddafi's closest inner circle," said Hamilton.
"And that again is something that you have not had in Sudan. Bashir's inner circle have stayed tight and in support of him. But I think that when Gaddafi's inner circle started to split it was easier for regional bodies like the Arab League to say, well we can stand beside Libya, whilst isolating Gaddafi."
But Hamilton says there's another striking reason things have played out differently in Libya and Darfur.
"If I had to put it in one word, I'd say Iraq," said Hamilton.
"The problem during the early days in Darfur was that it was really only the U.S. government that was leading the charge for civilian protection, and it was in many ways the worst-placed actor to do so in the context of the recent invasion in Iraq. It just looked like hypocrisy and double standards for the Bush Administration to be talking about human rights in Darfur whilst you had Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and all of the other consequences of Iraq."
It also made it easy for President Bashir of Sudan to paint any discussion of an international peacekeeping force for Darfur as an American-led attempt to invade yet another Muslim country. But things are different today. Time has passed. There's a different administration in the White House, and the rest of the world is less cynical about US motives. There is surprising support for the Libya intervention in the Arab World.
But even if there had been similar agreement on Darfur there's another glaring difference between the two cases, according to Robert Pape of the University of Chicago.
"The main difference between Darfur and Libya is actually the geography," said Pape.
Pape points out that Libya is close to Europe and right on the coast. That means Gaddafi's forces are vulnerable to NATO's sea-based air power. Darfur, by contrast, is in western Sudan, hundreds of miles from the sea, with mountainous terrain and lots of small arms fire. Protecting civilians there is a different proposition.
"As a result, nearly every plan that was serious included significant numbers of ground troops," said Pape. "The African Union put together the smallest plan for 2000 ground forces, the UN began to look at this and very quickly the number got up to 30,000 ground troops. And once you're talking about tens of thousands of ground troops going into a very hostile environment, now we begin to balance out the humanitarian goal with the serious risk of life to ourselves."
The UN Security Council did eventually deploy a peacekeeping force to Darfur, but not before hundreds of thousands of people had died and millions had been displaced. Even now, says Rebecca Hamilton, there's an urgent need for international pressure for a peace settlement and the enforcement of a ceasefire in Darfur.

TweetMeme Retweet

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...