You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2008.
Dear Friends,
I came across this blog earlier this week and it made me think about the state of online forums (read: banter). The initiator of this blog post, had some validity to her statements, yet (as one of the posted comments read) her lack of tact (in my eyes) discredited her argument greatly. The thing I find the most interesting about this post is the reaction it elicited from so many different people. In most situations I am all for dialog and discussion, but only when it’s face to face or voice to voice. I too have found myself in situations where I attempt at making a point vis a vi a post and the other person responds in the same manner, inciting an endless cycle of online arguments that usually never end up anywhere besides making one of the posters upset. It is just too difficult to get one’s point across without being able to fully respond/adapt to the other person’s response. There is always too much that can be said in conversations like these, but cannot due to thoughts needing to be succinct and to the point. Online conversations like the above one, I personally feel are an exercise in futility for unless one can speak voice to voice to an opposing side, the argument can continue. In theory this could be a good idea, but in practice it is not. I’m not saying do not pursue or ask for greater clarity, I’m just letting you know my personal experience with that stuff (regardless of the issue).
With that said I end this letter asking all of you to think twice before getting into an online argument through a post board. Even though this thing called the internet is fantastic, a lot of time it can cause you a huger headache than you would like.
Sincerely,
Arya Zarrinkelk
If it is not already obvious, the financial crisis, despite bailout efforts, is having now not a ripple but perhaps a tsunami affect in other parts of the world as well. As globalization proponents say, markets are now integrated—which on the negative side means that a crisis in one place will have ramifications in other places as well.
Mexico is experiencing the impact of the financial crisis in a very real way—a loss of income for poor families in the country. Many Mexican men and women have migrated to the U.S. both legally and illegally. Many migrants work in service jobs in the U.S. with many Mexican men employed in the construction and landscaping fields.
The financial crisis in the U.S. has slowed construction jobs throughout the country and many middle-income families are scaling back expenses such as landscaping. The Mexican unemployment rate in the U.S. is hovering at about 7.5 percent compared with 6.1 percent for the general workforce.
However, many Mexican migrants send money (often called remittances) to their extended families in Mexico. In fact, remittances are the second largest source of foreign income—exceeded only by oil reserves.
According to the Center for Advanced Research and Studies in Social Anthropology (CIESAS), 8 percent of poor families in Mexico depend almost entirely on that cash flow to survive, and will find themselves in a critical position as a result of the drop in remittances. A recent Inter-American Development report stated that remittances “are a key poverty reduction tool, as more than 57 percent of remittances are used to purchase daily necessities such as food, clothing and shelter.” Yet remittances have fallen by 12.2 percent since August 2008.
As workers in the U.S. stop sending money, extended families in Mexico begin to make different healthcare choices as this Financial Times article explains.
Now, as someone who uses anything I can get my hands on to feel better—be it herbal or homeopathic medicines, acupuncture, massage, or western pharmaceuticals, I don’t think it is a bad thing that people are using medicinal plants and carrying that traditional indigenous knowledge of local plants forward.
The problem is one of choice, or rather lack of choice. I can choose to use herbal remedies, but if those are not working, I can buy an over-the-counter remedy, or go to see my doctor (as one of the lucky Americans with good health insurance) and get prescription medication. The problem is when people turn to these remedies for lack of choice. What other things will people have to forgo because they can no longer count on remittances.
While there is no easy answer for this problem, more than 360 U.S. academics who work on Latin America wrote a letter to Senator Obama, asking him, should he win the presidential election to support more equitable and sustainable economic development in Mexico, Central America, and throughout the region as an appropriate response to immigration concerns in the United States.
Whoever wins the presidential election will have an enormous financial crisis to grapple with. I hope that the next president can look beyond our borders for both impacts and solutions to address this crisis.
Marceline White
The “travel ban” has been a contentious piece of HIV and AIDS legislation for a long time. Added by Sentor Jesse Helms in 1987, this amendment puts a ban on immigration or travel to the US by HIV-infected individuals. But a month ago, a hopeful light at the end of this horribly discriminatory tunnel was seen.
On September 29th, the US Department of Homeland Security announced that effective immediately the Department would begin issuing short-term visas (up to 30 days) for people who are HIV positive. Under previous regulations, HIV positive people had to receive a special waiver determined by a case-by-case evaluation for entry into the USa. The new visas will not identify any traveler as HIV positive.
This is great news for microbicides advocates, considering the Microbicides 2010 conference will take place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the US. The Global Campaign for Microbicides (GCM) has been lobbying tirelessly to repeal the tavel ban on HIV positive people.
The US Department of Health and Human Service still must go through a formal rule making to remove HIV from the list of “communicable diseases of public health significance,” the designation triggers the travel restrictions. But for now, this short-term solution for HIV positive individuals is a welcome development and a much-needed improvement.
On September 29th, the US Department of Homeland Security announced that effective immediately the Department would begin issuing short-term visas (up to 30 days) for people who are HIV positive. Under previous regulations, HIV positive people had to receive a special waiver determined by a case-by-case evaluation for entry into the USA. The new visas will not identify any traveler as HIV positive.
This is great news for microbicides advocates, considering Microbicides 2010 will take place in Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania in the U.S.A. The Global Campaign for Microbicides has been lobbying hard to get the travel ban on HIV positive people repealed, and GCM Director, Lori Heise, was instrumental in focusing attention on the ban when negotiations were underway about where to host the next microbicides conference.
The US Department of Health and Human Services must still go through a formal rule making to remove HIV from the list of “communicable diseases of public health significance,” the designation that triggers the travel restrictions. But this short-term solution for HIV positive people is a welcome development.
A rise of organized interfaith dialogue across university campuses is finally seeing the fruits of its labor on the national scale. Since 9/11, organizations such as Americans for Informed Democracy, the Interfaith Youth Core, and 20,000 Dialogue have taken the lead in facilitating interfaith dialogue between different American communities, with particular attention to the Muslim community. These dialogues provide a space for mutual learning and relationship building between peoples of different faiths and backgrounds. Interfaith dialogue has been playing an increasingly important role post 9/11 especially for our society so woven with diversity.
This presidential election has brought to the spotlight the marginalization of one of the many religious faiths that help make this great country: Islam. Several rumors have been injected in the presidential race labeling Senator Barack Obama as Muslim, which is a false rumor, but the real harm is that its been seen as a negative attack. Last week, General Colin Powell’s appearance on Meet the Press brought that issue into the spotlight when he responded: “Well the correct answer is ‘He is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian, he’s always been a Christian.’ But the really right answer is ‘What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?’ The answer is ‘No. That’s not America.’” Home of many religions and cultures, the US is celebrated for its tolerance and religious freedom. Interfaith dialogue promotes these types of American traditions and Gen. Powell’s courageous comments, however long overdue, is an applauded attempt to revive this pillar of patriotism.
Not ignoring that his remarks come during a backdrop of a close presidential election, Americans should retake ownership of their society and protects its freedoms from abuse in presidential campaigns. And it should not stop there. The increase of political involvement seen across the country during this campaign season should be used as momentum for post-election activities that not only hold the next president accountable for their election promises, but also hold us citizens accountable for upholding a community of diversity. Several actions can be taken and many are listed on AID’s website, including other initiatives by many of our partner organizations, so the real test is what actions will be taken!
As Laura mentioned in her most recent post, this week I got the chance to hear Dr. Dalia Mogahed speak at Goucher College to present some of Gallup’s findings in their recent Poll of the Muslim World. While some of her presentation simply seemed to reinforce what I already knew (or believed), other points took me more by surprise.
When she mentioned poll results which showed statistics like 75% of Saudi men believe that a woman should be allowed to hold any job for which she is qualified, I was a little bit skeptical – remember, in Saudi Arabia it is currently against the law for a woman to drive a car. It reminded me of reading recent media speculation on the “Bradley Effect,” the tendency of (white) American voters to tell a pollster that sure, they have no problem voting for an African-American candidate…when, in fact, they really do, and it affects their decision on election day. Americans don’t want to appear racist. Isn’t it fair to believe that Saudis don’t want to appear sexist? And when that’s the case, how can you trust these numbers?
I put this question to Dr. Mogahed during the Q&A session of her presentation, and her answer was: well, you can’t completely. There are a certain number of people who are giving the answer they think they should, rather than the one that’s true. But, even if the numbers aren’t completely accurate, the responses at least indicate the number of people who believe that that’s the desirable answer. It’s called an espoused value: the positions or beliefs that a society aspires to, even if we’re not yet there.
In my mind, then, numbers like these become a way to measure society’s potential. Our hope for the future. If 3 out of 4 men in Saudi Arabia at least feel that they ought to feel that women should have equal opportunities to men, then it paves the way for progress.
(Although how we’ll get an accurate measure of that progress, I certainly don’t know.)
So the fabulous Ms. Suzie Sheetz, one of our Regional Coordinators for our Midwestern Region turned me on to this organization called Be Extraordinary. Their self-described niche is as follows:
“This site allows you to create a challenge for charity. It’s kind of like a madlib. “I will ___________ if $_____________ is raised for ______________ charity.”
Some people have agreed to wear a mustache for a week, others to wear spandex, others apparently have agreed to tie themselves at the heel to their best friend when they go out.
I personally love this idea, for it promotes individual creativity to serve the greater good. It has got me thinking to what I would be willing to do to raise funds and the only thing I can think of is growing a beard or some sort of facial hair combination for charity. For reference sake examine the below picture.
Arya's beard at 3 months
One can imagine that if I were to let things grow out for a longer period of time things would get quite hairy (pun intended). So if you want to see Arya growing facial hair for charity, know it is QUITE a possibility.
This type of model suggests that the future of philanthropy projects will be linked to the ingenuity and creativity of those who are driving the project. I don’t know if these types of projects would have been successful a decade ago due to the lack of exposure and outreach. The internet continues to transform the landscape of every facet of our existence, especially for us, the saving world facet of our lives. I am excited to see what the next phase of philanthropy’s evolution will look like
Today, I attended the Y2Y Global Youth Conference 2008 in Washington, D.C. Titled “Empowering a Generation: Developing Skills and Capacities in Youth” and organized by the Youth-to-Youth Community of the World Bank, the conference was intended to be a conference for youth by youth. While the morning panels heavily addressed skills for work and life, afternoon sessions presented topics such as youth-led initiatives, leveraging partnerships among multiple stakeholders, and challenges in project design and evaluation.
Though the conference attempted to highlight the importance of a holistic approach to empowering youth, few stepped outside the proscribed D.C. conference box to clarify the difference between “youth development” and “youth in development.” Therefore, I couldn’t help but smile when Eric Rusten of the Academy for Educational Development—no longer a “youth” by conference standards—opened his presentation by criticizing the day’s buzzword of “training.” His criticism: overemphasis on formalized job training, especially when dealing with disadvantaged youth, can actually constrain or, worse, deny the importance of genuine learning opportunities.
Mr. Rusten went on to make a second provocative point. His number one rule in project design, he bellowed, “Do no harm!” Well, duh, you might say. Who’s going to intentionally harm youth if the objective is to empower them in the job market and in life? The answer is not as much about intent as it is about process—a point Sam raised in his discussion of the $2 A Day Challenge a few days back.
After his presentation, Mr. Rusten filled me in on an example in which a non-governmental organization in northeastern Brazil developed a partnership with a corporate sponsor to provide IT training to a group of young people. In pursuit of an output to justify their investment, the corporate sponsor gave the NGO just three months to train participants and secure the majority with jobs that would last at least three months after the training. Desperate to produce the demanded results, the NGO immediately contacted a national supermarket chain and requested that a three-month internship be designed to receive the participants of its IT training. Can you guess what position those young people held for three months? My guess was cashier; at least that had to do with numbers. Grocery bagger. The outcome? A group of successfully trained, successfully employed, yet humiliated young people.
While the conference pedestalled a “participatory and demand-driven approach” as key to avoiding such ineffective and short-sighted programming, I think Mr. Rusten’s point aims deeper, begging much more difficult questions about the formalization of hierarchical decision-making and evaluative procedure in international development. For example, at what point did funding cycles and easily quantifiable outcomes start to take precedent over the intended beneficiary?
This afternoon Kate, Arya, and I attended “Is there a Clash of Civilizations? What a Billion Muslims Really Think”, a presentation by Dr. Dalia Mogahed at Goucher College. Dr. Dalia Mogahed is a senior analyst at the Gallup Poll and executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, which recently concluded a poll of 1.3 billion Muslims in more than 35 nations. The poll addressed a variety of political and cultural issues, many of them related to international relations and how Muslims view the West. Some interesting points Dr. Mogahed discussed included:
- When asked respondents were asked what they admire about the West, the top two responses in both Western and Non-Western countries was Technology , and Liberty and Democracy
- Most Muslims value Democracy and Self-determination, but most of those surveyed did not believe the US is sincere in its committment to spreading the former or supporting the latter except in Afghanistan
- In a survey of how religion is portrayed in the Western media, Christianity was represented by religious leaders (such as clerics, members of a church institution, etc) 68% of the time, while most representations of Islam (53%) came from militant radicals
- Muslim respondents aspired towards the levels of development found in the West, but – like conservative Christians in the U.S. – most wanted their society to progress without sacrificing their core values
- Respondents’ “dreams for the future” centered around jobs and education for their children – in fact, with 25% of the global population planning to migrate away from their home country permanently in pursuit of better employment, Dr. Mogahed predicted that Jobs are becoming the “new global resource” driving human migration and motivation
This is a just a small, unrepresentative sample of some of the points and findings that were discussed at the event. Overall, I found Gallup’s findings to be very interesting and relevant to US foreign policy, and even more so to U.S. public opinion. As Dr. Mogahed pointed out, a successful democracy needs an informed public, and as many as 57% of Americans claim to know little or nothing about Islam, even now (Gallup 2007). But don’t take my word for it (as LeVar would say) check out http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/109345/Issues.aspx for more information on the Gallup’s Poll of the Muslim World and look for some more posts from Kate and Arya!
Okay, flashback to the 80s (or maybe it was the 90s) but there was a song by The Eurythmics ‘ Annie Lennox and the incomparable Aretha Franklin. Now, watching the video, I can see how dated it seems and how earnest and oversimplified the message may appear to be.
While gender issues may seem “so last century” to some women in the U.S., for many others here and in low-income countries, liberation and equity remain elusive goals. I was thinking of the song because I participated in the $2 a Day Challenge that AID held last Friday. After I ended my challenge, I went with friends to see a play which talked about gender issues and “how to be a woman” or “be a man” in today’s society. What are the roles, the expectations, the pressures, the incentives within our culture? What are the norms within other cultures?
Today, women in the U.S. still earn approximately 76 cents to every dollar earned by a man. This is true even when they are working in the same field and have the same educational attainment as their male peers. Recent studies from Cornell (2005) and Carnegie Mellon (2007) indicated worsening trends: the Cornell study found that women with children were less likely to be hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary then male applicants, while male applicants with children were likely to be offered higher pay than women with children or people without children. The Carnegie Mellon study t found that women who applied for jobs were not as likely to be hired by male managers if they tried to ask for more money, while men who asked for a higher salary were not negatively affected.
In other parts of the world, these disparities among others persist. Women’s wages lag behind men’s in many occupations and women are often sought out by employers because they lack other income-generating opportunities, so they are more likely to accept a lower wage for their labor.
While women’s situations are often heterogeneous and race, ethnicity, class, religion, age, and geography may all affect a woman’s access to opportunities and skills development; in many ways, women regardless of their situations have much in common: violence. Women experience sexual assault and domestic violence throughout the world. The confluence of rape as a tool of war, child-marriage, wives inability to negotiate safe sex with their unfaithful husbands, and the economic need for women to pursue sex work have contributed to the increased feminization of the spread of HIV-AIDS.
Women also share other traits—as mothers, they are fiercely committed to improving their children’s lives. Getting more money into the hands of a woman is a sound investment—it goes straight into improving her children’s diet, access to health care, and to education Conversely , men spend a portion of their extra income on alcohol, gambling, and other pleasurable pursuits. Once women learn their rights and are given a chance to use their voices, these voices ring out on their own behalf as well as for others.
When I finished my $2 a Day Challenge, I had a great time going to the Global Giving site and deciding where to place my donation. Not surprisingly, I chose a group trains Rwandan women in leadership and non-profit management training, start-up funding and twelve months of support to establish their own organizations to advance women’s rights.
These women are doing it for themselves with some support of women and men abroad. As the mother of a small boy, I hope to raise him in a world where gender issues really will be passe’.
Marceline White
