My Eyes on the World

Letter to FIFA Regarding Zimbabwe

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:56:00 +0000

Below is the letter I sent to FIFA. I will keep you posted on their response.

August 4, 2008

Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20,
P.O. Box 8044 Zurich, Switzerland

Dear Mr. President, Mr. General Secretary and Members of the FIFA Congress:

The evolution of FIFA over the last century has been remarkable. FIFA has astonished and eclipsed all expectations, growing from a small organization dedicated to the development of football into a socially responsible, international body committed to reaching out and touching the world. Your history is truly a history to be proud of. And we can only wish the high moral standards and practices evident in your past are emulated by people and organizations around the world in the future.

Now, however, as much as ever, FIFA faces a challenge and a chance. And the truth is, today, FIFA is failing. The organization is failing to back its words, its mission and its responsibility in Africa with action.

Hosting the 2010 World Cup in South Africa brought a pledge from FIFA -- a commitment -- to assist the African continent above and beyond the realm of sport with its ‘Win in Africa with Africa’ project. This is not merely my interpretive perception, but rather those are your words and your promise. And yet as the time for the games draws near, FIFA neglects to address one of the largest crises facing the African continent – the failed democratic elections and repressive regime of Mr. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Mugabe has violated the core values upon which FIFA stands for – the leader of Zimbabwe has violated the authenticity, unity, performance and integrity of his country and his people.

The government of South Africa insists the crisis in Zimbabwe be handled diplomatically and that it be the mediator in the conflict. However, today, as in years past, the leadership of South Africa has failed to demonstrate any resolve in ending the blatant injustice and disregard for democracy and human rights occurring in Zimbabwe. While prominent South African icons such as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu have spoken out for change in Zimbabwe, the current South African administration lead by President Thabo Mbeki has sat idly by offering no meaningful course of action to end the tragedy in Zimbabwe.

Obviously, FIFA cannot offer itself as a diplomatic mediator in the conflict, however, the organization is in a position of extraordinary leverage to pressure President Mbeki’s administration to take meaningful steps to help end the discord. If FIFA does nothing, I am afraid the crisis could escalate and leave a black mark on the 2010 World Cup, much as China’s poor human rights record has tarnished the image of the Olympic Games.

While the path of least resistance would be for FIFA to contend it does not maintain the role, nor the power to ameliorate the situation, the organization’s pride and legacy would not be justified in doing so. History will find it hard to believe that an organization holding a set of powerful cards relegated itself to the sidelines and did nothing when given the opportunity. We need not look very far back to the United Nations and the United States in Rwanda to see how unfavorably history looks upon inaction.

In keeping with the proud tradition of your heritage, I believe the necessary course of action FIFA must take is clear -- Touch Zimbabwe, Build A Better Future.

I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter, and I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors to change the world.

Reflections Upon the European Union

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:14:00 +0000

The European Union (EU) is having great difficulty in convincing individual European countries to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. In a nutshell, the Treaty of Lisbon seeks to enhance EU institutions, and thereby, offer further legitimacy and power to the EU as well as allowing the organization to take an enormous step in adopting a Constitution. The people of Ireland, the only country to put the treaty to referendum, rejected the treaty and both the German and Polish presidents are refraining from signing the treaty. In the past, the people of France and the Netherlands rejected similar treaties. I will allow you to perform your own due diligence regarding the specifics of the treaty and the issues surrounding its language and policy implementations.

As an outside observer, I would like to focus on the psychology and philosophy behind the European Union as I find it more interesting than its inner politics.

The unification of Europe politically, economically, socially, etc. under the EU is a profound concept considering Europe's divisive history and size. However, with Europe's history, diversity, and size, is the EU destined to fail? Despite the negotiations, stalemates, agreements, disagreements and nearly everything in between since the EU's inception 15 years ago, the EU remains a particularly weak organization that has yet to prove the solidarity of Europe.

History demonstrates that nations and their political institutions are more efficient when the body that comprises them is smaller and less diverse. For example, is Europe too large and diverse to organize around democratic principles and jointly create and ratify a Constitution? Despite numerous treaties and attempts including the Treaty of Lisbon, fifteen years later the member states of the EU have failed to ratify a Constitution.

In contrast, the Constitution of the United States of America was written in 1787 and ratified by all states three years later in 1790. However, if the United States of America had been comprised of the other 37 states in addition to the original 13 states that ratified the Constitution, would the United States have a Constitution today? Or, if the original 13 states were as diverse as the country is today, would the United States have a Constitution today?

Can an organization unable to convince its populace to agree upon a set of binding principles be said to be strong and united? Will an organization be able to unite a territory as expansive and a people as diverse as Europe and Europeans? Or is progress being made? Are the treaties that have already been ratified and the influx of new member states an indication that the EU, if slowly, is progressing towards its goal of a peaceful, united and prosperous Europe? And most importantly, what does a study of the EU suggest regarding the feasibility of a peaceful, united and prosperous world? What will the process be and how long will it take, if ever?

New Project - R/Evolution Project

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 05:07:00 +0000

Been a few days since my last post. I began working on a new project with my good friend Matt that we're calling R/Evolution Project. The theme of the project is to use media to invoke social change. The scope of the project is somewhat large and abstract in nature, however, for the most part, we're simply seeing where the journey takes us.

Our first mini project is a series of videos designed around fighting apathy. Below is the first spot. We took a couple hours planning it, an hour shooting, and Matt spent a few hours editing the spot. From here, we hope to create more elaborate spots surrounding apathy. For now, please enjoy the spot and forward it along to friends:

First Experiment With Solar Energy

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:48:00 +0000

Today, I finally had an opportunity to explore photovoltaics, or solar energy as the technology is more commonly referred to. Photovoltaics is the technology to convert light into energy.

I ordered the beginner's kit shown below from Edmund Scientific for approximately $40 with shipping.

As evident in the pictures above, the kit is comprised of 8 small solar modules (also called cells or panels), a small motor, a tiny fan and stand, and a couple plastic wrenches to fasten nuts.

The first step necessary is to determine the apparatus you wish to power. The kit provides you with a small motor that you can attach a small fan to via the spindle attached to the motor. However, using this particular kit, you can also power a variety of other small apparatuses such as a light bulb, clock, calculator, etc.

The second step in the process is to determine the load voltage and load current of the apparatus you wish to power. Once you have done so, you will need to arrange the small solar cells to form a circuit that will provide you with the necessary voltage and current (amperage) needed to power the apparatus.

Each solar cell has a positive side and a negative side and produces an output of approximately 0.4V and 100mA. To increase the voltage, connect the cells in series (negative point connects to positive point). If you connect two cells in this manner, your voltage will be 0.8V, but your amperage will remain at 100mA. To increase the amperage, connect the cells in parallel (negative point connects to negative point and positive point connects to positive point). If you connect two cells in this manner, your amperage will be 200mA, but your voltage will be 0.4V. To increase both simultaneously, you must use multiple cells and a variety of series and parallel circuits.

In order to power the motor and spin the fan that comes in the kit, the output of the solar system required is 1.6V 200mA. As you can see in the picture below, I have arranged the cells using a variety of series and parallels to achieve the necessary output.

The clarity of the picture makes the positive and negative posts difficult to see, but I have used 4 parallels to increase the current to 200mA and tied the parallels together using 3 series to increase the voltage to 1.2V. I then use the two wires from the motor and connect one to a positive post and the other to a negative post to create a 4th series and increase the voltage to 1.6V, completing the entire system.

As the video below shows, upon placing the entire solar system into the sun, you see the light from the sun power the attached motor in turn spinning the fan. Though the video shows the fan appearing to sputter, the fan is in actuality continuing to rotate while the panels are in the light of the sun. Once I block the sun from reaching the panels, the fan stops spinning.

The next step would be to send the energy to a battery to store it and be able to use the energy even when the light is not directly contacting the solar panels. I need to research how I would go about storing the energy and hope to demonstrate the process in a future blog post.

UPDATE: Gaza Students Lose Fulbright Scholarships and Their Hope

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:11:00 +0000

Last week, I wrote about 7 Gaza students who had their Fulbright Scholarships revoked on account that they could not obtain visas to leave Gaza.

The Associated Press is now reporting that four of the seven have been allowed by Israel to travel to Jerusalem to apply for student visas so they may study in the US. However, Israel would still not let the three other students leave Gaza as Israel officials deemed the students as "security risks."

Hopefully, in the coming days, all seven students will be able to leave Gaza and obtain visas so they may pursue studies in the US.

Fight to Eradicate a Tropical Endemic

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:36:00 +0000

What is the most repeated failure in all of global health? It could well be the commitment to eradicate malaria. So why would anyone want to follow a long line of failures by becoming the umpteenth person to declare the goal of eradicating malaria? There's one reason. We should declare the goal of eradicating malaria because we can eradicate malaria.

- Bill Gates, Malaria Forum Keynote Address on October 17, 2007

Each year malaria infects approximately 515 million people and kills more than 1 million. The disease has pillaged the African continent where malaria is the leading killer of children. Not only does the disease steal the lives of the children, malaria afflicts all of Africa by burdening health care systems, preventing the expansion of economies, stifling education, and inhibiting the overall development of African societies.

I recall being absolutely fascinated by Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel. One of the observations made by Diamond pertains to the origin of the Malaria scourge throughout the African continent:

The African way of life was designed to avoid mosquito-borne infection. Africans made their homes in high, dry areas when they could, away from the natural habitat of the mosquito. Also, African communities remained fairly small, which limited the level of disease transmission.

Unfortunately, the arrival of colonizing Europeans, with their steam trains, machine guns and dreams of industrial wealth, wreaked terrible damage on these centuries-old mechanisms of survival. Torn from their villages, forced to live and work together in massive numbers and in unsanitary conditions, tropical Africans fell ill as never before. The scourge of malaria throughout Africa today is, in part, the consequence of the destruction of a way of life which had existed for thousands of years.

Today, malaria is holding back progress on the continent of Africa. Besides killing millions of children under five, higher rates of transmission mean that adults now also become sick and suffer debilitation. This cripples economic productivity and traps the population in a cycle of poverty. In spite of a literacy rate of 80%, the tropical nation of Zambia has 10% child mortality and one of the poorest economies in the world – it's no coincidence that most Zambians are infected by malaria at least five times a year.

However, as Diamond proceeds to remark, Malaria is not only treatable now -- the disease is eradicable. And recently, we have seen an enormous push to treat and eradicate. We have seen countries like Thailand thrive and Singapore catapult itself to be known as one of the Four Asian Tigers due to containing malaria.

In addition to new drugs and vaccines being invented and distributed, a preventative measure that has gathered incredible momentum over the last few years is to provide households with insecticide-treated bed nets that families may sleep under. Bed nets have served as a successful means of reducing transmissions by providing protection to people when African mosquitoes do most of their feeding -- at night.

With a cost of only $10 per net, donating money to organizations such as Nothing But Nets that purchase and distribute bed nets has become increasingly popular. The New York Times labeled the movement as "hip" and equated it to a modern version of the March of Dimes, which helped combat Polio. All it took for me to realize the strength of the movement was to watch my younger brother call in to "American Idol Gives Back"and donate $100 to buy 10 bed nets. American Idol Gives Back has raised over $12 million for bed nets in the last two years.

Seventeen years after the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis was founded in 1938 to eradicate one of the most dreadful diseases of the 20th Century, a vaccine for Polio was developed. And here we have arrived at a pivotal point in eliminating yet another disease -- a disease to which millions have lost their lives to and the development of entire societies has been suppressed. And yet again we find ourselves with the knowledge, resources and fortitude to make an impact individually and collectively to eradicate malaria.

If you're interested in learning more or seeing how you can help, reference the following organizations:

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - All Lives Have Equal Value.
Nothing But Nets - Send a Net. Save a Life.
UNICEF - For Every Child, Advance Humanity.

Gaza Students Lose Fulbright Scholarships and Their Hope

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:00:00 +0000

Reading the New York Times yesterday, I stumbled upon a small story, but a story that struck a chord with me.

The United States State Department made a decision to revoke the Fulbright scholarships of 7 Palestinians residing in Gaza. And while the decision does not appear to have stemmed from malicious intent, the decision nevertheless maintains strong negative undertones and represents a blow to 7 courageous people battling all odds to make a difference in their communities and change the world.

Hadeel Abu Kawik, a 23-year-old computer engineering student, endured an arduous process that included exams, interviews, an English test and an opportunity to leave the ravaged Gaza Strip to earn her scholarship, only to lose the opportunity to a technicality in foreign policy. "I was building my hope on this scholarship," she said. And anyone wanting to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, is building their hope on a new, gifted generation of Palestinians and Israelis led by scholars like Abu Kawik who see a different and better world than the one they currently live in.

The scholarships were retracted according to a State Department spokesperson because Israel would not grant the students exit visas to study at universities in the United States. Israel has sealed off the Gaza Strip for months in an effort to isolate Hamas, which took over the region of about 1.3 million Palestinians last June. An Israeli military spokesman, Peter Lerner, said today however, that individual exceptions are made to the blockade and that the United States did not specifically ask for visas for the 7 Palestinian Fulbright Scholars. In effect, according to Lerner, the State Department decided to rebuke the scholarships without coordinating with Israel.

The United States State Department website describe the prestigious Fulbright Program in the following manner:

Since its inaugural in the late 1940s, the Fulbright Program has been an integral part of U.S. foreign relations. Indeed, face-to-face exchanges have proven to be the single most effective means of engaging foreign publics while broadening dialogue between U.S. citizens and institutions and their counterparts abroad. In doing so, the Fulbright Program creates a context to provide a better understanding of U.S. views and values, promotes more effective binational cooperation and nurtures open-minded, thoughtful leaders, both in the U.S. and abroad, who can work together to address common concerns.
Whether the challenge is transforming conflict into dialogue, conducting medical research to end a modern-day plague, halting the trafficking of persons, or designing an efficient energy grid, today’s issues call for new voices, new ideas and new leaders. Even in a networked world of the Internet and satellite television, there is no substitute for personal interaction—what journalist Edward R. Murrow called "the last three feet of communication." It is individuals, after all, not data streams, who must ultimately build the connections that in turn create lasting international partnerships.
Fulbrighters do just that.

A program that at its very core is broadening dialogue to address common concerns is acting counter towards promoting effective binational cooperation. 'The fundamental principles of international partnership and mutual understanding remain at the core of the Fulbright Program's mission," according their website.

And yet scholars like Abdulrahman Abdullah, a 30-year-old who had been hoping to study for an M.B.A. at an American university, is left to ponder the future. “If we are talking about peace and mutual understanding, it means investing in people who will later contribute to Palestinian society,” he said. “I am against Hamas. Their acts and policies are wrong. Israel talks about a Palestinian state. But who will build that state if we can get no training?”

Fortunately, hope does not appear to be completely lost as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters she plans to review the matter. "If you cannot engage young people and give complete horizons to their expectations and their dreams, I don't know that there would be any future for Palestine," Rice said. It would seem an administration that has staked its final months on making a difference in the Middle East would seek to empower those who have the will and ability to create change.

I will continue to monitor the developments and pursue any means in my power to help the 7 Gazans retain their opportunity to change the world.

Energy Solutions, Not Scapegoats

noreply@blogger.com (SCM) — Fri, 30 May 2008 19:50:00 +0000

As the average price of gasoline at the pump in the United States races past $4.00 and the cost of crude oil sets new highs daily, Americans are demanding answers as to the cause of the rapid increase in gasoline that is sending shockwaves to their pocketbooks. More than answers, Americans are demanding solutions.

Reminiscing on the events of the past two weeks in response to these developments, I am reminded of a passage in a poignant speech given in the movie “The American President” by Michael Douglas’ fictional presidential character:

I've known [Senator] Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections.

Michael Douglas’ character could have very well been describing our own congressional representatives. Our representatives have abundantly demonstrated they have little interest in solving any of our energy problems. However, congressional leaders have demonstrated a strong interest in making the people afraid of the problem and finding a party to blame for our current energy crisis as they summoned oil executives to the Hill yet again this past week.

I would aptly describe the theme of the hearings as: the pots calling the kettles black. Multi-millionaire public officials attacking the annual income of businessmen seemed hypocritical. Assailing oil executives for not investing enough in alternative energy only seemed to underscore the shortfalls in leadership of our own congressional representatives. Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) clearly emphasized the purpose of the inquisition, “The people we represent are hurting, while your companies are profiting. We need to get some balance.” In other words, there will be blood, not solutions.

The words and actions of our leaders and media are disheartening because they detract from finding a solution. The two entities continually repeat that “big oil” is enjoying record-breaking profits because doing so evokes emotion, which sells and wins elections. Our leaders and our media are, in effect, perpetuating a lie because they are not telling the whole story. They are failing to explain the economics of the matter to the American public. We must abandon the false blame being perpetuated by our representatives and the media, and direct our attention towards finding a solution.

The major integrated oil companies are not gouging Americans. Let me repeat, “big oil” is not maliciously harming Americans. While oil companies are not suffering as many American businesses are, financial analysis shows oil companies are not taking advantage of the situation.

The performance of a company is judged by profitability, which is measured by profit margin. Profit margin is a ratio calculated by net income divided by net sales revenue. Profit margin determines how much of each dollar in sales is returned to the company in the form of profit and is a good indicator in determining whether a company has costs under control.

For example, let us pretend that I own a fruit market where I sell organic apples. Two years ago, I purchased each organic apple wholesale for 50 cents and spent 25 cents on distribution and marketing. For the sake of simplicity, the 75 cents I spent on acquiring the apples, distribution and marketing is the only expense my business had. I then sell each apple for $1, allowing me to retain a profit of 25 cents per apple sold. I purchased 50,000 apples that year, leaving me with expenses of $37,500. I sold all 50,000 of the apples for net sales revenue of $50,000. My net income ($50,000-$37,500) was $12,500, and my profit margin ($12,500/$50,000) was 25% for the year.

Last year, the wholesale cost of apples went up as a fire struck one of the largest apple farms and affected the supply. The wholesale cost of an apple became 80 cents and I spent 25 cents on distribution and marketing. Again, for the sake of simplicity, the $1.05 I spent on acquiring the apples, distribution and marketing is the only expense my business had. I then decided I wanted to earn even more profit per apple sold than two years ago, so I marked my sale price up to $1.35. Doing so, provided me with a profit of 30 cents per apple sold rather than the 25 cents per apple I earned two years ago. I purchased 50,000 apples that left me with expenses of $52,500. I sold all 50,000 of the apples for net sales revenue of $67,500. My net income ($67,500-$52,500) was $15,000. So, my revenue and profit both went up by $2,500 from the previous year. But, when I calculated my profit margin ($15,000/$67,500), I noticed it fell from 25% to approximately 22.2%! So, although I earned more in revenue and profit than two years ago, my profit margin showed that I actually lost money for each dollar I invested in my company when compared to the previous year, meaning I had not kept my costs under control. In order to retain a profit margin of 25%, I needed to increase the cost of an apple to $1.375.

If you were an investor in my company, what would your reaction be if I told you that I would only earn you 22.2 cents for every $1 you invested in my company as opposed to the 25 cents for every $1 I earned the year before? You would probably take your money somewhere else.

Major integrated oil companies (Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, etc.) have profit margins around 10%, which is average for the industry and low when compared to other industries. Microsoft, for example, has a profit margin of closer to 30%. “Big oil” profit margins have remained nearly the same over the last few years, which signifies they are not gouging customers. They are only increasing their profit in order to keep their profit margins the same, which we would hope any company would do, especially a publicly traded company.

Hence, we need to redirect our efforts away from finding a party to blame for our current energy crisis and focus on finding solutions.