Did You Know - SHIFT happens

WATCH THIS... take the time to WATCH THIS

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Thousands Call for British Teddy Bear Teacher to be Executed

FOXNews.com - Thousands in Sudan Call for British Teddy Bear Teacher's Execution - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Absolutely absurd. If this were a US citizen, I would call for our government to expel the Sudanese ambassador and suspend all aid. It's absurd to think we can have anything resembling normal relations with a barbaric government (and people) who think this is appropriate "punishment" for what she did. The the people actually want to execute her!!

Where is the UN? Huh? Where is the UN council of human rights? Oh, Sudan is probably on the council!! So they will not do or say anything meaningful (if at all). [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Saudi defends verdict against gang-rape victim

Saudi defends verdict against gang-rape victim | Reuters

This is absurd!
How can we "support" a country and system of government like this? [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Turkey's New President

I think I posted something on this before. The Media makes it sound like this guy is a Taliban or something. Turkey is SO secular that religious garments are banned in Gov't building. Legally enforced secularism is no different than legally enforced religion. I'm not saying this guy is not a wolf in sheep clothing and that he may set things back at lot, just that I think they need to be "set back" a little. Turkey needs freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

FOXNews.com - Turkey's Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul Elected President - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News [This Post Continues after the jump...]

In Turkey, a Looming Battle Over Islam

A very good read.. very informative.

Makes we wonder why I ever thought we could bring democracy for Iraq or the Middle east. Not that the middle east cannot be democratic, just that it has to come from within, it has to grow in the hearts and minds of the people.

I've read other things on Turkey recently and the secular nature of the government is too much for me. Banning head scarfs in government building (like France recently did in schools) seems like it would make religious people not want to participate in their own government.

But, on the other hand, groups like the Taliban can rule through social restrictions as much as through law. It can be hard to "break" a social taboo without a law requiring it. This is why it has to come from within. People have to want freedom enough to break the truly restrictive elements of Islamic law. Whether a mere head scarf is truly restrictive or not, is up the the person themselves.

In Afghanistan, some women continue to wear the burkas even though they are not required to anymore. Should we (or the Afghan government) "outlaw" burkas? I don't think so. My gut says "no", but maybe it would be necessary for a period to break the social hold the Taliban still has.

It makes one think...

In Turkey, a Looming Battle Over Islam - washingtonpost.com [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Liberal democracies, not activists and international law, protect human rights.

Interesting read... (and YES, the U.S., even under BUSH, is a LIBERAL democracy...)

OpinionJournal - Featured Article: Liberal democracies, not activists and international law, protect human rights. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

50% Good News in Russia - Or Else!

The world is definitely getting more dangerous...
but according to Bill Moyers, our "free" press isn't work either

50% Good News Is the Bad News in Russian Radio - New York Times [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Premier Says World Should Not Fear China

Premier Says World Should Not Fear China

"In my view, democracy, the rule of law, freedom, human rights, equality, and fraternity are not something peculiar to capitalism, Wen said

Yes, but Democracy IS peculiar to Democracy. China cannot be a non-democratic democracy. You cannot have a "one party" democracy, and typically you can't have strong state control of the economy in a democracy.

So China needs to make up its mind. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Scrooge and intellectual property rights

Interesting...

Scrooge and intellectual property rights
A medical prize fund could improve the financing of drug innovations

At Christmas, we traditionally retell Dickens's story of Scrooge, who cared more for money than for his fellow human beings. What would we think of a Scrooge who could cure diseases that blighted thousands of people's lives but did not do so? Clearly, we would be horrified. But this has increasingly been happening in the name of economics, under the innocent sounding guise of "intellectual property rights."

Intellectual property differs from other property—restricting its use is inefficient as it costs nothing for another person to use it. Thomas Jefferson, America's third president, put it more poetically than modern economists (who refer to "zero marginal costs" and "non-rivalrous consumption") when he said that knowledge is like a candle, when one candle lights another it does not diminish from the light of the first. Using knowledge to help someone does not prevent that knowledge from helping others. Intellectual property rights, however, enable one person or company to have exclusive control of the use of a particular piece of knowledge, thereby creating monopoly power. Monopolies distort the economy. Restricting the use of medical knowledge not only affects economic efficiency, but also life itself.

We tolerate such restrictions in the belief that they might spur innovation, balancing costs against benefits. But the costs of restrictions can outweigh the benefits. It is hard to see how the patent issued by the US government for the healing properties of turmeric, which had been known for hundreds of years, stimulated research. Had the patent been enforced in India, poor people who wanted to use this compound would have had to pay royalties to the United States.

In 1995 the Uruguay round trade negotiations concluded in the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which imposed US style intellectual property rights around the world. These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded. As generic medicines cost a fraction of their brand name counterparts, billions could no longer afford the drugs they needed. For example, a year's treatment with a generic cocktail of AIDS drugs might cost $130 (£65; {euro}170) compared with $10 000 for the brand name version.1 Billions of people living on $2-3 a day cannot afford $10 000, though they might be able to scrape together enough for the generic drugs. And matters are getting worse. New drug regimens recommended by the World Health Organization and second line defences that need to be used as resistance to standard treatments develops can cost much more.

Developing countries paid a high price for this agreement. But what have they received in return? Drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than on research, more on research on lifestyle drugs than on life saving drugs, and almost nothing on diseases that affect developing countries only. This is not surprising. Poor people cannot afford drugs, and drug companies make investments that yield the highest returns. The chief executive of Novartis, a drug company with a history of social responsibility, said "We have no model which would [meet] the need for new drugs in a sustainable way ... You can't expect for-profit organizations to do this on a large scale."2

Research needs money, but the current system results in limited funds being spent in the wrong way. For instance, the human genome project decoded the human genome within the target timeframe, but a few scientists managed to beat the project so they could patent genes related to breast cancer. The social value of gaining this knowledge slightly earlier was small, but the cost was enormous. Consequently the cost of testing for breast cancer vulnerability genes is high. In countries with no national health service many women with these genes will fail to be tested. In counties where governments will pay for these tests less money will be available for other public health needs.

A medical prize fund provides an alternative. Such a fund would give large rewards for cures or vaccines for diseases like malaria that affect millions, and smaller rewards for drugs that are similar to existing ones, with perhaps slightly different side effects. The intellectual property would be available to generic drug companies. The power of competitive markets would ensure a wide distribution at the lowest possible price, unlike the current system, which uses monopoly power, with its high prices and limited usage.

The prizes could be funded by governments in advanced industrial countries. For diseases that affect the developed world, governments are already paying as part of the health care they provide for their citizens. For diseases that affect developing countries, the funding could be part of development assistance. Money spent in this way might do as much to improve the wellbeing of people in the developing world—and even their productivity—as any other that they are given.

The medical prize fund could be one of several ways to promote innovation in crucial diseases. The most important ideas that emerge from basic science have never been protected by patents and never should be. Most researchers are motivated by the desire to enhance understanding and help humankind. Of course money is needed, and governments must continue to provide money through research grants along with support for government research laboratories and research universities. The patent system would continue to play a part for applications for which no one offers a prize . The prize fund should complement these other methods of funding; it at least holds the promise that in the future more money will be spent on research than on advertising and marketing of drugs, and that research concentrates on diseases that matter. Importantly, the medical prize fund would ensure that we make the best possible use of whatever knowledge we acquire, rather than hoarding it and limiting usage to those who can afford it, as Scrooge might have done. It is a thought we should keep in mind this Christmas.3 4 5 6

Joseph E Stiglitz, professor

1 Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA

jb2632@columbia.edu

Competing interests: JES was chief economist of the World Bank from 1997 to 2000 and a member and then chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1997. He won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001.

References

1. Médecins Sans Frontières. People not getting the treatment they need to stay alive. Newer AIDS drugs unaffordable and unavailable. Geneva: MSF, 29 November 2006.
2. Andrew J. Novartis chief in warning on cheap drugs. Financial Times 29 September 2006.
3. Stiglitz JE. Making globalization work. New York: WW Norton, 2006.
4. Hollis A. Optional rewards for new drugs for developing countries. Geneva: World Health Organization, 5 April 2005. www.who.int/entity/intellectualproperty/submissions/Submissions.AidanHollis.pdf.
5. Pogge T. Human rights and global health: a research program. Metaphilosophy 2005;1/2(36).
6. Love J. Submission of CPTech to IGWG. 15 November 2006. www.who.int/entity/public_hearing_phi/summary/15Nov06JamesLoveCPTech.pdf

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Published: 10 December 2006

Meet the world's top destroyer of the environment. It is not the car, or the plane,or even George Bush: it is the cow.

A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide.

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

Ranching, the report adds, is "the major driver of deforestation" worldwide, and overgrazing is turning a fifth of all pastures and ranges into desert.Cows also soak up vast amounts of water: it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk.

Wastes from feedlots and fertilisers used to grow their feed overnourish water, causing weeds to choke all other life. And the pesticides, antibiotics and hormones used to treat them get into drinking water and endanger human health.

The pollution washes down to the sea, killing coral reefs and creating "dead zones" devoid of life. One is up to 21,000sqkm, in the Gulf of Mexico, where much of the waste from US beef production is carried down the Mississippi.

The report concludes that, unless drastic changes are made, the massive damage done by livestock will more than double by 2050, as demand for meat increases.

Link:Cow 'emissions'

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Richest 2% hold half the world’s assets

“many people in high-income countries have negative net worth and, somewhat paradoxically, are among the poorest people in the world in terms of household wealth.”

So in the US some people are actually POORER than people that have almost NOTHING because we're in so much debt... but is that a real picture of wealth?

FT.com / World / International economy - Richest 2% hold half the world’s assets [This Post Continues after the jump...]