Today’s POV blog

For the duration of humanity, there has been a battle for food — critical for our very existence — but not all cultures have advanced in their ability to provide for their population at the same rate. Some countries have been left behind and are yet to develop the necessary methods to sustain their population.

In these under-developed nations and third-world countries, food has become such a crucial commodity that starvation is a common cause for death. Food riots occur when large shipments of aid are brought in for distribution.

Climate is but one of the reasons for food shortages, although, during the American dustbowl, it was a combination of poor farming methods and rampant locust breeding. A drought this year has caused a food shortage for a large portion of East Africa, but Ethiopia is being hit hardest.

There are an estimated 35 million malnourished people in Ethiopia; about 46% of their population. The government of Ethiopia is pleading with the UN to provide aid, but this aid comes at a hefty pricetag. The UN predicts it will require $285 million for six months of food. The number of people suffering right now could also increase, requiring even more aid money. The last time Ethiopia suffered a great famine was 25 years ago, which, according to BBC, killed nearly a million people.

Is it the world’s responsibility to aid starving populations when providing this food tends to the symptom, but does not cure the disease? With so many of the prosperous nations feeling a debilitating economic sting, should their first concern remain with their own citizens? While the problems of a nation starving to death and a nation who can’t afford to drive to work are incomparable, does the average citizen fully understand how at a time they are facing foreclosure on their home, their country is sending millions to aid other countries?

History references the years of 1650 to 1720 as the Golden Age of Piracy. When sailors were laid off en masse during those years, privateers and pirate captains easily found skilled sailors for crew. Privateers were pirates and other captains in possession of letters of marques (letters giving them permission to attack ships of their home country’s enemies).

No one during that time referred to it as the Golden Age, but our society has greatly romanticized it. Many pirates looted and plundered to just get by, forsaking a landlubber’s job for easier money. This is where pirates of yore share similarities with the pirates today — impoverished people who can barely afford to feed their families taking deadly risks for a a pirate’s bounty.

Today, Somali pirates make up the bulk of pirate attacks on the high seas. Somalis were responsible for 54% of the attacks in 2008, 168 out of 293. This year, pirates are becoming more aggressive, with approximately 310 attacks already this year. According to CNN, five ships are currently being held for ransom.

Countries, such as France, have started sending out more patrols, which has helped to reduce the success rate of these attacks. However, ransoming a ship has made some pirates wealthy men in their impoverished nations, thus encouraging more to become pirates. As if to stoke the fire, the transitional government of Somalia has not been able to police the port cities, which have become a breeding ground for these pirates.

With countries busily worrying about their own economy, many are unable to fund a large-scale military action to flush out the pirates. Perhaps it is time for nations to bring back letters of marques and hire on privateers to help patrol the waters. Pirates to fight the pirates, so to speak.

Should state and federal officials be given the freedom to pursue dangerous criminals without disregard for public rights such as privacy?

In 1949, the International News Service wanted to publish an article about the ‘toughest guys‘ that the FBI would like to catch. The article was so popular that the FBI officially released the list to aid in the capture of these fugitives. Today, the FBI’s most-wanted list includes the likes of Usama Bin Laden.

These criminals have often committed multiple heinous crimes, extortion, bank robberies, money laundering, drug importing, and murder. However, these criminals who are US citizens share the same rights as every other citizen of the US. Should these rights be forfeited for those the FBI deems most wanted?

It may be a slippery slope. Select fugitives losing their rights has the potential of evolving into criminals with lesser offenses losing their rights. On one hand, we have the overwhelming need for public safety and on the other, personal privacy.

A sterling example of this dichotomy is the Patriot Act. In response to our safety concerns after 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed to allow officials to use any means to provide surveillance, detain, arrest, and question people who are thought to be, or might hold information leading to, terrorists. This act has led to many people being locked away and being interrogated in Guantanamo Bay without the basic rights that you or I believe we are guaranteed. Some of the people detained are American citizens, whose rights were forfeited under the application of the Patriot Act.

Are we on the right path? Are our personal-privacy rights of less importance than the need to protect the population?

Researchers at Stanford recently published a paper about affecting neurons in your brain with light. Our bodies are not normally receptive to information via light, except for our eyes of course, but in this study a gene, extracted from a photosensitive type of algae, is loaded into virus particles and a promoter. The virus infects neurons in the area and sets the stage.

In an experiment involving a mouse with a fiber-optic ponytail, when the light was triggered, the mouse moved in a counter-clockwise motion. Since the scientists were manipulating the neurons on the right side of the brain, the left side was being controlled. They successfully told the mouse’s brain to function in a particular manner using a bit of gene therapy and a light show.

Mind-controlling mice may be important for many reasons, but consider this: mice are often used for their genome similarities to humans (remember the mouse with an ear grown on its back in 1995?) and mice being tested had Parkinson’s — a human-afflicting disease. This team is trying to find a treatment that can “reprogram” functions of the brain to bypass these diseases.

Though meant to benefit, some are concerned that this type of experiment may be used nefariously. Imagine the benefit when using this to gain information from someone. Granted, telling the brain to put one foot in front of the other is far less complicated than “tell me what I want to hear,” but it’s concerning possibility when you delve into the realm of mind control.

This is a science in its infancy and these scientists have the purest of intentions, however, a tool or technique has a purpose intended by the creator that may not be shared by the user.

The world watched with bated breath as a boy named Falcon Heene floated aimlessly for more than two hours across the Colorado landscape trapped inside a weather balloon. The real surprise came once the craft set down and the child was not onboard. Falcon, the youngest of three Heene children, was later found hiding in a box in the attic of the garage.

With the media in full frenzy, the Heenes appeared the next day on Larry King Live, where Falcon responded to his father and said, “You guys said we did this for the show.”

While the Heenes adamantly deny the charges that this was all a publicity hoax, a number of events have come to light that have prompted the authorities to seek charges. Robert Thomas, a former associate of Richard Henne, stated today in a Gawker interview that he helped plan a number of possible scenarios as a method for promoting the Heenes for a reality TV show. The plan in which Richard was most interested was that of a flying saucer.

At concern now is the massive state and federal resources that were spent following the balloon in fear that the child would fall from the craft —helicopters, rescue parties, and even manpower that may have been kept from actual emergencies – all for what now has the appearance of a publicity stunt by a family addicted to the limelight.

Richard and Mayumi Heene face possible felony charges including conspiracy, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and making a false report to police. The felony charges carry a maximum sentence of six years’ imprisonment and a $500,000 fine. They may also risk having their children removed by child-protective services.

Lavinia Masters was raped at the age of 13. After 24 years, her case was reopened and tested for DNA. A match was made to a criminal already serving time in prison for a number of unrelated cases. Unfortunately, due to the statute of limitations on her case, the man was not prosecuted. She has since become an advocate for getting rape kits from cold cases tested.

Comparatively speaking, the science for evaluating DNA evidence is rather new. In previous years, when a serious crime was committed where DNA was present, the DNA was stored as evidence with the rest of the case — waiting for technological advances. This created a backlog of cold cases. With such a large queue waiting to be tested, many cases are still waiting to be solved. Often cases are only re-opened when they meet the criteria for an exceptionally heinous crime (as was the case with Jennifer Schuett), crimes may go cold until long after the statute of limitations expires, thus negating the need to continue to save DNA.

In Canada, unless the crime is sufficiently petty, the defendant can be charged at any time in the future. This policy would give our law enforcement all the time they need to solve cases and with a solved case, bring closure to the victims. Lavinia certainly has her work cut out for her.

Is it important for the patient to have the decision-making power, even when contrary to medical advice? Hospitals around the country are straying from VBACs (vaginal birth after cesarean) because complications can arise when a woman attempts a vaginal birth after a previous cesarean.

Hospitals are either changing their policies or doctors are refusing to deliver a baby vaginally if the mother has received a c-section previously. One complication is a uterine rupture, which may result in the death in the baby.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists says that these risks are prevalent in a scant 1% of all VBACs. With such a low percentage, is it really the doctor’s decision to refuse the procedure? In the end, should we trust the opinions of trained professionals or should they do as the patient requests once they have been apprised of the risks?

Recent studies by the UK-based Catlin Arctic Survey and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) indicate that an area of ice in the Artic Ocean is first year ice. This is important because it reflects a rapid melting of ice in that area; so much so, that the ice in that area is only one-year old. As the ice gets thinner, it becomes more susceptible to melting. The WWF predicts that the Arctic will melt in the summers in as little as ten years. In 20 years, the Arctic will melt during the majority of the warmer months.

Several things happen when the ice melts. First, the Arctic ice helps reflect sunlight back into space, reducing planetary heat. As the surface of ice decreases, less heat is reflected and more is absorbed, increasing overall heat. As the ice melts, sea levels increase. A recent article of a global-warming opponent said that if all the ice melted, the water would rise only about 200 ft. Imagine what 200 feet above you looks like. Many, if not all, of America’s coastal and port cities would be completely submerged in that event.

In Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth, he pointed out that when fresh water is introduced into a salt-water current, the system changes. This could affect many other things as well, such as where hurricanes form off the coast.

Research seems to indicate that we are on a bit of a slippery slope. As the planet loses more heat-reflective properties, more is absorbed, causing the heat to rise. Opponents of global-warming arguments say that these few degrees are not substantial, but it really doesn’t take much to melt ice, thus increasing the heat absorbed.

At this point, it is no longer a matter or whether or not global warming is real, but if it is an issue. However, this is all speculation based on scientific experiments and hypothesis, so it is really up to the individual to determine whether global warming is a threat or not. It is hard to argue that we shouldn’t at least take steps to reduce our impact on the earth though.

Talking, walking, and even driving while on your cell phone presents untold danger. With a device so hazardous to our health, it’s a wonder that its popularity has reached all new heights. It is estimated that 60% of the worldwide population (4 billion people) subscribe to wireless services according to Reconstruction.ws.

Health agencies in Switzerland, Germany, Israel, France, the U.K., and Finland have issued health warnings with special emphasis on the risks to children (children have thinner skulls that are less able to provide protection from the radiation that is emitted).

EWG charges that the standards set by the FCC, based on 1992 recommendations, allow 20 times more radiation to penetrate the head than the rest of the body. The latest study on the topic of brain tumors caused by extended cell-phone use finds that there may be merit to the concern.

Yahoo reported on the study chronicled in the Journal of Clinical Oncology that could not document an overall link, but when the more methodologically rigorous studies were examined, a potentially harmful association was identified.

In earlier studies, similarly inconclusive and conflicting results were found. This study does little to add clarity to the general discussion but it does show that the more detailed the study, the more support there is for a link between the two.

At a more granular level, brain expert, Dr. Vini Khurana, warns that cell phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos and says people should avoid using them wherever possible. He furthers that “governments and the cell-phone industry must take immediate steps to reduce exposure to their radiation,” according to Independent.co.uk.

According to ScienceDaily.com, two new studies have concluded that talking on a cell phone while walking or driving is causing an increase in deaths to pedestrians, drivers, and passengers alike.

These studies that attempt to draw correlation between cell phones and accident fatalities found that there was a period where cell phones actually helped to reduce fatalities, but that the new data reflects changes that occurred once the number of cell phones being used reached critical mass of 100 million.

Another study, this one published in the latest issue of the journal Pediatrics, found that children walking to and from school while on the phone were not as diligent when crossing streets or making other safety decisions.

Research was conducted at the University of Alabama using a virtual-reality simulator and 77 children aged 10 and 11. In an article reported by About.com, children were monitored crossing a street while using a phone call and while undistracted.

It was found that while on the phone, the kids were less attentive to the threat that traffic posed including leaving less time crossing the street in between on-coming vehicles. The net results were more collisions, near misses, and longer wait times before attempting to cross.

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the following bans are in place:

• Complete ban on cell-phone use while driving in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, and the District of Columbia.
• Complete ban on cell phones while driving a school bus is prohibited in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
• Complete ban on cell phones by novice drivers is restricted in 21 states and the District of Columbia.
• Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 18 states and the District of Columbia.
• Novice drivers are banned from texting in Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and West Virginia.
• School bus drivers are banned from text messaging in Texas.

At what point should the government control our common sense and what responsibility do they have to conduct extensive studies evaluating safety?

A quick search on the web and you can find plenty of companies that are willing to pay you to blog. In fact, there are people who claim to earn a good living at doing nothing but writing blog reviews of products.

Using the keywords get paid to blog, you can easily find pages and pages of sites that connect manufacturers and marketing companies with bloggers. For many, the concept is that the blogger will write a positive review of a product and for that review, they will be paid. Sites such as HubPages do all the legwork in connecting the blogger to the manufacturer; an online clearing house.

Blog sites can earn additional revenue by placing Google AdSense, Amazon, and even eBay ads. Many blog formats, such as WordPress and Joomla, have widgets or automatic features for building out the site with content-relevant ad without any type of technological interaction from the blogger.

At Blogsvertise they tout that a blogger can generate extra income from their blog by mentioning and talking about vendor web sites, products, and services in blogs and journals. IZEA helps advertisers find bloggers who will promote products and services through social networks and media properties alongside traditional display advertising and text links. They also feature sponsored-conversation campaigns through independent blogs, Twitter, and Facebook status updates.

If you think this all seems a bit underhanded, you’re not alone. FOXNews.com reported today that the FTC is set to regulate promotional blogging, thereby requiring writers to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products or services.

The FTC is serious about this. As of 1 December 2009, bloggers caught violating the rules, could be fined up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers and the advertisers they represent could also face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses if they are found to have blogged inappropriate product reviews.

While they must disclose that they are being paid to review the product or service, the FTC has not outlined how that disclosure must be presented.

Some bloggers are concerned that the FTC will hold them responsible for casual opinion postings. In the FOXNews.com article, blogger Linsey Krolik said she’s always disclosed any freebies she’s received on products she writes about, but has stepped up her efforts since last fall. She said she adds a notice at the end of a post, “very clear in italics or bold or something — this is the deal. It’s not kind of buried.”