"Do you feel, feel from the heart - that millions are starving today and millions are starving for ages? Does it make you sleepless? …You may feel, but then have you found any way out? Have you got the will to surmount mountain-high obstructions?"
— Swami Vivekananda
"By insisting that “culturally sensitive education programs” have a large role to play in protecting poor women from AIDS, the authors are suggesting, all evidence to the contrary, that ignorance of the facts is centrally related to high HIV risk and that, consequently, the way to diminish risk is to increase knowledge. Through this cognitivist legerdemain, we have expediently moved the locus of the problem—and thus the focus of the interventions—away from certain features of an inegalitarian society and toward the women deemed “at risk.” The problem is with the women; thus the interventions should change the women."
— Paul Farmer, Infections and Inequalities
"We know that risk of acquiring HIV does not depend on knowledge of how the virus is transmitted, but rather on the freedom to make decisions. Poverty is the great limiting factor of freedom. Indeed, gender inequality and poverty are far more important contributors to HIV risk than is ignorance of modes of transmission or “cultural beliefs” about HIV… Until we have effective, female-controlled prevention, whether a microbicide or another, and an effective vaccine, nothing we do should suggest that education can substitute for, or remove the necessity of, effective therapy for AIDS."
— Paul Farmer, Infections and Inequalities
"Access to health care is mostly contingent on having a way to pay for it, either out of one’s own resources or with some form of insurance. The essential point is that allocation by price is a rationing scheme—one which we have easily accepted in health care as an extension of a basic economic philosophy, and one which largely absolves any particular person from responsibility for the results. Since no one actually decided to exclude the poor (as it is their lack of money that excludes them, not our actions) no one is responsible and no one is to blame."
— Larry Churchill, quoted in Mama Might Be Better Off Dead by Laurie Abraham
"Yet Oklahoma is not perceived as overpopulated because, in spite of a horrendous drought, it is not facing famine. Famine in Oklahoma is inconceivable because it receives a fair price for its exports, it has not leased its land to foreign countries, the poorest of the poor receive a helping hand from the government, and farmers and ranchers receive federal assistance in times of droughts. It is a lack of these factors in Horn of Africa, plus political insecurity in Somalia, which explain the famine - not overpopulation."

Famine in the Horn of Africa: Malthus beware

William G. Moseley

*by way of my friend David

I’m reblogging my own link! Originally posted here.

(via weweretiredofbeingmild)

TED Talk: A Radical Experiment in Empathy. This video sums up the reason behind every single one of my political views.

jahanzebjz:

Gadaffi has his fate sealed. But, I am not too sure about what will ensue after his departure. I don’t support Gadaffi by any means, but at the same time I don’t regard the rebels as credible revolutionaries either. The uprising had lost its integrity as soon as the West started to back it. Not that I don’t want Gaddafi to go, but the Western backing of the rebels has left me disillusioned about the Libyan scenario. The imperialists, as a rule, cannot –ever- support a people’s struggle for liberty. The Arab Spring once again proved the Western hypocrisy when they endorsed the rebels in Libya, but backed the massacres in Yemen and Bahrain. What’s happening in Libya reminds me of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. However, I won’t push the analogy any further.

The Western support for Gaddafi in the past has been surreal, but he is an unreliable dictator. The rebels might turn out to be more dependable. Libya is an oil rich country and we live in a world of oil.  

I am also skeptical about the events in Libya and the media coverage it has got. It seems to me that there is a third side to it, namely those who neither support Gaddafi nor the rebels. These groups are out of the picture, but I am sure they exist in a large number. Another thing that has to be kept in mind that Libya is a tribal society, and the balance of power depends on tribal alliances. In a state system, the tribe or the tribes who have state power can have great coercive authority over other tribes that don’t have state power. This can generate fierce clan rivalries. We can take Somalia as an example where Siad Barre’s tribe, which took state power in the 60s after decolonization, wielded extraordinary authority over other tribes, which eventually led to a bloody civil war. In Libya’s case, although I am not entirely sure, it seems that the West is supporting clans who are rivals of Gaddafi’s clan and their allies. If this is a tribal battle then it does not deserve the name of revolution, and therefore it’s not a battle for liberty. Once the rival clans take state power, nothing will have changed for the people. As the rebels are supported by the West, then the West will dictate post-Gaddafi Libya. Nothing, therefore, is revolutionary about Libya. And it’s similar to the Egypt and Tunisia where the names have changed but the system is the same and supported by you know whom.

I see people celebrating the impending downfall of Gaddafi. For my part, I am saving my biggest celebration for Jerusalem.

Jahanzeb Hussain

Arrested in Bahrain:

mehreenkasana:

Doctors, lawyers, human rights activists and ordinary citizens have been imprisoned in Bahrain for demanding what is legitimately theirs: Basic rights. Given below are the photos are brave and outspoken human beings who put their lives on the line for their country and fellow citizens.

To their strength, to their freedom.

(Source: youtube.com)

jahanzebjz:

The attacks in Norway are a prime opportunity to carry out a critical discourse analysis. When the attacks happened everyone thought of pointing fingers at what is called Islamic terrorism. Gradually, it became clear that such was not the case because the man who went on a rampage was, as Guardian puts is, “ blond haired and Nordic looking”. This automatically exempts him of any charges of terrorism and thus he is not a terrorist. Obviously, as all of you well educated folks would know, only Muslims are terrorists. If the person was dark, bearded and Middle Eastern looking, then he would have been a terrorist right away. Clearly blonde, blue-eyed and white people cannot be terrorists.

As far as I have read, there is nobody who is using the word terrorism. As it is increasingly apparent that the attacks were carried out by someone who was motivated by far-right ideology, the media is not calling it terrorism. At best, they are being called bomb attacks. This is because only Muslims inspired by Islam can carry out terrorist attacks. If it is not what is called Islamic, then it is not terrorism. The word terrorism and terrorist just has to be used in relation to Islam and Muslims, otherwise it doesn’t make any sense of course. 

The attacks are also seen as anomaly and as a singular event without any connections to any organization. It is true and it should be seen like that. However, if it was, let’s say, carried out by a Jihadist, then everyone would be making connections to Islam and Muslims world over. It would become part of a global trend.

The attacker’s origins are not being politicized. But, when an attack is carried out by someone whose origins trace back to a Muslim majority country, then his connections to that country are greatly highlighted.  

The attacker’s religious affiliation is disregarded as well. On the other hand, if such acts are perpetuated by a Muslim, then it’s Islam and the rest of the Muslim world that is put on trial.

These attacks will be remembered because they are horrendous and deaths will be mourned for a long time, as they should be. But if the attack was militant Jihadist, then the media would have talked a great length about the “problems” of Islam, Muslim and immigrants. “Experts” and intellectuals would have been having the time of their lives in “informing” the public about their “insight” of Islam, Muslims and their intentions vis-à-vis the West.

The way the discourse is rather light in describing these attacks tells us a lot about how Europe and North America like to demonize Islam and Muslims who are the “Other”, while when one of their “own” does something evil it is not talked about in the same alarmist, hateful, populist and racist tone.

- Jahanzeb Hussain 

profmth:

The 1st to marry in Manhattan:  Phyllis & Connie, after 23 years together.

profmth:

The 1st to marry in Manhattan:  Phyllis & Connie, after 23 years together.

"Our problem is not merely the media, or our notorious inability to learn another language. It is our entire evasive and mendacious culture, which (to the enormous profit of the megacompanies that feed it) makes our selfish decadence entertaining to us, sells us headsets that deafen us to crying injustices in our own country, and changes every real, complicated, painful struggle into a brief sensation of stars, or meteors, gloriously noble or wicked, always somehow erotically intriguing today, dead boring tomorrow."
— John Womack Jr., Rebellion in Chiapas
Reblogged by a Zionist. Great.

Partners in Health defines perfectly what it means to practice solidarity through medicine.

jahanzebjz:

I wonder how Europe and North America would react if the victims of 9/11, 7/7 and Madrid bombings were universally declared as nothing but “collateral damage”. It is simply unthinkable that victims who happen to be citizens of imperialist countries can be deprived of their humanity, the value of their life negated and their memories brushed under the rug. It would be totally wrong if we dismissed the lost lives as a mean to an end. Human life is an end in itself and its worth can never be diminished.

However, it is culturally accepted that when an innocent Iraqi, Palestinian, Afghan and a Pakistani dies they are not automatically accorded the same human right that Westerners and whites are. They are not viewed as valuable lives, but they are looked down upon as “collateral damage”. They are not human beings, but they are objects and chattel. They are subordinates and secondary. There are no memorials for them. There are no events for them to mark their death anniversaries. Nobody cares about them. Why should anyone as they are just sorry people who are getting in our way as we “light up” the world with “freedom” and “democracy”? After all they are just “terrorists” by our interpretation of the world, therefore all these people should not be deserving of the rights that North America and Europe take for granted. They are less human than us, so it doesn’t matter what they go through as they don’t feel and breathe. They can be killed and it’s all right as long as we keep deriving self-satisfaction out of it, because we are doing something “good” and “noble”.

Here is what will happen if tomorrow morning if there is a bomb attack in London or Paris or NY or any other European or North American city vs. a drone attack in Pakistan:

The citizens of imperialist nations will be remembered till the end of living days, their personal stories will be told a million times over, their pictures will be all over the media, tears of their families will be broadcasted, leaders around the world will pay visits to the attacked sites, there will be compensations to the families, there will be fierce rhetoric against the attackers and a promise of revenge. On the other hand, Pakistani women and children killed in a bomb attack will be a tool for an end, meaning their murder will be justifiedunder the name of “fighting terrorism” and making the “world safe for democracy”. They will not be humans but tools and a means to some supposedly higher end. Moreover, the leaders and intellectuals of the “Free World” will preach to these barbarians that they actually don’t understand what a noble act America and her allies are undertaking. The immature children, as Pakistanis clearly are given the fact that they are Pakistanis, will be taught that they are incapable of seeing that what is being done is in reality good for them. American and her allies are angels who can’t commit sins and they will say to Pakistanis that they should be silent and let the masters carry on and not be ungrateful, and one day you will comprehend what an amazing service has been done to Pakistanis - or Iraqis, Afghans, and whoever else happens to be “benefiting” from Western “benevolence”.

According to the Western narrative, the lives lost of these people are not actually anything wrong, but a sacrifice. The divine European and North American men are busy in some grand project, which once completed, will reveal itself worthy of millions of lost lives of Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis and others.

- Jahanzeb Hussain

"I don’t believe in charity. I believe in solidarity. Charity is vertical, so it’s humiliating. It goes from the top to the bottom. Solidarity is horizontal. It respects the other and learns from the other. I have a lot to learn from other people."
— Eduardo Galeano (via mexiroccan)

(via antesdachuva)

1 of 5
Themed by: Hunson