After the DICOTA convention on last sunday, myself and a Tanzanian couple with their 1 year old son, decided to take a tour of Washington D.C’s attractions.
Below are some of the pics from the tour. Enjoy!!
Month: September 2011
Dicota Convention Washington D.C.
This week has been such an interesting and uplifting week. The work in Boston went really well and the 50 years of Tanzania’s independence (DICOTA) convention was really informative and well planned. It really showed a detailed plan by all the committees involved despite the one hour fifty minutes we had to wait for the president to show up for his speech. Overall, it was a
great and informative convention.
Enjoy the slide!!!
A Ship Wreck in Tanzania:Again?
A word of mouth from the survivors ……..” many of the people who died in the accident are children and women.” Thus, many of the died are going to an early grave.
I write with the realization that it is hard to supervise and monitor all marine and fresh water means of transportation in Tanzania. But, the facts still remain — we should at least have learned our lesson from the MV. Bukoba accident that killed over 1000 people in 1996.
While all this is happening, and after the fact–we hear that the Tanzania government is thinking about creating a “National Emergency Preparedness Task Force”. Don’t we have one already??? This should have been created and/done with — in 1997 after the MV. Bukoba catastrophic accident. Did we learn anything from accident?
In my views I do not see the need for another bureaucratic organ. It is indeed not needed considering the amount of resources available. We do have a traffic police force and road accidents are happening in a daily basis. The issue here is not lack of an organ to rescue people but lack of enforcement of the preventive steps to insure accidents do not happen in the first place. That is what is lacking!
What needs to be done is concentrate more on the prevention side of the preparedness and enforcement of the already established prevention measures such that accidents rarely happens. Having routine ship engine checks, ship body checks, life boat checks, making sure that ships owners adhere to loading capacities of their vessels etc, etc should be the first priority.
Always–prevention is better than a cure and it is cheaper at the same time. Most of the accidents that are happening in Tanzania are avoidable. It’s just common sense. Why do they allow un-maintained, over-loaded-ships to operate on our waterways?
How many accidents will it take for the “senses” to be “common” again?
Maybe ship-owners need to carry high premium insurance for the cargo and human life they waste every now and then. That would put them on notice and on the right path thinking-wise. They need to be taken to court and if found guilty–spend time in jail and pay both the dead and the injured handsomely.
I believe their bottom-line (profits) is merely affected when these types of accidents happens—because when people die due to negligence the people who profit from these types of negligence are not taken to account. This in turn creates no incentive to change what they are currently doing–that is killing indiscriminately in the name of accidents.
It is not Allah or Jesus that kills in most of these accidents, it is just negligence and negligence needs to be seriously confronted.
This accident has happened in the Zanzibar route which is a much safer route than the Mtwara –Dar Es Salaam route. It is quite common for ships in this route to stall (engine actually lose power in high seas) sometimes two times in a one way journey from either Mtwara –Dar or vice versa. Ill-maintained ships, over-loaded passengers and excess cargo are a norm in this route as well.
It is just a matter of time an accident like the one in Zanzibar will happen in this route as well if necessary preventive steps like the ones mentioned above are not going to be taken sooner.
In Pictures: The Zanzibar Ferry Disaster–Source BBC News.
Note: I use the word accident very lightly here as most of these so-called accidents are avoidable.
Tanzania: President Kikwete Denies WiKiLeak Cables
1.In an outrageous cable reported by Wikileaks, the former US Ambassador to Tanzania, Michael Retzer is reported to have said in his cable reports that President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete has accepted gifts from the owner of the Kempinski Hotel chain, who is a citizen of the United Emirates.
2.This is, according to Ambassador Retzer, from a conversation he had with the Manager and Publicity Director of the former Dar es Salaam-based Kilimanjaro-Kempinski Hotel, Miss Lisa Pile.
3.This cable is as untruthful as it is outrageous. It is full of lies and innuendoes seeking to tarnish the good image and name of the President. It is unfortunate and highly disappointing that an ambassador worth his name could engage in this kind of lazy gossip.
4.The Directorate of the Presidential Communications would like to deny these lies in the strongest terms possible as follows:
5.We would like to state categorically that there has never been a time when the President received gifts from Ali Albwardy. This is definitely an outrageous claim and if there is evidence to the contrary, we would like to challenge Mr. Ambassador Retzer to produce it for the public to satisfy itself that what he is claiming are mere lies.
6.That there has never been a time, ever, when His Excellency Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, during his time as Foreign Minister or currently as President of the United Republic of Tanzania, was flown by anybody to London on a subsidized shopping expedition to buy five suits. All his travels to London or any other places in the world have been duty assignments paid for by the Government of Tanzania. The matter of him being flown to London for subsidised shopping of five suites is outrageous.
7.That during his entire life, as Foreign Minister or as President, the President has never met in London nor travelled with Ali Albwardy to London on a shopping expedition. In any case as Foreign Minister he is given adequate clothing allowance. And, now as President his clothing is the responsibility of the state. He does not therefore need to be flown by anybody for subsidized shopping of suits.
8.That the President was not responsible for raising nor receiving campaign funds for CCM Party during the 2005 General Elections. He was simply the flag bearer of the Party. However, he is privy to information that Kempinski Kilimanjaro Hotel was never asked nor contributed a single cent towards CCM campaign. Therefore the allegations that Kempinski Kilimanjaro Hotel contributed one million (USD 1,000,000) toward CCM campaign are baseless and unfounded.
9.That the Government permission for possessing of the Kilimanjaro Hotel by Kempinski Hotels and the subsequent permission to Kempinski to build two new hotels – one on the edge of the Ngorongoro Crater and another on the Serengeti plains overlooking the main animal migration routes were issued by the Third Phase Tanzania Government and not by Mr. Kikwete’s Administration.
10.However, President Kikwete declined to grant permission to Kempinski Hotels permission to build on the right of the Ngorongoro Crater on the strength of environmental concerns. How come then that the President who had been offered so many favors such as suits and election money, took this principled position? This therefore testifies to the fact that, claims that the President has received favours are a concoction with malicious intentions from the authors.
11.That it is a lie that Mr Kikwete has frequented Kilimanjaro Kempinski Hotel in his personal capacity. The records are very clear; the President has never, ever on his own visited that Hotel except on official duties or when he has escorted official state guests or attended meetings.
12.It is unfortunate that the distinguished Ambassador would believe and transmit such baseless lies and hear-says from a single source. The Office of the President takes strong exception to such behaviour which seeks to tarnish the name and person of the President.
Here is the link to Swahili version of same.
Released by:
Directorate of Presidential Communications,
State House,
DAR ES SALAAM.
05th September, 2011
Telephone: 255-22-2114512, 2116539
E-mail: press@ikulu.go.tz
Fax: 255222113425
P.O. BOX 9120,
DAR ES SALAAM.
Tanzania.
The Evolution vs. Creationism Controversy in America
Shaaban Fundi, Ph.D.
Going through the articles regarding creationism vs evolution has made me aware of the existence of the great debate that is boiling between the creationists and the evidence based supporters of the evolution process. I understand the fear that is held by the creationists about evolution and the significant challenge it possess to the creation only idea. As a science instructor representing the larger scientific community in a classroom, I feel that curriculum decisions based on the belief of creationism have no place in determining science standards.
To me, science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science. Thus, creationism, that provides explanations based on faith and not on empirical evidence has no part in science and no part in the science classroom.
Moreover, progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence. The theory of evolution is one of these well-established explanations. An enormous amount of scientific investigation since the mid-19th century has converted early ideas about evolution proposed by Darwin and others into a strong and well-supported theory. Today the theory of evolution has become the bedrock of modern biology and is universally accepted by scientists as the engine for speciation.
However, creationists in their bid to get equal time in the science classroom, deliberately mislead the public by trying to present evolution as a controversial theory. I simply don’t understand why it is that today, more than 150 years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, we are still fighting over evolution. The Catholic Church has endorsed evolution; every competent biologist relies on its theoretical framework; and its mechanism and its consequences have been thoroughly documented. The theory of evolution has become the central unifying concept of biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. These observations lead to two fundamental conclusions: the teaching of evolution should be an integral part of science instruction, and creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.
The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to an increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modern life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.
I am not advocating that students not have the right to believe in creationism. I am simply arguing that in the science classroom students be allowed to explore the truth about their own origin and the origin of their universe based on scientifically collected and proven evidence. In the science classroom, we teach students that all good science is based on the scientific method. Based on this method, we form hypothesis that we later test with experimentation. The evolutionary theory has undergone much experimentation over the past 150 years since Darwin first outlined his theory and for the most part this experimentation has upheld his ideas. Creationism, however, by its very nature, resists attempts to explore its validity using the scientific method. It is impossible to test this theory using experimentation. Thus, I believe that it has no place in the science classroom. I have no problems with it being taught as part of religious instruction or even in a philosophy class. However, I do not think it belongs in a science classroom simply because we cannot use scientific tools to understand and explore the idea.
I strongly reject the Creationists’ claim that if one believes that the theory of evolution is true then one necessarily must believe that there is no God, no meaning or purpose to life, and thus no moral accountability. This statement is completely wrong due to the fact that believing in evolution and believing in God are not mutually exclusive beliefs. The dilemma creationists have for themselves of being unable to reconcile science and religion should not be imposed upon the rest of world populous, and particularly not on educational systems. The courts have consistently ruled that “creation science” is actually a religious view. Because public education must be religiously neutral under the U.S. Constitution, the courts have held that it is unconstitutional to present creation science as legitimate scholarship. I believe that these court rulings should be upheld and creation science kept out of science instruction in the public education system.
Over the past 50 years, our world has become increasingly more technological and the need for students to understand scientific principles has become increasingly more important. If we want our public school students to compete on a global level it is essential that we teach them sound scientific principles and keep creationism out of the science classroom.
www.kibogoji.com 