I have spent quite some time, trying to explain the physics and science behind how a plane gets to the sky. I initially tried to do this using an animation and got to the point where , I just had the 3 d model of the plane. Unfortunately , I realized that I was just a third of the process of doing the entire animation. So I decided to do an Xkcd style explainer similar to the one on rockets but one for planes. I hope this is easy enough. At times Physics is just that Physics, finding other words can be challenging.

Here is the link

Earlier this month, both the Standard  and NTV reported that farmers in Kenya were having difficulty buying subsidized fertilizer.

In Kenya, fertilizer is available to small farmers from the government at subsidized prices. For example, 50kg of Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) is available at Sh2,500 ( around $25US ) subsidized. If purchased from private traders, it would cost between Sh3,500 ( $35US) and Sh3,700 ($37US). However, these subsidies are only available if the fertilizer is purchased from the National Cereals and Produce Board(NCPB) a Kenyan government run company. The fertilizer was only available at certain NCPB locations forcing farmers to travel significant distances and stand in long lines. Kenya’s government only allows small farmers to purchase subsidized fertilizer and the lines were likely exacerbated by the need to produce paperwork.

The traditional arguments for fertilizer subsidies in Africa are that fertilizer use there lags behind other regions such as Latin America and South Asia. The reasons cited are lack of knowledge of fertilizer use, farmer’s lack of capital to buy fertilizer, and farmer’s unwillingness to take risks. Furthermore fertilizer has positive externalities such as reduced soil erosion from increased plant growth.*

In most of Africa, fertilizer subsidies began in the 1960s and 1970s. These programs were typically implemented through government owned corporations that were given a monopoly on fertilizer and sold it at below market prices. Aid agencies and Western governments were often critical of the practice and in the 1980’s they began pressuring African governments. They maintained that fertilizer subsidy programs were inefficient and discouraged private sector businesses. The real problem facing African countries, they argued, was inefficient resource allocation. During this period many African countries got rid of their fertilizer subsidies due to Western pressure.*

However, more recent thinking on food subsidies has changed. Malawi, after following international recommendations to eliminate fertilizer subsidies, faced widespread food shortages in 2005 after a disastrous harvest. Determined not to repeat this, its government began instituting fertilizer subsidies and has enjoyed record harvests.*  Pointing to Malawi’s success, some Western economists such as Jeffrey Sachs now advocate fertilizer subsidies in Africa. In a notable difference from the Kenyan approach, the Malawi government issues farmers coupons that can be used to purchase fertilizer from private merchants at the subsidized prices rather than selling the fertilizer directly. However, Malawi’s policy is expensive — running as high as 16% of GDP in 2008.

Even these Western countries that have pushed Africa to embrace laissez-faire economics and eliminate fertilizer subsidies, extensively subsidize their own agriculture. So, African government that subsidize fertilizer are following the policies that the West practices rather than what it preaches.

Not mine, but something I’m writing about for NiemanLab.

Connected China is a database of political power in China. It illustrates the social and institutional ties between the country’s leaders with a focus on explaining how and why the current crop of leaders came to power.

These days, a lot of people are talking about computer money. Computer money is money with no group in the middle controlling it. Instead, everyone uses their computer to track each time someone uses computer money. This table tracking the use of computer money makes it possible to give others computer money and stops people from lying about how much computer money they have.

People can send computer money to others or get computer money themselves. You do not need to know who the other person is to send computer money. When computer money is used, the person getting the money tells the person giving them computer money a number to send it to. This number can be a different number every time so no one knows who gets the computer money. The person giving away the computer money uses another number they do not tell anyone to show the computer money is real and has not been changed. The computers of the other people using computer money then check to be sure the money is real and add the use of computer money to their tables.

More computer money is made when computers get hard problems right. A computer somewhere in the world finds the answer to one of these hard problems about every ten minutes. Many strong computers work on these problems, so it is hard to get computer money this way. The person who owns the computer that gets the problem right also gets the computer money. The number of computer money given for finding the answer to a problem goes down over time.

Computer money can be used to buy other types of money. For the past few weeks, the number of other types of money one piece of computer money can buy has been going up a lot. This makes some people worried that the pieces of other types of money one piece of computer money can buy will drop very low soon.

Why are the pieces of other types of money one piece of computer money can buy going up so much? There are a few possible reasons. More places are starting to accept computer money. Money is only money if it can be used to buy things. The more things money can buy, the more it can be used. Since more places accept computer money, more people are interested in using computer money.

As more people started using computer money, one state started to make people who use their computers to make computer money or help others use computer money tell them how they use the computer money. This is to stop people from hiding that they get money from places not allowed by the state.

At the same time, a different state needed to give another a lot of money. This state had to take money from the people who live there to pay the money back to the places they got it from. People in other states were worried about the same thing happening to them. This made computer money, which does not need a state in the middle controlling it, look good.

All of this caused computer money to get more attention. As computer money got more attention, more people started accepting it. One person even tried to offer his house for computer money. This attention, in turn, made computer money easier to use. When computer money is easier to use, the pieces of other types of money one piece of computer money can buy goes up. Now, all of the computer money can be used to buy more than ten hundred ten hundred ten hundred pieces of some other types of money.

If you were sitting in social studies, government or geography class in the United States in the1990s, you were likely one of those that raised their eyebrows when you heard that the United States was re-establishing ties with “Burma.” If you weren’t confused then, you may have been when you heard that the US was also considering re-establishing ties with “Myanmar.” You brushed it off, thinking, “We must be figuring out how to stave off the effects of climate change on a couple island countries in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.”

Unlike the fate of most obscure island countries in the Pacific Ocean, Burma and Myanmar remained in the news and continue today to make financial and political headlines. When President Obama visited Burma and Myanmar on November 2012, you may have realized that Burma and Myanmar are one in the same – that’s right – one country, and that the obscure island is in fact the second largest country in Southeast Asia with a population of 60 million.

So what’s up with the two names?

The British, during their time as colonial overlords, referred to Burma and to its principal city Rangoon. Early independence fighters did not see any problem with this, nor for several decades did the army generals who took power in 1962.

But, after widespread pro-democracy protests in 1988, things changed and Burma became Myanmar, or, more specifically, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar; Rangoon became Yangon.

Some countries recognized the change. Others, such as the US and the UK, did not. As both names are used in the country – Burma is more popular, Myanmar is more literary – the decision was rooted more in a desire to show disapproval for the noxious regime.

As Burma continues its grand entry to the world stage, more analysis emerges regarding the tension between an inherited military heritage and a reformist agenda. The below panels depict the major issues and actors at play in Burma today. At the top of each panel are images commonly seen in Western media. Below each are Harn Lay’s political cartoons skewering Burma’s infamous military regime. Working from the safety of neighboring Thailand, Harn Lay’s cartoons were regularly published by Burmese media organizations in-exile, like The Irrawaddy and Mizzima, but until recently, would never have been allowed in Burma itself. They provide a much-needed pause from the enthusiasm for Burma’s reformist agenda and prospects.

Okay, so Myanmar and Burma are actually one country, and it is actually located south of China and west of Thailand. But why is everyone from Hillary Clinton to Google to China to the Human Rights watch clamoring to get to and talk about Burma?

The new dawn in Myanmar has caught even its most avid followers by surprise. Formerly a British colony, it played a major role in World War II before a military junta took over in 1962. Ever since 1988, the U.S. had imposed sanctions on Myanmar, in response to the country’s military junta cracking down on peaceful protests then, killing thousands. The crippling foreign policy against Myanmar plunged the country into decades of isolation from the world economy. China has filled this vacuum left by western powers and has been Myanmar’s chief benefactor in recent decades. In turn, it had unlimited access to the country’s natural resources. With Western economic sanctions in place since the 1990s, China’s had virtually free rein in Myanmar.

The United States reinstated diplomatic relationships as the Myanmar’s government introduced democratic reforms, allowed the formation of trade unions, released political prisoners, and eased restrictions on access to information. Analysts say that China is watching how the Myanmar-US relationship unfolds intensely. China has been unrivaled in its access to Myanmar’s natural resources, and has been able to exploit this condition to its fullest advantage. The degree of exploitation may now be in jeopardy. In addition, it underscores the political-military rivalry among competing core powers – the US and China.[1] Myanmar, in this context, is shaping up to be a battlefield for the distribution of power and competitive advantage among the two countries.

Why do Coke, Google, Samsung, and billions of investment dollars care?

Burma is what many call the “last frontier” in Asia. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported that from global multinationals to one-man entrepreneurs, businesses were abuzz over what may be one of the world’s last great business frontiers. A New York Times report states that business leaders cannot adequately describe the magnitude of the Myanmar opportunity. The population is larger than South Korea and South Africa, and almost triple that of Australia. That population needs factories to churn out products, power to keep those factories running, and exploration technology to find natural resources for that power. In a recent visit to the country, Coca-Cola chief executive Muhtar Kent presented Myanmar President Thein Sein with photos of Coke’s operations there from the 1920s and 1930s, just before Coke last pulled out, and made a case for letting the soft drink behemoth enter the country once again .

Clearly, the rhetoric regarding Myanmar’s grand entry into the world stage is largely related to its economic promise – its untapped natural resources, disconnected cities.

This all sounds exciting. What’s the catch?

While a nascent democracy tries to take hold, ethnic and anti-Muslim unrest threatens to further expand the military’s role. Burma is being faced with two tests to its democracy.

First, Myanmar is a predominantly Buddhist country, but about 5 percent of its 60 million people are Muslims. There are large communities in Yangon, Mandalay and towns across Myanmar’s heartland, which are dominated by the majority Burmans, who are Buddhists. In June, deadly sectarian violence erupted in Arakan State between ethnic Arakanese Buddhists and ethnic Rohingya Muslims, a long-persecuted minority of approximately 800,000 to one million people. HRW criticized Burma’s government of failing to protect ethnic Rohingya Muslims during the violence. “State security forces initially failed to protect either community, resulting in some 135,000 displaced, and then increasingly targeted Rohingya in killings, beatings, and mass arrests, while obstructing humanitarian access to Rohingya areas,” HRW stated.

Second, the ethnic Kachins that live along the Burma-China border are facing heavy offensive attacks from the Burmese army since a 17-year ceasefire dissolved in June 2011. Since December the government has employed helicopter gunships, jets and heavy artillery bombardment, in Kachin State, leading to civilian deaths.

HRW estimate around 90,000 civilians remain displaced, and say that the government continues to deny humanitarian aid to the displaced Kachin civilians in KIA territory.

It has often been said that Cyprus never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

After three weeks of coverage of the economic crisis in Cyprus, a temporary financial resolution has been reached and the focus is slowly shifting back to the reunification of Cyprus.

It is important to first understand how the small Mediterranean republic became so fractured. It is a combination of territorial struggles and failed reconciliation efforts that makes each new campaign for reconciliation so much more painful.

Cyprus’s identity consists mostly of Greek influences and a Turkish influence due to its geographic proximity.  A former British colony, Cyprus has been an independent republic since 1960. However, turmoil between the two largest groups in Cyprus had bubbled long before the final cry for independence. During its extensive British occupation, it is believed that the British encouraged the separation of the Turkish and Greek communities to strengthen its own hold on the republic.

Today, Cyprus stands in a position it is unfortunately too familiar with — it is forced with the idea of reunification due to a major political or financial trigger. Cypriot problems can be split up into two major problems: one of diplomacy and unification, and another of debt and financial crisis that plagues the republic as a whole.

It is uncertain whether reconciliation will follow in this time of crisis and need. As was once wearily observed by David Hannay, a retired UK diplomat who came to specialise in the issue, no one ever lost money betting against successful negotiations in Cyprus. One can only learn from the triggers and consequences of past crises and see if there is anything new to be learned from the most recent financial meltdown.

What looks like a disagreement over font size has roots that run deep in the discourse of civil liberties, industry regulation, and the importance of commercial aviation to the American economy.

On April 1, the Supreme Court declined Spirit Airlines’s appeal, ending years of legal battle between the discount airline and America’s Department of Transportation about how prominently airlines must disclose the total price of a ticket [3]. Since 1984, the Department of Transportation has required airlines to advertise the “entire price” of tickets, including the taxes. Airlines previously could have advertised ticket prices and taxes separately, but according to the new rules, the tax component cannot be listed “in the same or larger size as the total price.” The US Court of Appeals says that this prevents airlines from confusing customers about total cost [1].

This represents a victory for those who want to protect the traveler from deceptive advertising. Not unlike other discount airlines, Spirit has built its business around advertising $9 fares and then charging additional fees for checked and carry-on bags, advance seat assignments, and a “passenger usage fee” of up to $17 each way for tickets booked online. Spirit is not required to include the online booking fee in advertised prices. For reasons like this, the government has been imposing a growing number of fines. In 2011, the Transportation Department assessed 21 penalties for fare advertising regulations with total fines more than $1 million, compared to $379,000 in 2001. Those fined include Spirit, LAN Airlines, South African Airways, Orbitz, Virgin Atlantic, Thai Airways, JetBlue, and Air Canada [6].

Precedent against the Spirit Airlines was heavy. As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explains, “The Supreme Court has said in the context of commercial advertising [that] the government has a very broad right to mandate speech that is reasonably aimed at preventing people from being misled” [6]. And thus, Spirit was not even able to convince four justices they should among the 75 cases annually (out of about 8,000 petitions received) be allowed to make their arguments to the Supreme Court [1].

But why, then, did Spirit think this fight was worth the legal fees? Several airline trade groups and the American Society of Travel Agents raised concerns about the new regulation, saying that they violate the First Amendment [6]. Airlines also stand to gain ground in the regulation battle. Spirit’s attorneys write, “Such a government effort to micromanage how speakers communicate the burdens of taxation would raise serious First Amendment concerns in any industry, but they are doubly problematic in an industry Congress specifically chose to deregulate” [1].

The back story is an ongoing discussion between airline executives and the government about increasing regulation. The question of restructuring aviation taxes and fees has been the subject of ongoing debate, especially as declining fares are causing tax revenues to drop [7]. In 2011, President Obama suggested implementing a $100 “take off” tax and also increasing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) per-passenger security fee on top of the typical 20% tax percentage on a ticket [2]. Nicholas Calio, president of Airlines for America, responded, “We’re one of the most heavily taxed industries in the country. There are other places to go” [4].

Indeed, the airline industry is not only heavily taxed but also struggling. According to the National Airline Policy says that in an industry that has already lost $55 billion and 150,000 due to recession and rising fuel prices between 2000 and 2010. And they make some good points, stating that the commercial aviation industry creates more than $1 trillion per year in economic activity, helps drive nearly 10 million American jobs and 5 cents of every dollar of US GDP. They post a policy wish list that includes reduced taxes, reformed regulations, investment in modernizing air traffic, protection against competition from foreign carriers, and more stable energy prices [5]. The latest rules obviously do not go towards achieving any of these goals.

Spirit’s rejected appeal may represent a victory for those who wish to protect consumers from price confusion, but it is a loss for civil libertarians and airlines, who want the government to engage with them by investing rather than taxing. Looking at all sides of the story, it becomes less clear whether this decision is good for customers in the long run.

[1] Doyle, Michael. Supreme Court won’t hear Spirit Airlines’ appeal of ad price policy. The Miami Herald, April 1, 2013.

[2] Erb, Killy Phillips. Obama’s Plan for Higher Airline Taxes Sees Not So Friendly Skies Ahead. Forbes, September 28, 2011.

[3] Gulliver Business Travel Blog. Problems in the Spirit World. The Economist, April 2, 2013.

[4] Jansen, Bart. Airlines oppose higher taxes to fix federal budget. USA Today, December 5, 2012.

[5] National Airline Policy. America Needs a National Airline Policy: Five Policy Priorities. Viewed April 2, 2013.

[6] Stellin, Susan. Airfares with Less Fine Print. New York Times Business Day, December 26, 2011.

[7] Yamanaka, S., J. Karlsson, and A. Odoni. (2006). Aviation infrastructure taxes and fees in the United States and the European Union. Airlines, Airports, and Airspace: Economic and Infrastructure Analysis (Transportation Research Record No. 1951), 44-51.

The Economist’s 500-word piece “South Africa’s Police: Bad cop, bad cop routine”, published March 9^th, provides a glimpse into the dark side of this Southern African nation. Often referred to as “the darling [reconciliation model] of many legal policy makers in the international community” and as the richest nation in sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa also faces a host of issues that stem from immense corruption and weak rule of law.

Casual observers tend to believe that because Blacks have assumed positions of power in South Africa since 1994, the country’s Black majority is now better represented and considered in the country’s governance and policy-making processes. This might not be the case however, and investigating various components of The Economist‘s latest ZA article in more detail can serve to illustrate why.

As such, I am pulling quotes from “Bad cop, bad cop routine” and exploring them in greater detail an attempt to paint a more complete picture of South Africa’s complex and interconnected social, economic, and political issues.

1. Townships are some of the most enduring and visible remnants of Apartheid in South Africa. Over 3 million Blacks, Indians, and Coloureds were forced to move from centers that Whites retained, to barren and segregated regions. Today, although South Africa has been a democracy since 1994, it is one of the most unequal countries in the world (number 2 according to the CIA World Factbook). Accordingly, townships remain underdeveloped and are growing as the number in poverty increase. Crazily, the nation’s Gini Coefficient is higher now than it was under the Apartheid regime. Although the African National Congress (ANC) is in power and its president is Black (Zulu), inequality in South Africa is still highly correlated to race. The size, ethnic composition, and socioeconomic indicators of townships in South Africa speak to the unfinished and faltering efforts of the government to combat the Apartheid’s legacy.

2. Violence in South Africa is neither common solely between the government and its citizens nor just within the population. In the past several years there have also been frequent incidences of violence targeting immigrants from other African countries. A wave of attacks in 2011 was preceded by more serious xenophobic violence in 2008 and 2009. A comprehensive report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants can be found here, which points to lack of legal and government enforcement mechanisms as a key hurdle to addressing this serious human rights issue. That there is no reference to violence against African immigrants in this article is a surprising omission even when considering the word limit.

3. South Africa’s telephone system is “the best developed and most modern in Africa“. I lived in South Africa in 2009-2010 and worked in Khayelitsha (the largest township in the Cape Town area); the reach of cell phones to corners of the country where even running water and regular electricity are absent astounded me. Of course, the potentially transformative power that mobile phones hold for countries in Africa is a trendy topic in development and business fields. But the prevalence of cell phones in ZA combined with the fact that bystander footage is what sparked public outrage over this scandal prompted me to wonder whether citizen journalism is also making strides in the context of weak rule of law and lack of government accountability.  Interestingly, although I found a few more recent comments regarding NGOs that have initiated citizen journalism programs, the few academic or journalist endeavors encouraging the phenomenon are out of date. The lack of investment in the topic may have something to do with the fact that despite prevalent mobile phone usage, internet penetration in ZA is relatively low and costs for accessing the web are prohibitively expensive. It is one thing to text on a Nokia and quite another to be connected to a vast network like the Internet through a device. Further, limits to internet access are connected to socioeconomic status in South Africa as they are in many other countries.

4. Regular violence on the part of the SAPS is shocking. Last year, police opened fire at an illegal strike of mine workers, killing 34 in one of the worst death tolls in violent protests since Apartheid ended. It is difficult to fathom this degree of police brutality in a democracy, and speaks to larger issues about the lack of ability or will on the part of the government to do more to protect its citizens. Indeed, although the murder rate is falling according to official numbers, unofficially many South Africans do not believe the figures. Gun ownership is high, rape is incredibly common (one survey had 37.4% of men admitting to rape), and murders like that of white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche in 2010 highlight the continued existence of race-inspired violence that still plagues the country.

5. The group was comprised of South African lawyers, activists, and other professionals concerned with corruption in South Africa. It had indicted several high-ranking officials in the African National Congress (the party that has been in power since 1994) and was dissolved by an ANC-dominated parliament after accusing President Jacob Zuma (now ANC and South African president) of corruption.  Since then, no independent corruption monitoring body has been reinstated.

6. Five senior criminal-justice posts have gone unfilled for more than a year. The ANC’s corruption and laziness is blatant; police impunity is only one symptom of it. To many casual observers, ZA is Reading “Bad cop, bad cop routine” provides a first glimpse into some of the mounting issues that South Africa faces right now, but it fails to elucidate how this is both a product and cause of the government’s depressing failures that have resulted in corruption and ineptitude.

How can technology help journalists make sense of complex issues and explain them to the public in a clear, understandable manner?

Last year, Jay Rosen’s journalism students spent an entire semester researching and making explanations in partnership with ProPublica, a non-profit newsroom which focuses on investigative journalism. The class did amazing work to highlight notable examples and develop their own explainers.

I kept my eyes open for parts of the process which technology could improve. Here are my top tech recommendations for supporting beter explainers.

(Read More)