Of course, as with any discussion, we didn’t all end up agreeing. But at least we addressed some important issues. Here is a summary of some of the topics that were touched upon:

Issue #1: Who Will Pay For All This?

Like, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, I am advocating for support towards the Millennium Development Goals. These are goals which will help the global poor in many areas such as access to education, clean water, health, and much more. But it’s not free. Nothing in life is free of course. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a higher tax burden. It just means different priorities.

We are spending money in AIDS research and on preventing the spread of AIDS in America. But, what if we cared about dying Africans back when AIDS was localized to that continent? We could have saved money and saved lives (both home and abroad). We are spending lots of money for the War in Afghanistan. But what if we cared about the Afghan poor before the Taliban and Al Qaeda could prey upon them? We could have saved money on the war: bullets and troops cost more than humanitarian development.

A proper focus on the global poor can actually ease the burden imposed on our tax dollars.

Issue #2: Isn’t This a Redistribution of Wealth?

In order to make the issue of poverty a non-partisan issue, it has to move away from appearing to be socialist. Wealth redistribution isn’t something new to America – a lot of it is going on because of war and the War on Terror.

When the US government trains and then pays for the salary of Iraqi soldiers – isn’t that redistributing wealth from US tax payers to Iraqi soldiers? When the US government hires a contractor to rebuild the water treatment centers in Baghdad – isn’t that redistributing tax dollars into salaries of contractors and other personnel? When the US government pays for research and development into new weapons – doesn’t our wealth get redistributed to that company and scientists who helped to develop the new weapon?

Helping the poor might mean less wars. Which, in turn, means less need for reconstruction in other countries. And this could also mean less need for developing new weapons.

Issue #3: What About the Population?

If each family has four or five children, that means more mouths to feed. If each child grows up (which is far from guaranteed in the third world), than they too will have four to five children of their own. The population will just grow and grow and things will get more and more strained. That’s why Bangladesh has become a country with such a high (and ever increasing) population density. But, for poor families, having lots of kids makes economic sense. Child labor is common here and so sending kids to work as soon as they can walk and talk isn’t uncommon. I’ve seen child laborers as servants and in sweat shops doing unsafe manual labor.

Having lots of kids is rational for the global poor. The goal is to make it rational to have less kids. And, as American and European history has shown us, the biggest thing that lowers the number of kids you have is your income. Middle class families tend to only have replacement level fertility (1 or 2 kids). Development is the best contraceptive.

Issue #4: This Isn’t Our Responsibility

Not it! That seems to be the current attitude many people in the developed world have towards helping the poor. It’s not their responsibility. Well… okay, fair enough. But, when it comes to making the case that developed countries should help poorer countries, it’s not so much about responsibility as it is about self-interest.

Even if you are of a libertarian persuasion and believe that the sole responsibility of government is to provide basic safety and security, I argue that helping the global poor does exactly that. First, it strengthens a nation’s safety and security. Dr. Jeffrey Sachs makes a strong case that fighting poverty helps to fight terrorism. Secondly, by helping the global poor, we help stem the mutation and creation of new and deadlier diseases. Thirdly, helping the poor helps to create goodwill among other nations. When my dad was around my age, a deep and sincere respect for the United States was common place in the world. It was perceived as a wealthy nation willing to help others less off. The reason being that, back then, the US was much more active in third world development than it is now.

Finally, helping the poor may not be a responsibility but it is definitely an obligation for anyone or any nation that wishes to retain its self-image as being moral and just. What society, what culture, and/or what civilization has survived the test of time by allowing others to suffer when it had the means to end it? The simple fact is, making the world a better place for others makes it a better place for us all.

Issue #5: Private Individuals (Not Government) Should Be Doing This

Once upon a time, people would have to have a medallion on their home. This medallion showed that they were making regular payments to the local (privately-owned) fire department. In the event that their home went on fire, the fire department would come and put it out with no additional cost. If you didn’t have a medallion, the fire department would come and negotiate a price with you before they put out the fire. People decided that this system didn’t work and that giving this responsibility to their government – through tax dollars – was a better solution.

I say the same is true for ending poverty as well. The problem with private charity is that a lot of charities have to fight for your donations. They need to spend money on PR and fund raising. People tend to give money around Christmas time or when tragedies (like Cyclone Sidr) get a lot of attention in the media. But, money is often needed before these tragedies occur and before it’s time to put out the Christmas lights.

When I was in the Cyclone Sidr Disaster Area, it wasn’t uncommon for some charities to have a cameraman. One NGO I saw, had 25% of its on-the-ground staff devoted to gathering footage and editing video. Only a handful of agencies were fully devoted to helping the needy. One of them was the UN – which had no cameramen and had an orderly operation. It’s easier to do a job when you don’t have to market yourself at the same time.

I realize I can’t single-handedly change the opinion of the world in regards to how it treats the poor. Doesn’t mean I can’t hope. And, at least by following the arguments and logic presented by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs – I know I am in good company….

I’d write more but, much of what I said I have already written up earlier when I was giving my take on the Davos Question.

While 80% of this country earns less than $2 a day, those who are able to afford chauffeurs, maids, and satellite TV are hard pressed to admit that Bangladesh is a “poor” country. No one has been more vocal about this issue – and more critical of my work here – than my uncle on my mother’s side of the family. He is a judge on the High Court Division of the Supreme Court. According to him, “Bangladesh is not a poor country” and, therefore, I couldn’t possibly be here to help the poor.

The first criticism came before anything had even been distributed to the poor. “You want to hand someone a straw [referring to the LifeStraws], take a picture, and call it poverty alleviation?” he laughed. Even after distributing some items – his criticism had only got worse. “You’ve done nothing,” he explained to me referring to the over fifty mosquito nets I’ve distributed to rural villagers “these things cost 100 taka – anyone can buy them” (the nets actually cost much more than that – but why quibble?).

What has been particularly shocking to me has been when he suggests that the poor don’t even deserve some of the items that I’ve been giving out. If you saw episode one or read this blog earlier, you might have seen the poor rural village boy who I gave a wind-up flashlight. This kid is trying to stay in school but cannot afford electricity – or even candles. This flashlight is perfect for reading at night without the need to buy batteries (which he couldn’t afford). When I told my uncle about this boy and how he was going to use this to study at night – he rolled his eyes and said “yeah right”.

Whenever my uncle sees the stuff I’m planning on giving away – be it a wind-up flashlight, mosquito net, or a water purification straw – he always asks for one. “I’m giving these to those who need them” I repeatedly tell him. “I NEED THEM! The poor are just going to sell them off anyways.” he would say – followed by “I’ll just have to buy them off whoever your distributing them to instead”. The tragedy that was Cyclone Sidr had temporarily silenced this criticism – but only temporarily. Upon my return from aid work in the disaster area, my uncle saw my latest YouTube episode only to say: “you’re just doing this for the publicity…. there is no altruism here”.

It hurts. But, at the same time, I see where he is coming from. His view is no different than the much of the successful well-to-do Bangladeshi community in Dhaka. These people are in a better position to help the poor of their own country than some unemployed former graduate student coming here on his personal savings and family donations. Yet, I seem to be doing more than most of them have. For some people – like my mother’s side uncle – their reaction is to try and rip me a new one. For other’s – like my father’s side uncle – their reaction is to try and outdo me and give even more than I have.

If for every relative that critiques me, I inspire another relative – I can call it a win. But, that doesn’t make the harsh criticism any easier to hear.

You know what’s so funny? I do the same thing but it costs me only $20 a month. I seriously give my cellular provider a run for its money. I’ve done over 2 gigabytes of activity in the past few weeks alone. The latest episode of The Uncultured Project on YouTube took me 300 megs alone. But, unlike Canada, the cellphone providers here don’t care how much you use or whether you are using the internet on your phone or connecting your phone to your computer. Plus they have a feature so that prevents you from accidentally incurring excessive charges.

I used to think that Canada, having the status of a “first world” country meant that it did everything better than “the third world”. I guess, when I hear those terms, I imagine it as an analogy of a race. But, whenever I look at my cellphone here – I’m reminded that there are some things Bangladeshis do better than Canucks. I feel sorry for my friends in the Frigid North.

I wrote an article about this on NowPublic.com. It’s after the jump. It’s the same thing that I said here though – just more news-ish sounding.

Piotr Staniaszek was no doubt in shock after he received cellphone bill totally nearly $85,000. This 22-year old oil field worker from Calgary had purchased a cellphone plan with Bell Mobility which included a $10 “unlimited” internet service plan. Staniaszek had then used his phone as a modem to connect his computer to the internet. According to BBC News, which first reported the story, he had used it to download high-definition movies and “other large files” which resulted in “massive extra charges”.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this story is that yours truly, doing the exact same thing, merely gets billed $20 a month. In this past two weeks alone, I have transferred over two gigabytes of data – among which includes my latest YouTube episode (that alone required uploading over 300 megabytes). The difference? Unlike Mr. Staniaszek, my cellphone provider allows me truly unlimited access to their high speed EDGE network regardless of whether my cellphone is connected to a computer or not. What’s the name of my provider? Grameenphone…… in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh may not be the first place Canadians think about when comparing (and complaining about) their cellphone service plans. But examining this small South Asian nation, where over 80% of the population earns less than $2 a day, may reveal just how much customers are being gouged in the True North, Strong, and Free. As of 2006, the number of cellphone owners totaled over 19 million. That is 19 times more than landline ownership in Bangladesh and 3 million more than the total number of cellphone owners in all of Canada. Not only is there more demand for cellphones and cellphone service in Bangladesh, there is also a greater demand placed upon the cellular infrastructure.

Unlike Canadian cellular providers, Bangladesh cellular companies must spend money on expensive equipment given both the high population density and the unpredictable environment. Despite a population density of over 1,000 people per square kilometer (that’s over 310 times more than Canada), most cellphone customers have minimal network congestion. Cyclone Sidr may have brought fierce winds, heavy rain, and widespread flooding which left the entire country in a blackout for over 24 hours; but, anyone with a charge in their cellphone was able to make both international calls and access the internet.

Even in the disaster area, where the cyclone had knocked down power lines and destroyed homes, I was amazed to be getting four out of five bars of reception in a boat in the middle of an isolated and remote river. The reason for such reliable, widespread, and low cost service has nothing to do with geography or demographics. Rather, it has everything to do with business. Bangladesh, unlike Canada, has a flourishing, open, and competitive cellular industry. There are over five independently owned companies fighting for customers. With unlocked GSM cellphones being the norm, customer loyalty is minimal with switching providers as simple as swamping a SIM card.

Cellphone companies are therefore left competing for customers by promising better customer service, cellphone reception, and lowest cost. Among the services offered is a feature which prevents customers from accruing a large bill in the middle of the billing cycle. A feature which Piotr Staniaszek no doubt wishes existed in Canada: “Here, I’m $85,000 over and nobody bothered to give me a call and tell me what was going on” (source: BBC). If coming to Bangladesh for a better deal isn’t his cup of tea, perhaps he should consider going to Rwanda. Which, in a study conducted by Thomaspurves.com in April of this year, was found to be more competitive in cellular data plans than Rogers Wireless, Bell Mobility, and Telus.

Reporting from Dhaka – via a cellular internet connection – uncultured.

Hopefully this new episode I uploaded to YouTube will provide some hope that these beliefs are just myths. At the very least, watching the video you can find out what happens when you show off an American flag near a Mosque while the call to prayer is being broadcast (Spoiler alert: I don’t get shot).

You can watch it here:

Take this recent water crisis in Dhaka. I wanted to wait a couple of days to be sure, but it seems that – for those living around me – the water shortages are over. Both my house and the neighboring apartments have had continuous access – without interruption – to city water for over 48 hours. But here’s the thing: no pipes needed to be replaced, no pumps needed to be repaired, and no city capacity had to be increased in order for this to happen.

In fact, the only thing that happened was that I showed up at the Water Authority with a camera and started asking some questions.

Click the jump for more of on this including a picture of one of the city’s tube well stations…..

Bangladesh. like many third world countries, faces a giant problem of providing access to clean water and sanitation. In fact, the problem of access to water is such a pressing concern that it was the cover topic for the latest United Nations Human Development Report.

There are tons of legitimate reasons why outages like this occur. I’ve talked about a few before and they include:

1. Money: It costs money to build wells, sanitation stations, pipes and infrastructure to provide clean water and sanitation to people. Even when there is money for infrastructure, water isn’t always a top priority for investment. And, once infrastructure is in place, it takes more money to keep the whole thing maintained.
2. Rapid Development: The place I’m staying at has pipes that are older than Bangladesh itself. Some houses in the city have piping that was laid back when this place was a colony of the British Empire. Now you have these ultra-high rises with modern piping and high capacity pumps. Getting water is a competition – where the losers are left high and dry.
3. Sources of Water and Capacity: Bangladesh gets its water from two sources: the water underneath the city and water from the rivers. Sometimes the water from the rivers are so polluted it cannot be treated. Even when it is treatable, it takes a lot of resources and electricity to be able to do so. Part of the problem, as I have read, is that the sanitation stations in the city don’t have the electrical capacity to purify the water fast enough. The other problem is that less and less water can be pulled from underground. In fact, the more water that is pulled from underground – the greater the risk the city will eventually sink into the ground.

From the locals I’ve talked to though, it seems like they blame corruption for the problem. You see, when water doesn’t come over the regular city pipes, people have to either buy water bottles, go to the Water Authority and fill up a barrel, or pay for a city water truck to come and pump some water into a holding tank. All of these other options cost a premium and usually involve a “commission” – which is a nice euphemism for a bribe. For example, when I volunteered to cover the cost for a city water truck to deliver water to the house I was staying at – I had to pay 500 in the local currency (called taka). 400 taka was the cost of the delivery of water, and 100 taka was for bribes to the truck driver and various middle men. Without a water crisis – all these employees would have to rely on is their salary.

Call me the optimist – but I kind of dismissed all the claims of corruption and had gone to the Water Authority to film and take photos about the technical problems they were facing. I talked to some engineers, talked about city water levels, and and inspected one of their tube well stations. When they showed me the tube well – I thought they were joking:

Apparently this tube well station is about as old as I am. This old, rusty, off in the corner series of pipes is what many residents in Dhaka have to rely on to get their water. There are hundreds of stations like this around the city all of them in more or less in the same condition. Not only are they poorly maintained – they aren’t even secured. Anyone from off the streets can just walk up to the (unattended and unsupervised) tube well. Oh – and I’m not quite sure if that bamboo stick had a load bearing or functional purpose resting up against the well

I had left my tour of the Water Authority with the impression that this water crisis was very much a technical problem – and nothing more. After I wrapped up my interview, I made a few casual inquires about the trouble I and my neighbors were getting. They casually gave the usual explanations (poor pipes, low capacity, nearby construction, etc) and I readily accepted them and thanked them for their time. Before I left they, in turn, asked me why I had filmed all of this. I told them about my project and my desire to make some videos about these issues so people around the world could see whats going on in Bangladesh.

Less than 12 hours after my interview and tour of the station – water miraclously started coming through the pipes once again and has provided interrupted water ever since. From reading the papers and asking around, I know that no new repairs had been done during that time. Most of the people in my neighborhood are thanking me for the water coming back. They believe that by a foreigner coming with a video camera had scared some of the middle men into stopping their corrupt practices in the neighborhood.

Was this problem caused by corruption or legitimate technical difficulties? After today, I don’t know what to believe anymore.

When the sprinklers pop up, there doesn’t seem to be an inch of sidewalk that is left dry. I am not the only student who has noticed this either. On the Notre Dame Facebook network, the group “ND Students Who are against Watering Sidewalks” currently has 97 members while a group that asks the simple question “Why are we watering concrete?” has nearly 500 members. On campus, watering sidewalks is something I would laugh at off as either a product of some efficiency study or just part of a plan to make sure no student arrives dry to class. But, since coming to Bangladesh, this has been less and less of a laughing matter to me.

For the past 6 hours, I haven’t been able to flush my toilet because I don’t have running water at the moment. When I’ve needed to wash up, I’ve had to do so using buckets of water I had saved from earlier in the day when there was some running water. Saving water and washing up from a bucket has become a routine for me and is a daily fact of life for many people living in Bangladesh. That is if you are lucky enough to have running water in your home at all. By the turn of 21st century, just over half of the people in Bangladesh had access to clean water and sanitation. That means that – as bad as I have it now – over 70 million people in this country are much worse off. Globally, one in five people don’t have access to clean water. Thankfully, this number has been lowering in recent years.

I know that the problem of water in Bangladesh doesn’t get magically solved if Notre Dame stops watering its sidewalks. But, this kind of useless consumption of resources seems to betray the ideals of that Notre Dame seeks to uphold. Afterall, this is the university that inspired me to fly thousands of miles to try and make a difference – all while having to live in a place where I have to wash my hands out of a bucket and schedule when I can flush the toilet. Right now, I’d give my left arm for the same access to water that our campus sidewalks are getting at this moment.

[Update: Looks like the facebook group "Why are we watering concrete?" is now over 500 members and climbing. Big thanks to Jessica Kim for the pic.]

But, I finally do have something to show for all this. And it starts with this photo:

This is a photo of a single mother of two I met while visiting a rural village in Bangladesh. Her husband died of a stomach related illness. She was not only left with two kids to raise on her own but also was left with loans from her husband’s medical expenses. When I went and saw where she was living – a small straw mudhut – I was taken aback. People in North America have more garage space for their cars than this lady had for her family of three. Not only that – but there was no electricity and only a small window near the floor which only served to prove how dark the inside of the house was.

I wanted to make a difference in her life. I knew I had money and stuff that I could give her that would help her. But making a difference is more than just being a parachute Santa Claus. I started talking to her. How is she doing? How is she paying for her son to go to school? Does she have medical expenses from her husband left over? How can your kids read in such a dark house? I tried my best not to tell her what she needed – and tried to figure out from her what I could do to help to make a difference in her life.

Maybe it’s the Fighting Irish in me, but the first thing that I decided to do was come up with a game plan.

More after the jump…

I decided that the most important thing was to make sure that it was as easy for her to send her kids to school with minimal burden. Right now, only her oldest son was going to school (grade one or “class one” here). Schooling – luckily – is already free in Bangladesh. But even with free schooling, many poor families don’t send their children to school because they feel that the children are better off supporting the family by working instead of studying. After talking it over with my own family, we were able to make arrangements to be able to pay for her children’s school supplies (pens, pencils, papers, etc).

The second thing that I decided to do was to make it easier for the oldest son to actually study in the house. Even during the day – the house was darker than Bruce Wayne’s Bat Cave. Even if the mud hut was wired – they couldn’t afford electricity. They also – from the looks of things – didn’t have/couldn’t afford candles. Luckily, one of the few things I brought with me from Canada was a camping flashlight. The flashlight (which cost me less than $7 Canadian) runs on a hand crank generator which powers three LEDs. Which meant they could run it without having to worry about batteries and (since it ran on LEDs) they wouldn’t have to worry about replacing the bulbs.

Finally, with over 14 million people in Bangladesh at risk of contracting malaria – mostly in rural villages (source: World Health Organization, Bangladesh) – I decided to give them a mosquito net. I was actually in this rural village distributing 50 locally made mosquito nets (more on that in another blog post). But after meeting this lady and her two sons – I decided they deserved something even better. A Swiss-based company called Vestergaard Frandsen manufacturers a product called PermaNET. This is a more high-tech version of mosquito nets most people use in this country. Its tear-resistant, dirt-resistant, long-lasting, and when its no longer needed it can be disposed of in a way that’s not harmful to the environment.

Most importantly, PermaNETs are treated with a long-lasting and wash-resistant insecticide designed to kill mosquitoes. If a mosquito brushes up against or touches the net – it dies. This actually works – I use one myself and often find dead mosquitos on the top of the net. Here’s a photo of one that I found dead on my own PermaNet during my trip to Madhupur:

Apparently, it can also kill cockroaches (my one true phobia). After giving them a PermaNET, the next day I was told that the mother found a dead cockroach on top of the net when they woke up. Without the net, the cockroach would have most likely been crawling all over them as they slept.

The best part of all this is that the manufacturer of the PermaNET (Vestergaard Frandsen) has agreed to donate a few other things for me to distribute while I’m here. These are really great guys and I definitely will be talking about them again. I only hope that – despite my difficulties doing this project in Bangladesh – I will have the opportunity to distribute all that they have donated to me. [Full disclosure: I am not hired or paid by these guys. This praise was not required as part of their donation.]

In America, when I watch 24-hour news programs like CNN, MSNBC or Fox News, I know they can each have their own bias – but they are allowed to say what they want. I could never imagine that the government would forcibly shut down any one of these stations because one of them said something the government didn’t like. But that’s exactly what happened to CSB – Bangladesh’s only 24-hour news network. After airing footage of anti-government protests, the government shut down the station. (I am linking to the CSB entry in Wikipedia because the government not only took the station off the air, but also shutdown their website as well)

Eventually, I’m sad to say, this kind of censorship changes how you react. So, when I and others were consistently unable to access many Bangladeshi blogs hosted on Blogspot – my first reaction was to assume that this was a new form of government censorship. Blocking blogs is not something new – Pakistan and Turkey do it presently for WordPress.com (and, previously, were also blocking Blogspot.com). But, sometimes – as it seems to be in this case – this was just a technical glitch that affected multiple users on multiple ISPs. Unfortunately, governments that choose to limit free speech usually don’t make press releases stating that they are going to be doing so.

Life would be much easier if every government that wanted to censor or limit free speech would make a press release saying “Oh hai! Im in ur internetz – censorinz ur speech” (and if the press release was worded like that, life would also be much cuter).

Bangladesh is one of the few countries in the world that can guarantee each one of its residents can get a cellphone signal – no matter where they are in the country. With a population of over 150 million (over four times Canada’s population) that’s pretty impressive. There are populated parts in the North in Canada that most cellphone service providers don’t bother putting up towers for. Not only can Bangladeshis send and receive calls from anywhere in the country – they can also surf the web on either an EDGE or GPRS network. Part of this has to do with free market competition in Bangladesh and corporate collusion in Canada.

In Bangladesh, there are over 6 nation-wide independently owned cellphone companies competing for your business. In Canada, the cellphone market is collectively owned by 3 national companies. Unlike, Bangladesh, the Canadian barrier for competitors to enter is high as the cellphone industry is regulated by an organization known as the CRTC (kind of like the FCC in America) which limits who can enter the market. This has allowed Canadian cellphone service providers to use collusive business practices to artificially raise the cost to consumers and allow them to be picky about where they will provide cell coverage.

For example, in Bangladesh, I was able to take my cellphone (which I signed up for in Dhaka) and take it four hours out of town. I can make and receive calls without any roaming or long distance fees from anywhere to anywhere in the country. But, my brother in Canada cannot take a Hamilton cellphone to Ottawa without incurring roaming and long distance fees. In fact, Canada, unlike Bangladesh, does not even offer an unlimited flat-rate EDGE/GPRS internet service. The gigabytes of data that I have used over the EDGE network here in Bangladesh has cost me only $20 a month. I am not the only one to point out that Canada’s cellphone service is worse than the Third World’s offerings.

The simple fact is – if I was doing the same project in Canada – cellphone service costs alone would have made this project impossible.