Image copyrightAPImage captionDrogba kwa sasa huchezea ontreal Impact ya Canada
Nyota wa zamani wa klabu ya Chelsea Didier Drogba amesema atachukua hatua za kisheria dhidi ya gazeti la Daily Mail.
Hii ni baada ya gazeti hilo kuchapisha habari zinazodai kwamba kati ya pesa anazokusanya kupitia wakfu wake wa kusaidia jamii, ni chini ya asilimia moja zinazotumiwa kufaa jamii.
Gazeti hilo limesema ni £14,115 pekee kati ya £1.7m zinazotolewa na wachezaji nyota na wafanyabiashara ambazo husaidia watoto Afrika.
Drogba, 38, ametoa taarifa akisema habari hizo ni za “uongo na za kumharibia sifa”.
Tume inayodhibiti mashirika ya kusaidia jamii yaliyosajiliwa Uingereza imesema inachunguza “madai ya ukiukaji wa sheria”.
Kwenye taarifa yake, Drogba amesema: “Hakuna ulaghai, hakuna ufisadi na hakuna udanganyifu.”
Drogba, raia wa Ivory Coast, anayechezea klabu ya Montreal Impact ya Canada kwa sasa amewatuhumu wanahabari wa Daily Mail kwa kuweka hatarini maisha ya maelfu ya watoto wa Afrika.
Media captionFox News Sunday talks to Obama about his presidency
US President Barack Obama has said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency.
Mr Obama was answering a series of questions on the highs and lows of his time in office on Fox News.
He said, however, that intervening in Libya had been "the right thing to do".
The US and other countries carried out strikes designed to protect civilians during the 2011 uprising.
But after the former Libyan leader was killed, Libya plunged into chaos with militias taking over and two rival parliaments and governments forming.
So-called Islamic State (IS) gained a foothold, and Libya became a major departure point for migrants trying to reach Europe.
A UN-backed national unity government arrived in the capital Tripoli earlier this month but is waiting to take charge.
The leader of the faction ruling western Libya has threatened to prosecute any of his ministers who co-operate with the UN-backed administration, contradicting an earlier announcement the ministers would stand down.
President Obama gave the brief but revealing answer speaking to Chris Wallace:
CW: Worst mistake?
Obama: Probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.
It is not the first time President Obama has expressed regret over Libya. He toldthe Atlantic magazine last month the operation went as well as he had hoped, but Libya was now "a mess".
In that interview, he also criticised France and the UK, in particular saying British Prime Minister David Cameron became "distracted" after the intervention.
It was a rare rebuke for a close ally and one which BBC correspondents at the time said angered Downing Street.
Image copyrightReutersImage captionRival militias have been fighting for control in Libya
President Obama told Fox that his biggest accomplishment in office was "saving the economy from the great depression".
He said the best day of his presidency was when he passed the healthcare reforms. The worst, he said, was responding to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school.
Mr Obama discussed his legacy in a BBC interview last year, saying his failure to pass tighter gun control laws was the biggest frustration of his presidency.
Libya timeline
Image copyrightReutersImage captionCol Gaddafi was killed during the 2011 popular uprising
February 2011: Protests against Colonel Gaddafi's regime erupt in Libya
The Rich Live Longer Everywhere. For the Poor, Geography Matters.
Life expectancy of 40-year-olds with household incomes below $28,000, adjusted for race*
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
For poor Americans, the place they call home can be a matter of life or death.
The poor in some cities — big ones like New York and Los Angeles, and also quite a few smaller ones like Birmingham, Ala. — live nearly as long as their middle-class neighbors or have seen rising life expectancy in the 21st century. But in some other parts of the country, adults with the lowest incomes die on average as young as people in much poorer nations like Rwanda, and their life spans are getting shorter.
In those differences, documented in sweeping new research, lies an optimistic message: The right mix of steps to improve habits and public health could help people live longer, regardless of how much money they make.
One conclusion from this work, published on Monday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is that the gap in life spans between rich and poor widened from 2001 to 2014. The top 1 percent in income among American men live 15 yearslonger than the poorest 1 percent; for women, the gap is 10 years. These rich Americans have gained three years of longevity just in this century. They live longer almost without regard to where they live. Poor Americans had very little gain as a whole, with big differences among different places.
The Richest American Men Live 15 Years Longer than the Poorest 1 Percent
But the fact that some places have increased the life span of their poorest residents suggests that improving public health doesn’t require first fixing the broader, multidecade problem of income inequality. Small-scale, local policies to help the poor adopt and maintain healthier habits may succeed in extending their lives, regardless of what happens with trends in income inequality.
“You want to think about this problem at a more local level than you might have before,” said Raj Chetty, a Stanford economist who is the study’s lead author.
“You don’t want to just think about why things are going badly for the poor in America. You want to think specifically about why they’re going poorly in Tulsa and Detroit,” he said, naming two cities with the lowest levels of life expectancy among low-income residents.
The research, in the works for nearly three years and based on a vast trove of records on earnings and deaths, is the most detailed analysis to date of a pattern first identified at least a couple of centuries ago, that more money translates into a longer life.
It could be as simple as this: Wealth buys higher-quality medical care, which allows people to live into old age. But a long line of evidence, including the new work, suggests it’s less obvious than it might seem. The affluent seem to live in healthier ways. They exercise more, smoke less, feel less stress and are less likely to be obese.
It’s not even certain that the cause and effect flows from higher income to greater health; to some degree, it may go the other direction as well, because people who are healthy are better able to hold down a demanding job, and so have higher incomes.
Geography Matters More for the Poor
The new paper, in fact, finds little correlation between a region’s Medicare spending rate or the proportion of the population with health insurance and how long its poor citizens live.
Public health experts who examined the results said the weak relationship did not mean that health insurance had no value. Research has long established that health care interventions have a much smaller effect on life span than behavioral factors like smoking and exercise. But health care does help people who are already sick lead healthier lives. And it can provide economic security and peace of mind that improve the lives of the poor in other ways.
Economic measures like the unemployment rate and income inequality also showed little relationship to low-income people’s life spans. There was a much stronger relationship between longevity and obesity and smoking rates, which is unsurprising. Places where poor citizens had long life spans also tended to have a high concentration of college graduates and high local government spending.
Life expectancy for the poor is lowest in a large swath that cuts through the middle of the country, and it appears in pockets in the rest of the country, in places like Nevada. David M. Cutler, a Harvard economist and an author of the paper, calls it the “drug overdose belt,” because the area matches in part a map of where the nation’s opioid epidemic is concentrated.
The new findings dovetail with a much-discussed paper by Anne Case and Angus Deaton published last year. That research showed rising death rates among middle-age white Americans, especially those with low education. It also showed a sharp increase in drug and alcohol poisonings, suicides and accidents in the first years of this century. Research from the Brookings Institution published in February also found a growing gap in life span between the rich and the poor.
“There is some deeper distress going on among white middle-aged Americans that may continue to propel these mortality rates higher,” Mr. Deaton, a Princeton economist who wrote an editorial critiquing the new paper by Mr. Chetty and his colleagues, said in an interview. “If so, these people at the bottom will live even less long than they’re calculating.”
Where the Poor Live the Longest
Where the Poor Live the Shortest
MEN
New York City
79.5
San Jose, Calif.
79.5
Santa Barbara
79.4
Santa Rosa
79.0
Los Angeles
79.0
San Francisco
78.8
San Diego
78.8
Miami
78.3
Newark
78.2
Boston
78.1
WOMEN
Miami
84.2
New York City
84.0
Santa Barbara
84.0
San Jose, Calif.
83.7
San Diego
83.4
Port St. Lucie, Fla.
83.3
Newark
83.2
Los Angeles
83.2
Portland, Me.
83.1
Providence, R.I.
83.1
MEN
Gary, Ind.
74.2
Indianapolis
74.6
Detroit
74.8
Louisville, Ky.
74.9
Tulsa, Okla.
74.9
Toledo, Ohio
74.9
Oklahoma City
75.0
Dayton, Ohio
75.1
Knoxville, Tenn.
75.1
Las Vegas
75.1
WOMEN
Las Vegas
80.0
Oklahoma City
80.2
Tulsa, Okla.
80.3
Honolulu
80.3
Detroit
80.5
Cincinnati
80.5
Indianapolis
80.6
Des Moines
80.6
Gary, Ind.
80.7
Little Rock, Ark.
80.7
Among the 100 largest metro areas in the U.S.
The great question for public health officials is what strategies might help low-income people live as long as their richer neighbors.
“There is a very strong correlation between income and life span,” Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. “But it is not inevitable. There are things we can do to change the life trajectory of people. What improves health in a community? It includes wide access to social, educational and economic opportunity.”
A common thread among many of the places with a smaller longevity gap was population density, with wealthy cities leading the way. New York has a high rate of social spending for low-income residents andhas been aggressive in regulating trans fats and smoking.
In the area in and around Birmingham, Ala., the life span for adults in the bottom quarter of income rose 3.8 years for men and 2.2 years for women from 2001 to 2014. (Because people of different races have different life expectancies regardless of income, the researchers statistically adjusted these local numbers to simulate a world in which all places matched the racial composition of the country as a whole. These numbers are after these race adjustments.)
Dr. Mark E. Wilson, chief executive of the health department in Jefferson County, Ala., which includes Birmingham, ticked off a number of things that might have helped.
The county expanded availability of preventive health care like vaccinations and mammograms by opening clinics in poorer neighborhoods in the 1990s and early 2000s (though recently it has closed some of the clinics). Although a relatively high percentage of the population lacks health insurance, a portion of local taxes goes to hospital care for those who cannot pay. The county has been ahead of the rest of Alabama in banning smoking in restaurants and workplaces, with a law enacted in 2012. And philanthropic foundations backed by old industrial money have funded campaigns to make people healthier in the Birmingham area.
“These aren’t all huge-scale projects, but there is still an alignment of getting resources moving in the same direction around health,” Dr. Wilson said. “We’re trying to establish a culture of health and get it more and more on the radar screen of our community.”
Mr. Cutler, the Harvard economist, argues that the new research should serve as a jumping-off point.
“Why is it that Birmingham has done well but Tulsa has done poorly?” he said.
It may be good to know that poor Americans are living a lot longer in some places than in others, but it would be better to know — in terms of specific policy prescriptions — how the places with better results are doing it.
0
comments
AP
