Zimbabwe conspiracy

Something that has been troubling me for a while - have been reluctant to raise it cause if there is credence to this theory, there is a good reason to make sure it does not get attention.

The essence of the conspiracy theory is that Robert Mugabe is being bankrolled by some (or a) cigarette company in response to the efforts to dismantle the tobacco industry in Zimbabwe.

There are many documents and lots of information available about the collapse of Zimbabwe and the associated dismantling of the tobacco industry and the land reform policies. The impact of this was initially seen in 1998 and finally collapsed around 2000. The State of California in the USA imposed smoking bans in public spaces in 1998 after many years of campaigning. This then started a global following of the policies and resultant cut down in terms of cigarette advertising and public place smoking bans. It is a feasible conclusion, or merely conincidence, that the first thing that was destroyed in Zimbabwe was the agricultural sector and specifically the tobacco industry. I recall seeing footage of this process at the time and it alarmed me then. Simply put ... if the changes in legislation were to have an impact, it would mean that there would be a reduction in demand for tobacco. Zimbabwe was one of the world's largest tobacco producers and yet one that was the easiest to dismantle as there was political instability. To protect US based production, it makes good sense to take out some significant competition.

I do not have a detailed collection of info on this since it has merely been the collection of ideas over the last while, but has really troubled me. I have tried on numerous occasions to make contact with the US government to solicit some form of response (started while I was living in the USA from 2001 to 2003) and to date I have not even had an acknowledgement from the US government. (Not that my enquiry has sufficient weight to expect a response.)

It seems a plausible explanation for the manner in which things have been done. I have also run this theory past a number of people including reporters and there has been varied response to the theory. I am looking for additional information that would possibly prove or disprove the theory. A good number of people are keen to expose this if some evidence can be obtained.

I know of too many people there who have suffered. If this is true and is exposed, it may bring about some change. Love to hear some comments.

Divorce

Seems like whenever you ask a child if they are OK with their parents getting divorced they will almost certainly answer "yes". Probably cause they have seen the deterioration of the relationshop and that they mostly feel that the decision has been made anyhow. The reality is that most kids are not fine with divorce as it seldom fixes probelms. It just trades one set of problems for another and adds additional challenges into other peoples lives as friendships adjust to accommodate the change in relationships.

I have been faced with families entering the "divorce proceedings" world and I do know how people would respond if I questioned the rationale with them. Divorce is ugly in most instances (now I know there are exceptions and sometimes cirumstances are really dire) as it is not the best way to deal with the circumstances. An illustration that was given to me a few years ago now was to glue two pieces of paper together and then to try to separate them. Chances are that you could successfully end up with two pieces of paper, but not the two original, there will be scars and there will be bits of each piece of paper with the other.

Simply when faced with a narriage that is in crisis one is faced with three options:
- keep the status quo and continue with how things are
- call it quits
- do what it takes to fix it

Getting back to the matter of kids and how they should handle it. Is there anyone out there that has some insight, or has been through this themselves and has got some real examples to share?

Speed cameras and traffic departments

I have recently been involved in a few tender submissions for new speed camera violation systems. I think the traffic departments have got it all wrong. The underlying philosophy is based on catching enough people violating traffic ordinances in order to make the budget for the year.

Let's imagine that police services adopted the same philosophy. Resources would be deployed in order to catch sufficient people committing all sorts of offences so that the funds collected through fines and bail would meet the budget requirements. Ridiculous? Sure. But this is exactly how most traffic departments work.

The approach must be to deploy resources and technology as a deterrent to violations that would result in safer roads, fewer accidents, fewer mortalities, less repairs, etc. If that could be realized, then the solution in place is effective and achieving the objectives that I think are appropriate.

In addition, the service is to be outsourced. This arrngement will result in a fee that can be levied for every paid fine. It is then most suitable for the service provider to catch people rather and deter people. Otherwise they don't make money. If one of the objectives is to alter drivers behaviour, then fewer violations will take place and put the outsourced service provider out of business. Bit of a catch 22!

We have also included the ability to, real-time, assess traffic volumes, determine speed over distance (average speed), "wanted" vehicles and notify when these vehicles are spotted. Great services.

I am certain that I am not the only one that thinks this way. Or am I?

Zimbabwe conspiracy

Is there any chance that the tobacco companies are in some way responsible for the situation in Zimbabwe? It seems rather strange that the collapse of the tobacco industry in Zimbabwe coincided with the international change in smoking and tobacco legislation. There are some interesting reports that are commonly accessible that show the correlation, but is there proof?

Mugabe has money, a lot more than what he is able to extract from the increasingly deprived citizens of this once magnificent country. There must surely be some external finance coming through for this leader that has much blood on his hands.

Is there any chance of a conspiracy that includes the sponsoring of Bob's regime by these companies if he managed to destroy the industry?

Christianity in the marketplace

As a Bible believing follower of Jesus Christ for over 30 years it still is challenging to walk each day trusting God for all aspects of life. How do you balance reliance on God with our own efforts? How do you walk in faith and obedience to God our Creator and yet maintain our own efforts in business and commerce? At what point do these areas meet, or do they co-exist?

I think that they must co-exist since God calls us to surrender and reliance on Him, however, we are challenged to live and work to honour Him. This appears to be contradictory.

Anyone have any thoughts?