Theological Explanations

Well, I've just come across a tragic case in which the victim ends their own life, since no one in authority could be bothered to help it seems.
http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2011/11/mother-of-suicide-girl-on-twitter-blames-law-enforcement/

And I couldn't help but think of all the other cases I've seen before, and then contrast that with some of the Christian platitudes? Lectures? I have had the... opportunity to hear. Or at any case be present in the car whilst they are playing. "Whatever you ask for God will provide" ; "God takes care of his flock"... or the more personal "I've heard testimonies where God has touched people directly" - "I was in a wheelchair, but after prayer I could walk again" - "I am clinically obese, my arteries were clogged, but we held a prayer group and now my arteries aren't clogged"...

The list could go on and on.  And it does.

And as said in Matthew 10:29 "Two Sparrows for 2 coins, very cheap. Support local industry"
http://bible.cc/matthew/10-29.htm

Hah, no. "Two sparrows for a coin. Yet not one falls without God's will"

And of course the helpful explanation at the end of the page extrapolates "The argument is, that if He takes care of birds of the least value, if He regards so small a thing as the hair of the head, and numbers it, He will certainly protect and provide for you. You need not, therefore, fear what man can do to you."


Yes, certainly protected and provided for. Unless you appear to be from a lower economic strata, or somehow, your religion might not be the one true one. If that is the case, well screw you buddy it seems.

So, if I could ask, why are some uplifted, and others suffering so terribly? What is the reason? God moves in mysterious ways? God only showcases his benevolence to those who have the good sense to be born into decent countries, in the proper neighbourhoods? What is it? The ways are very mysterious.

Or are is God sitting by because it is not as described in the books? That it is a trickster god having their own little fun with a bunch of flesh puppets?

Or is something else? That we are not watched over by a supposedly benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God but are instead an evolved species of ape, who has gained higher cognitive functions. And this is just what happens with 7 billion of us all living on a rock as it orbits a massive fusion reactive sphere, that some of us are just fucked up, and sadly some who don't deserve it suffer. But at least those that commit suicide because they see no help nor recourse are not condemned to a further eternity of suffering, but have found some respite in death at least.

It might be a cold empty void, but at least when bad things happen, you don't ask the void why bad things happen and assume an air of mystery. No, bad things happen because some people haven't reached much more past their monkey status. And that means those that have, must do their best to intervene. What a pity humans can only do so much. Only Human. As Agent Smith of the Matrix would say.

I have heard the charge that atheists must be a miserable grim lot, who fail to see the beauty or work of God. I personally wonder how one feels so chirpy knowing that this sort of stuff occurs and then going on and on about benevolence and favour etc...

Religion is a coping mechanism at the end of the day. Obviously quite an effective mechanism given its prevalence, but if I had to sum up this half ranting article, it would be this:

If there are any theologians, or religious people out there who could give me a theological answer to why some people get screwed over royally in life but others just have to pray for it and receive abundantly from their Deity of choice, I'd really like to know. Especially when the common attributes of most deities seem to be "Benevolence, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence".

Also feel free to point out any errors in the rant.

Until next time.

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." 

Book Review: Harbinger of the Storms

I suppose this review would not be complete without first telling how I came by the book itself. And having just finished reading the story in its entirety, it feels like the beginning matches the ending. I came across this book on the last day of the Borders stock sale. The store having shut its doors down rapidly, and the final offload of its remaining stock held in an Expo Centre. The final rites of a dead company. 

I suppose the insolvency lawyers of today are the priests of the dead for companies. Black ink replacing the red blood of the usual sacrifices. The chants still remain though, in their modified form. According to statute, passed in 1974 Insolvency Act, State of... bankruptcy... pursuant to sections 4 through to .... 

And the linkage? This book is about the High Priest of the Dead, Acatl in the Mexica Empire investigating a series of gruesome and mysterious deaths that come at a inopportune time. The Emperor (Revered Speaker) has died and now a new one must take his place before the protection of the old Emperor fades and the star demons descend to destroy all life. 

And throughout the story, told through the perspective of Acatl we are given a look into the everyday life of a South American civilization. One that is very much fuelled on blood, sacrifices and appealing to gods, so other gods don't kill you, and also watching out for demons, some with a taste for human eyeballs. 

The images are well woven, appropriately disturbing, and I must say, right around halfway into the book I suddenly couldn't put it down as intrigue wove itself into more and more intricate patterns around the storyline. All the while politics moved in the shadows, unworried by the fact that if they didn't get a leader chosen soon, star demons were going to descend and solve all those issues permanently. I suppose the snide comment at this point would be to observe that it seems the majority of politics hasn't changed much since that time either. 

One thing I did have trouble envisioning was the way many priests slashed their ears for the daily blood offerings to their gods. Well, the ones that would accept blood anyway. Everyday, day in day out, cut the earlobes. That can't be healthy in jungle climates. But then again, I'm reading a book where a man gets torn apart by a goddess with wings made of obsidian shards. Living in a world like that, infection is probably the least of your worries. 

I recommend this book for anyone looking for a horror/detective story set in a rather unusual setting. The author has done her work well and it was quite a fascinating tour through a culture, where gods and magic ruled, and humans had a very tangible experience with the supernatural. 

Guest Discussion: thehairypatch on Finance

*This blog not affiliated with 60 Minutes or CNBC. If anyone has a better picture idea let me know.

VC: Voodoo Child
THP: thehairypatch

VC: Thank you and welcome to the pilot episode of "Two dudes and G-Chat". With me tonight is thehairypatch, friend and peer finance expert. So now, the Euro Crisis. Greece can't leave the EU, it seems but if Greece falls wasn't there a worry about the others?

TPH: IMO its a non-issue, this isn't about a shortage of real resources. This is about some numbers on paper 

and people don't want to change them

VC:  What are they bound by? It confuses me. Is it to do with the loans? They were talking about the loans for a while and how credit ratings get cut etc...

TPH: They are bound by the Euro Charter or whatever. You know double-entry? All central banks operate according to double-entry. People think that central banks just print money.They can't, they must exchange one asset for another to balance the books.

Anyway it implies that the amount of created cash by the central bank is bound by the amount of suitable circulating assets.

VC:  So because of this, they can't make up the assets? Because the normal method is through loans to other banks? And then the interest needs to paid sort of thing?

    TPH: Well, it depends on what is considered 'suitable asset'. Strictly speaking it should only be Government Debt. Therefore the amount of created cash is bound by the amount of circulating government debt. And so the amount of created cash is bound by the amount of circulating government debt. 

Now Euro countries have a very important constraint, the amount of Government Debt they can create is bound to some level of GDP I think 35% or something. Since Government Debt == Money, then the amount of money is bound to 35% of GDP

An arbitrary figure with no empirical basis. I mean economic basis.There is a reasonable ethical basis though. Since Government Debt is the source of money, then if all countries in the Euro could create as much money as they wanted, then one country could live off the rest.

VC: would that even be possible though?

Free flowing money with no... back to it. Mind... look what they've been trading. Junk mortgages. Packages. Sacks of crap tied up and sold

Bubbles

TPH: This situation is known as a 'tragedy of the commons'. Since everyone will be able to create as much money as they want, there will be an incentive for each country to print as much money as possible. Leading to the destruction of the euro-system or the collapse of a common resource.

VC:  If money is just created, there isn't any solid basis for it we get that tragedy. But is it also about confidence and spending? But wouldn't that lead to a bubble or have we all just been one long cycle of bubbles since the Tulip craze in the 1700's? 

 TPH: It depends on how the currency is created and destroyed. Worst-case is Weimar & Zimbabwe. Nah, confidence has little to do with it IMO People don't know how it works. They resort to these types of constructs

VC:  Wasn't the Weimar Republic's currency backed by the gold reserves. And reperations for the allies was basically taking out all the gold. So the currency devalued, along with seizure of the productive industrial area. Leaving Germany with low output and crap currency. Along with some questionable decisions by the government.

TPH:  I'm not disputing that it consumer confidence is a measure. It is just that people seem to think that it has 'so much importance'. The reality is that the Government could create more money and give it to consumers to spend. This is what the Australian government did in the GFC. Blamm Consumer Confidence fixed.

Maybe not Weimar then, I think you get the point.

VC: I think I'm starting to. And yet they're not doing it. Tied by the law... tied by public perception?

TPH: Public perception

VC: The public will be up in arms over the printing huh?

TPH: Not if they understood. The money has to come from somewhere. People also think that the government must tax in order to spend. It is the other way around. Since the State is the source of money, how can anyone pay taxes if the State doesn't first spend?

VC:  But you still need taxes otherwise the government doesn't even need to tax at all if it could just print no?

That means there is obviously a mechanism that prevents this sort of money printing ad infintum because it can't work like that can it?

Well, money is worth what other people are willing to give you for it so I guess if you keep printing it loses value?

TPH: The Rich can't make money unless the State spends first. Taxes are there to regulate inflation.The main mechanism that seems to regulate money printing is public perception.

VC: I don't get it I'm afraid. 

 TPH: Which part? Where does money come from?

VC: But somewhere along the line some work must be done because otherwise we could just keep having money to spend on things.

TPH: Absolutely.

VC: Like, everyone could be rich then?

TPH: Then you have an inflation.

VC: Oh right, the prices surge upwards

TPH: Yep

VC: You know a Malaysian dollar in my dad's day got you a whole meal. And, salaries have risen proportionally too. For white collars at least

TPH: Yea, but if created money is spent on producing goods & services, then inflation will not occur.

VC: This is probably the closest I will ever feel to being a Creationist being taught about Evolution. "How can it work that way? How does it even work? It doesn't make sense! etc..." But somewhere, somehow it does and its not even esoteric... its just humans all trying to make more money.

TPH: Yea its crazy

VC: Gambling,  Shorting, commodities, stocks, trading, futures, mortgage, loans, derivitives, AAAs, BAAs

 TPH:Recap: Where does money come from?

VC: used to come from gold... and now it comes from the government. Who issues loans to banks

TPH: Not quite loans. They're in the form of?

VC: Or Bonds

TPH: Yea, a caveat. Bonds lead to cash which leads to loans.

Take bond to central bank, get cash, make deposit, make loan.

Starts with the Government Issuing bond to spend on something.

Sells Bond, gets cash, spends.

VC: Someone else takes the cash and then does something with it and so on and so forth. But this isn't trickle down is it? Trickle down is expecting the rich to make jobs trickling down like so much drain water.

TPH: Trickle down is not that effective. it should be trickle up. Give money to consumers

then give incentives to businesses to produce certain things.

VC: Well, thanks a lot. I really learned something today. Still don't quite get it, but at least where money comes from is explained. Thanks for tuning into the pilot episode of "Two dudes, and G-Chat". I'm your host, Voodoo Child good night, don't die to a drone strike tonight. 

Link To Vid

http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html

A pair of videos where a cop and a law professor present a forceful case for never ever speaking to the police without your lawyer present. Interesting. Also, future clients take heed, many lawyers frequent this site. So if this blog ever takes off, you got many people to call for advice.*


*Charges apply

Money Talks

All eyes on Europe as Greece teethers on the brink of default. Unrest in the streets at the latest austerity measures and people start to ask, how has it gotten so wrong? Why is Germany responsible for Greece? And if Greece goes why are people so worried? 

In my opinion all the current measures the G20 leaders are discussing are playing hackey sack with the issue until they can duck out of office and leave the actual complete shattering to their replacements. That or maybe they are actually trying to get their countries out of the mess... which they should have been watching out for in the first place. But lets not place the blame on who over-leveraged and speculated and exposed who to who. 

Essentially what has been created have been financial bubbles where money is pumped in and prices soar to artificially induced rates. This is where some of the food crisis in Africa originate. The prices of food are speculated on the commodities market. Basic foodstuffs suddenly are not priced simply according to actual price and demand, financial speculation plays around with the prices. Leaving such basics out of reach of the poor. There is food available. Just that few can afford it at market price. 

Conclusion? Europe is going to be hit hard financially with repercussions for the rest of the world. The question at the moment is how bad is bad when it hits. I wonder how much China can really help. As mentioned earlier by First Striker. Rule of Law is a key component of governance anywhere. And China has been lacking for quite some time in even some of the more basic fundamentals of rule of law. Simply that even those at lower levels of authority are accountable. The Chinese Dragon is indeed rising, but it better see a doctor soon for its internal problems. 

I must apologize for the slightly disjointed nature of this post, but I thought it would be useful for people to know what some of the resources I have been using to read up on the current economic crisis were. Some of these were sent to me, others I caught on TV. I've been really wanting to write about weapons instead to be honest. But welp, can't ignore the drowning economy in the room can we? Especially since the capacity to wage warfare is explicitly linked in a country's ability to generate the revenue required to fund it. The origins of bonds in fact.

And now the links.

Very helpful overview

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/23/sunday-review/an-overview-of-the-euro-crisis.html?ref=global-home

11 Investing Terms one would be wise to know. before descending into the shark pit. 

http://www.thetradingreport.com/2011/10/24/11-investing-terms-you-have-to-know/

Article discussing the issues SMEs have in China

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111022114018242293.html

Documentaries I highly recommend:

The Ascent of Money

The Men Who Crashed The World (Al Jazeera)

Overdose: The Next Financial Crisis

Praise is slow, but scorn is fast.

Image Courtesy of Nato. Pictured are... actually what the hell are those. They're not American. I think those are Dassault Mirages. Highly likely French. 

"If we succeed no one will remember, and if we fail no one will forget!" 

-  Captain Carrot from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. 

Ding dong the witch is dead cried the little Munchkins. And now Gaddafi lies dead a his corpse wrapped in a cheap blanket and stored in a vegetable cooler. Personally I think it is a fitting end, shot dead and dragged out battered, bloodied and terrified from a hiding hole. Much like the countless victims throughout his regime. Although some have decried that all this does is perpetuate the cycle of violence and hate, I doubt a prolonged trial would have done the new government any good. 

The United Nations has requested the circumstances of his death be looked into. Which I given the circumstances is trolololo. But, then again the organization does have its stated principles so they must adhere to them best as they can. And if that means calling for an investigation, then well, procedure must be followed. 

But this isn't the thrust of the post. The part I wonder is how much of NATO's involvement is going to be acknowledged as having done aided the Libyan people in their time of need suffering under a regime. Of course one could always that this is real-politik. NATO never intervened before. Why suddenly now if not for the prospect for oil? 

The oil cannot flow out of the country simply like that and Libya is not Iraq. Control of the country's resources still lies squarely within the tenuous grasp of the interim government. But of course, it is better to have an ally and influence in the region than not. And Gaddaffi was never really fond of the West. Nor the West of him. So we could argue intervention was done solely on real politik grounds. 

I would argue that even if the intervention was done because of real politik and not some overriding agenda to prevent genocide* it was a successful intervention that aided the Libyan people in their own self liberation. Even if the country then tears itself apart in civil war, they are doing it on their own choice. Which is a possible concern. However, many people in the West seem to forget that the birth of all democracies to some extent or another has been riven by strife and conflict. The American Civil War for example,and the widely circulated brawls in Taiwanese and Korean parliaments on youtube. 

I quote the above because I wonder how history will remember this intervention. Will it be remembered as a moment when NATO intervened on behalf of a beleagured people asking for help and actually aided in regime change? Or will it be remembered as the catalyst that triggered a even bigger cycle of uprising and repression? No idea, all I know is this, when you succeed, no one gives you any credit. And when you fail, no one will forget. I will confess when the situation was ongoing I thought Gaddaffi was going to win eventually. I thought NATO was committing to it half heartedly. But it seems since America didn't back out from using her sea and air power as she almost did I suppose the balance of power eventually rolled back in favour of the rebels. 

What is another curious thing to watch about that region is the flood of arms given by NATO. Ostensibly to aid the rebels. But concerns were raised by the African Union.** Well, with widespread arms available and the tribal factions that Gaddaffi had initially united under his rule free to pursue old grievances it might not be long before inter-tribal conflict breaks out. All these arms could further destabilize the region. 

Also this whole affair was an interesting litmus test for the UK's power projection and boy have they fallen short. Aircraft Carriers have been for some time the pride of a nation's navy. Demonstrating quite large area power projection. The UK decided to scrap its old carriers in a cost cutting move and is now waiting on replacements to be built. All which illustrates that military effectiveness cannot be built up over night. Cost cut one day, the next when forces are needed, they simply won't be available. 

*This whole post sparked by an article First Striker sent. And this article would argue that the American intervention at least was sparked by Obama's humanitarian concerns

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-obamas-war-room-20111013?print=true

**http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/06/2011629234644934286.html

Tian Xia

Calligraphy by Dr. Sun Yat Sen "Father of Modern China" Tian Xia Wei Gong (large characters. Read top down) - What is under Heaven is for all. [Under Heaven denoting the physical universe]

Tian xia wei gong. Tian xia, the first two characters in the picture denote mean in English "All under Heaven".
This is tied up with early Chinese philosophy, politics and ideals.

The ruler of the country/area/region (China is very large, and multiple states constantly arose and fell throughout its history) would be deemed to have the "mandate of Heaven". He/she had the mandate, authority and power to rule over the people as granted by Heaven.

However, and this is what distinguished the Chinese version of monarchy from the European "Divine Right of Kings" was that the mandate of Heaven was not eternal nor absolute. If the land suffered from drought, earthquakes, disasters, civil unrest etc... and the population suffered. This would be seen that the ruler no longer had the backing or mandate from Heaven to rule any longer. Rebellion would follow. The faction that next took power would be seen to have gained the mandate as they won.

The quote "Tian Xia" was seen in the Chinese movie "Hero" (2002) when an assassin is sent to kill Qin Shi Huang (The First Emperor) of China. Qin Shi Huang was the leader of the Qin faction when China was still split into seven warring states all vying for supremacy over the land. He subjugated all the other states and solidified it under his rule, thus becoming the First Emperor of China. Now, in the film the assassin meets up with another assassin who had earlier tried and failed to assassinate the Emperor. Their own states had been invaded and conquered by the Qin and they were out for revenge. However, the assassin who failed said he would not assassinate the Emperor. When asked why he simply wrote 'Tian Xia" on the ground. The view was the the infighting between the states was doing no good and the whole could only advance properly under strong directed leadership.

Qin Shi Huang was not without his faults. In fact he had plenty, however, the unification of the country stemmed the infighting and allowed some truly astonishing engineering projects and legacies to be left which still influence modern China today. I'm not going to repost the Wikipedia article here but you get the idea.

With that background out of the way lets move on to the topic of a good government.

The good government is provides for the rule of law and is itself subject to it. The law of course being made in accordance with the wishes of the society it governs.

To put it succinctly, a good government should:

1. Be subject to and provide for The Rule of Law
2. Be responsive to the needs of the population and society
3. Make laws that are fair and unbiased to any one section of society
4. Be adaptable
5. Act in the interests of the country and its people.

Expansion of the topics.

1. A government and the leaders must be accountable to the law they themselves enforce on the population. The laws made must be provided as part of the governing process. A possible loophole would be passing a law to exempt leaders from legal constraints. But that would be contrary to the Rule of Law in itself by seeking exemptions from it. I think.

2. The needs of the population must be addressed because what else is the point of a government if not to serve the people of its country. A leader isn't simply to be a mouthpiece but to provide that society as a whole can flourish and thrive in the conditions the country finds itself in. No country exists in a vacuum, and as global pressures cause difficulties for the population, a government needs to take steps so that the country, the nation is positioned so that the hardship is lessened.

3. No one segment of society should be favoured at the expense of others. This is mostly in regards to a culture with a possible caste system, or in the case of the United States of America, based on income.

4. The world is ever changing. And if a government cannot adapt and keep one step ahead of its friends and foes, then the country will suffer. If they cannot keep up with the changing needs of society. The country will suffer. Even the average citizen would do well to heed this.

5. This seems like such a basic thing that it almost need not be said. Sadly, this key point of having a government in the first place seems to have passed many by. Acting for the benefit means for the country and nation overall. Not recklessly taking actions that caused pointless hardship on the populace.

+++

Thats all folks

Abortion

Picture Courtesy of Hawaii.edu probably from someone else.

I never really wanted to so a post on this topic at all. Since this has been started up I suppose it is only right that a post is delivered on the topic (pun not intended) and the debate can follow on in the comments section or die out there. 

Abortion as a technique, I have no idea how long it has been around for but depictions within Asia do show attempted abortions through abdominal trauma since around 1150 AD (haha... citation needed) so there is that. 

The positions both sides lay out focus around the morality of the act. At the moment no one can say for sure when exactly a embryo becomes a human being. Which is a bit like the philosophical conundrum of nobody is exactly sure how much sand you need to make a pile. Take one grain of sand away from the pile and does it suddenly become scattered grains instead a mound building up in a pyramidal fashion? 

I think these distract from the actual crux of the argument. The actual crux of the argument and debate is : 

Whether Religous Doctrine can/should override the wishes of an individual to undergo a medical procedure. 

The argument that it is the sanctity of life still stems from Religous text. Which is a bit rich for a lot of texts since heretics, blasphemers and unbelievers can all get put to the sword sanctity be dammed. 

This is where it gets nebulous. It is accepted everywhere* that once the baby has left its mother's womb it is a human being and afforded the Rights of the Child.** Even countries where abortion is legal don't permit abortion when the fetus is distinctly baby looking. 

My personal position on it is that it should be legal. It is a medical procedure chosen by the individual. Why should society intervene on that part? People who undertake abortions do so because they feel the situation they are in necessitates it. There are often societal, personal, sometimes medical or criminal (rape) causes that result in people turning to it. 

I understand it is a very personal, invasive and unpleasant procedure and really, if someone is desperate enough to turn to that procedure they'll do it legally, or illegally. It might as well be done in a sterile clinical environment rather than a back alley with the fetus in a dumpster. 

Making abortion illegal doesn't preserve the sanctity of life. There are still babies carried to the full pregnancy and then abandoned to die. Is that any better? No. Is it illegal? Yes. Does it still happen regardless of the legal status of abortion? Yes.

Do we as a society care enough to look at the multiple factors that cause these things to occur? Or shall we simply fall back to knee-jerk reactions and decry a moral collapse? 

Choose what you believe holds more authority, but at the end of the day, it is an unpleasant medical procedure that some turn to when they feel there is no other alternative. So many societies shun birth out of wedlock, and some women are abandoned by their partners as soon as they discover they are pregnant. 

It is easy to forget when debating nebulous points of morality that nobody enjoys going through that procedure. Keep that in mind before condemning the individual for undertaking it. 

*I think it is accepted everywhere. I think some tribes have different views on that. No wait, thats adulthood. nevermind. 

**Hopefully the government the baby is born into subscribes to the U.N Convention

Guest Book Review: The Obama Sydrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad

Review By: Space Cowboy

In "The Obama Sydrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad." Tariq Ali abandons his often tried type face, "Fournier", because "it might overheat the text," opting instead for the "Benbo" type face (pg X). Indeed, this razor tongued, poisoned penned character is a traitor to his Oxford-educated class. And the writing is explosive regardless of his newly adopted typeface.

The essays (4 in total) which comprise the book are loaded with facts and ideas. Some of the ideas are insightful; others, provocative. All the ideas are expressed with eloquent panache.  The essays aim to provide the reader with a report on the first term of the current US President (up to about June 2011). The Chapters are titled:

1.      An unprecedented Historical Event;

2.      President of Cant;

3.      Surrender at Home: A One-Dimential Politician; and,

4.      Sheriff of the World

Tariq Ali was born in Larhore, Pakistan, in 1943 and educated in both his native country and later England. He is an Editor of the New Left Review, and since the 1960's has been a leading commentator on international affairs. His experiences are wide, and his written work is varied; his works encompass plays, documentaries, fiction (most notably The Islamic Quintet), and non-fiction.

Ali draws from lesser known sources and examples to clobber us over the head with his evidence. Ali's argument is that as politics was degenerating in many parts of the world, the people wanted their own items on the agenda (the degeneration of politics is only too stark in Australia – and in some ways ironic because it has followed the US in personalising attacks against one's opponent, see personal attacks by Australian radio shock jocks, and as a comparison, 2012 Republican presidential nominees). The economy was fractured, the imperial juggernaut that is the United States was faltering, and class and racial divides were also items on that same agenda. Insert Obama. Charming. Charismatic. Perceptive. The wave that swept the United States was palpable – change is what people wanted. Could he be just another warmonger?!  

The most recent published essay which appears in the book; "Sheriff of the world" allows Ali to deal with the recent targeting and execution of American's most wanted. Ali lays down the ground work:

"A casually dressed president, his secretary of State and military personnel watched a satellite link, looking like a scene from a Hollywood movie (which it undoubtedly will be with Katherine Bigelow pumping the adrenalin." (pg 120).

A passage characteristically Ali and not very enthusiastic in his praise for American propaganda that is the Hurt Locker.

I thought Bigalow did a great job in boasting morale "at home" and think she deserved an award for that. To be the first woman to win an academy award for best director was a morale boaster for aspiring women directors as well. It's like killing two birds with one stone; or, like two casualties with one EOD.

Ali swiftly moves to dissect Obama's post assassination speech beamed to a total of 56 Million viewers:

"And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts…" (except from Obama's speech as reproduced at pg 120)

I think the start of the speech is worthy of praise for its warmth and poignancy. Ali says as much. He compliments the speech for being carefully crafted, noting that Bush would never have been able to make such a speech, but then compares the conclusion of Obama's speech to many of Osama's sermons:

"Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: 'one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' Thank you. May God bless you. And may god bless the United States of America." (except from Obama's speech as reproduced at pg 120)

The cheering crowds that appeared on the streets in Washington and New York were also recorded: "the crowds were chanting "USA. USA / Obama got Osama. Obama got Osama/ Fuck bin Lad-den. Fuck bin Lad-en." (pg 123)

For this to have occurred in any street in the world is troubling and repulsive. If the shoe was on the other foot; Bush having been assassinated, and Arabs were dancing in the streets chanting "Justice", wouldn't a similar repulsion be the most understandable reaction from an American (or an Australian). Of course it would.

This to Ali's credit is when he is at his most effective, his portrayal of events often are those that we have heard or seen in the news, yet his vivid descriptions is what distinguishes him as a writer and a word smith. Alongside the documented critique of international events, Ali argues in his first essay, "An unprecedented Historical Event; that Obama has carefully crafted his image for some time before we was a household name.  

He draws from a lesser household name, that of Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, who after the end of the organisations political activities in about the late 1970's, became a member of the Democrats, the Chicago chapter of the African American Caucus. In laying down the historical and grimy background to Chicago politics, which doesn't need to be canvassed in this review, Ali talks of Obama "the man with the lean and hungry look" challenging Rush in the Primaries in 2000 (pg 27). 

Ali draws from a range of sources, including Rush, to argue Obama is a product of the Chicago Democratic machine, and had predicted that Obama had no desire to prise himself loose from the Corporate Political System that had assisted his rise. (pg 7). One example of Obama's ability to craft himself is given in an account by Rush after beating Obama in the primaries in 2000:

"It's amazing how he formed a black identify," Rush said, rising from his desk and starting, theatrically, to sashay across his office, mimicking Obama's sinuous walk. "Barack's walk is an adaptation of a strut that comes from the street. There's a certain break at the Knees as you walk and you get a certain roll going. Watch. You see?" Rush laughed at his own imitation. "And he's the first president of the United States to walk like that, I can guarantee you that! But lemme tell you, I never noticed that he walked like that Back then." (pg 27-28) (Emphasis in original)

Ali's provocative writing style is evident throughout the essays, and it doesn't get tiring: "From the beginning Obama projected a desperate and passionate sincerity to become president. All the arts of political manipulation and prudent diplomacy of which his intellect was capable were brought into play to ensure success. Simultaneously timorous and wily, he presented himself as a politician who could unite the country"; "The first hundred days revealed that no regeneration was in sight. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan showed few signs of subsiding, the Orwellian media sphere continued to proclaim 'peace is war' and 'war is peace'"; "With politics going to the dogs in most parts of the world (South America was a striking exception) and serious political columnists resorted to the clichés of airport thrillers, the campaign had succeeded in galvanizing a generation of young Americans across the class and race divide"; "Unable and unwilling to deliver any serious reforms, Obama has become the master of the sympathetic gesture, the understanding smile, the pained but friendly expression that always appeared to say, 'Really, I agree and wish we could, but we can't. We really can't and it's not my fault.'" This is what I call upper crust writing to telling effect. On reading and re-reading those sentences, I imagine that unfortunate recipient at the sharp end of Ali's pen, shrivelling like a salted snail.

The only criticism I have is that Ali doesn't pay credit to where credit is due. That might be the cynicism of Ali's self proclaimed title of being "a grey beard" but it may also be perceived as elite leftist bomb-throwing. 


- Space Cowboy/First Striker? 


Editor's Note: I've changed the title because it wasn't immediately obvious that this was a guest post by Space Cowboy or something/ First Striker. I've changed it so it is more obvious to who credit for this belongs to. 

A Reply on Commission (very long)

I was recently ask to do a reply on a chap's very long winded rant against the Singapore government. Since I had to invest so much time addressing the points I felt I might as well put it up here.

All words in italics are not mine. They are from the original email.

The writer, S. L. K., was a Colombo Plan scholar. 

This letter is well researched, argued and compiled.  
If all the letters to the Ministerial Committee are of this quality, 
I think Gerard Ee will have a hard time not to do something 
drastic to cut Ministerial pay to a decent and reasonable level, 
otherwise ...Enjoy

Mr David S.L.K(63-year old  tertiary-educated  native-born  S'pore Citizen, who had completed full- time National Service)

I'm a 200 year old Iguana. Who obviously has not done National Service. (Do you see what I did there?)

Regardless, thank you for having done your duty in defence of the country. 

First off, let us establish a basic rule here at least. Every person is entitled to their own opinion, however, no-one is entitled to their own facts. The facts stand where they are alone. 

This reply, it must be admitted, has the luxury of being written after the initial drafter to discuss and in some cases rebuke the points raised. 

1  World-Infamous  Obscenely-Humongous  Million-DollarPUBLIC SECTOR Salaries in Singapore 

1. World Famous Super Duper Best Value OMGWTFBBQ Salaries  - See, this is how it sounds. If you feel this is a high quality letter, then I too have to write a rant of a letter to the Ministry of Education. Ranting about how I had better tuition than this. 

1.1  Quotable Quotes:

--  US President Barack Obama  (BBC 11 Jul 09):

     "...No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves..."

--  From a Financial Times article  (TODAY 26 Nov 10):

    "...In a society that lacks political  checks and balances,  such waves of public outrage can develop a force rarely seen in democratic societies..."

1.1 For a start, the initial quote is highly laughable in light of the current situation in the United States. Obama could have acted more forcefully or conceded less. When the Democrats had the majority in Senate and Congress, he cold have pushed through more reforms for the American people. Which he didn't. Which of course wasn't helped by the "Blue Dog" Democrats completely destroying the idea of healthcare reform.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sick-and-wrong-20100405

Actually, that is the wrong tack to take. Obama is both right and wrong in his quote. The United States stock market for a while in 2010 had effective wallpapering over of the underlying issues which caused the 2008 economic crisis. Yes, it is true of the leaders simply exploit the economy to enrich themselves, there will be no wealth generation. 

However, my gripe is that this quote is obviously aimed at Singapore in an inaccurate way. In what area has the Singapore economy been so grossly exploited at  the behest of the leaders that the citizens are suffering terribly in poverty while the leaders and corporations simply scavenge more and more from their backs? 

Are you trying to compare this places to Libya? Syria? Any place in the Middle East? Get real. Of course there should be reforms looked into, but your line is threatening popular uprising if... if what? If the government keeps raiding homes in the middle of the night to drag away dissidents? If there are no jobs for Singaporeans? At an unemployment rate of around 2%? What? What are you going into popular uprising for? If foreigners keep coming in? 

1.2   Very Telling PAP Political U-Turns (confirming that PAP has lost its "moral compass"):

THEN (Straits Times 21 August 1989 )

"To build a country, you need passion.   If you just do your sums --- plus, minuses, credit, debit --- you are a washout." --- PM Lee Kuan Yew

18 YEARS LATER (Straits Times 5 April 2007 )

When it was put to him that people hoped for leaders who werewilling to make sacrifices and who were not there for the money, he (MM Lee Kuan Yew) replied that these were "admirable sentiments  but  we live in the real world".

NOW (Straits Times 22 May 2011 )

" Politics is not a job or a career promotion.  It is a callingto serve the larger good of Singapore." --- PM Lee Hsien Loong

1.2 - On the subject of moral compass and political u-turns... what exactly are you trying to point out? That in 18 years the situation of Singapore has changed? Lee Kuan Yew made the same statement in his new book, and what was his point? That people growing up in different generations grow in a different socio-economic and political climates. 


What is the moral compass you are discussing? I am confused here. Has the country deteriorated? Are things a lot more grimmer than they used to be? I heard last time you used to be able to take a swim in the Singapore river and die from the sheer pollution. I regret I was not around during that period. Oh wait, no I don't. 

You want a generational rant? I can do a generational rant. In my father's time, kids would sit down at the table, and damn well sit still and wait until the food was there instead of tooling around. Mainly because they were really hungry. Anyway. In my time, I still sat down and waited for the food to come. Patiently. Without distractions available. And now, kids these days, iPhones everywhere, Nintendo's, PSP etc... See? I can do completely inaccurate timing rants without accepting that situations change too! Isn't this fun? What can you come up with? 

1.3   "Monkey Politics" in Singapore:

PAP say: Pay PEANUTS and you will get CORRUPT Monkeys!

S'pore Voters say:  Pay BIG BANANAS but still get INCOMPETENT Chimpanzees !!!

[ Just one example of INCOMPETENCE taken from a long list --- The Mas Selamat Great Escape Monumental Fiasco, which led toSingapore (and its Prime Minister) becoming a  laughing stock amongst the International Coalition Against Terrorism ]

"Monkey Antics" of Singapore Political Elite:

    I scratch your back, you scratch mine.

    I cover your butt, you cover mine.

1.3 - Mate, if you're just going to rant. Just say so. But don't expect reasoned debate back in turn. Mat Selamat mind you, was indeed a fiasco. I hope they learned from that.  As a side note, remember the incident of Singapore Airlines Flight 117? No? Same government in charge. And that ended with all terrorists dead. On what ground are you rating this government

Are there worries of complacency? Yes. As always, when things succeed, it is important that people know that they have to build on those success not rest on their laurels. Is the government full of incompetent apes? Well... let me put it to you like this. China is growing larger and larger. And if a country cannot stay economically relevant in the face of the rising Dragon, it will suffer ruin. Particularly those countries that cannot kick the dirt and unearth iron ore and other precious metals. 

You are of course, welcome to your opinion that this government are apes on those two incidents alone. I would of course be very keen to hear that if the Singapore government are apes... what do you consider the other governments of the world to be run by? I would be happy to learn which country in the world sets the enlightened gold standard. If this place is corrupt and incompetent... perhaps you should now avail yourself of the internet resources and see the situation in other countries. 

Note! That this doesn't mean I feel the government is above criticism. Far from it. But if you want to be taken seriously, then don't introduce random rants in the middle of a letter. The government can always improve. It MUST always seek to improve itself. However back this up with facts if you want to call the government incompetent and corrupt. Why no facts? 

1.4  Main Bug-Bear of many Singaporeans is the HIGH COST of LIVING --- arising from high cost of government;  high cost of homes (both HDB and private);  high cost of healthcare;  high cost of transport (both private transport and public transport), etc...... 

HIGH COST of GOVERNMENT in Little Red Dot Singapore:

(a)  A BLOATED CABINET comprising an extravagant entourage ofone Prime Minister, one Minister Mentor, two Senior Ministers,two Deputy Prime Ministers --- followed by  15 Ministers, 10Ministers-of-State --- plus 4 Parliamentary Secretaries, 5 CDC Mayors and 82 PAP MPs  [ Parliament set-up, prior to 2011 GE ]

(b)  A BULGING BLOATED BUREAUCRACY with  9 Organs of State, 15Ministries and 64 Statutory Boards.

NOTE:  The high cost of this Top-Heavy Government is paid for NOT from PAP Party Funds BUT from PUBLIC FUNDS (i.e. the hard-earned monies of S'pore Taxpayer-Voters collected through numerous taxes/dues)

1.4 Geezus, this should have been split into two separate sections but fine. We'll address it this way. 

High cost of living. - Well, heh. I can't reply to that. This is alleged to be the main bug bear. I'm not sure where to start. The HDB situation. Well, yeah. Messed up there mate. The guy in charge overall was busy trying to drag in foreign companies to do up Marina Bay area. Which has been a success. Unfortunately that meant the housing sector suffered. I suspect they are rectifying that at the moment. 

High cost of healthcare... isn't there a government public healthcare system. The government healthcare system is rated 6th in the World by the World Health Care organization. Now if you don't trust their assessment, that is fine. But here is the link anyway. http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select.cfm

So we have the lowest infant mortality, apart from Iceland. And the longest expected longevity. So the system works. Somehow. Like I said, I don't know much about the area but it seems that people are government subsidized if their income bracket requires it. What areas is healthcare too expensive and what reforms do you think should be implemented in that case? Well, the government can handle the reforms. What areas do you feel healthcare is too expensive? 

Now if you want to say, discuss private healthcare, then well, yes. It is crazy expensive. However that is out of the realm of government control.

(a) What is the basis that the cabinet is bloated? Which government are you comparing it to? 

(b) These aren't funded solely through tax payers funds. The various governmental affiliated companies and corporations work to ensure foreign investment in the country. Your contribution to the building of a glorious Singapore is however, duly noted and praised. Again, what basis are you saying that these ministries are bloated bureaucracies? 

1.5  PAP Government's World-Infamous Double Records:

(a)  PM Lee Hsien Loong confirmed as "World's Highest-PaidPolitician"  by Economist/Financial Times.

(b)  All the world's Top 30 highly-paid politicians are found in SINGAPORE (in PM Lee's Cabinet, of course!).

1.5 What was your point here? Do you know the rationale behind the high pay? The high pay is intended to entice only the best AND to prevent corruption. Has it gone overboard? Perhaps it has. That is the committees job to decide. You are also welcome to assess other world government's vis a vis Singapore and make your own assessment. But if you assess the Americans, as you have done before, don't simply check the pay of the President alone. You should try to take into account the amount of kickbacks, and the amount of people from Goldman Sachs on their Financial Advisory board. Just something to keep in mind perhaps. 

1.6   Singapore's fat-cat ministers getting fatter each year:

BASIC Annual Pay  (Source: Straits Times reports)

President's pay:    $2.6m(2006)  $3.2m(2007)  $3.9m(2008)

[ THIS MUCH for a largely ceremonial post (shaking hands, kissing babies, cutting ribbons, opening Keppel Bay bridge, attending charity functions, hosting state dinners ....) ??? ]

PM/MM/SM pay:  $2.5m(2006)   $3m(2007)      $3.8m(2008)

DPM pay:            $2m (2006)     $2.5m (2007)    $3m (2008)

Minister pay:       $1.2m(2006)   $1.6m(2007)   $1.9m(2008)

[ Current MP Allowance (for a part-time job!) = $13,500 per month ]

[ PM Basic Pay       = $3.8m per year  = $320,000 per month  =$10,000 per day ]

[ Minister Basic Pay = $1.9m per year  = $160,000 per month  =$5,000 per day ]

1.6 President's pay is under review. So I'll personally hold off my opinion. 

Minister's pay is also under review. So I'll wait till that comes out. 

1.7  Justifiable/Understandable Anger of S'pore Voters:

(a)  We, Singaporeans, Not DAFT !!!

Neither are we uncivilised nor barbaric to expect our Politicians/Bureaucrats to work "for free" or to survive on "fresh air and love of the people".

We will readily support  adequate/reasonable remunerations.

BUT the above figures are not just humongous but obscenely-humongous salaries, going by both local/international  PUBLIC SECTOR standards !!!

(b)  How could tiny Singapore's PM  be earning six times the pay of the American President and ten times that of the Japanese PM and the Australian PM ???

[ All the latter three Heads of State are governing very bigcountries with large populations, and very complex  political/economic/social issues. ]

If Singapore's PM screw up, only S'poreans will suffer.

But if the American President screw up (and presses the wrong buttons), the whole world (including little red dot Singaporeand its entire Lee Family) could go up in nuclear smoke !!!

(c)  Are we paying TOO MUCH for TOO LITTLE transparency andaccountability ???

Do we really have a "visionary and competent" Government or just "grossly over-paid" Politicians/Bureaucrats ???

With such obscenely-humongous public sector salaries, how can these PAP politicians ever earn the  "moral authority" [much less the respect] of S'poreans to govern this tiny island 

nation ???

[  "People do not always hate the rich. People hate those who are immorally rich."

   --- Mr Qiu Liping, professor of social stratification atShanghai University. MYP 16 Dec 09 ]

1.7 

(a) The pay is under review. So pending. I can't comment on it. You're welcome to feel steamed about it. All I can say is, as far as I understand, we're the only country in the region where corruption isn't an issue and you can have faith in the government. You are welcome to fact check how Singapore ranks in the Global Competitiveness report. I had to cover this for a legal course. Mainly addressing the question of why law and order is easier in 

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf

(b) But if you wish to discuss why Singapore is "less" complicated I can bring that to table. On what grounds is running Singapore less complicated than running any of the above countries? Is it simply size alone? Well, their size also brings benefits. Because if they screw up, then the size allows the country to take a financial/ natural/ nuclear disaster and keep on going. Because of the aforementioned size. Singapore has no fall back. Either this country is ticking over nicely or it goes under. Right now Singapore needs to maintain relevance in the face of China's own growth as well as maintain an even keel in the current economic instability. 

I don't understand what you're trying to say here either. You say if the Singaporean PM screws up, only Singaporeans suffer. If American President messes up we face nuclear annihilation. I still don't understand how you are comparing the two. Do you want the American President to get a pay rise? Or is it more cut the pay of the Singaporean PM? Well, you said it yourself, if the Singaporean PM screws up. Singapore suffers. And why the hell would we want to suffer. I still don't understand the jibe you're trying to make. 

Singaporean PM should have less pay because only a smaller percentage of people globally suffer if he/she messes up? Is that your angle? Focus. Singapore handles its own affairs, America handles its affairs. Also, I want to pose this hypothetical question. In your current situation, imagine yourself in the equivalent situation in America. Would you be happy with how the American government and politicians are running the place? Have you done your research on the state of America is now? The corporations control the strings of government to a ridiculous extent. I still contend that your analogy is terrible 

(c) The ministers are immorally rich because...? Because this is a tiny nation and therefore the pay should be smaller? Singapore's wealth exceeds its size. Singapore's regional influence, exceeds it size. Singapore is not that fondly looked at because of that but that is the price of success. What grounds are you basing the earning of moral authority on? 

What are your criteria to earn the respect of the people and the moral criteria?

Are you basing the moral authority on the mandate of heaven? The old Chinese philosophy? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

 I don't know you are cutting at. Your comments here are populist but they contain little in the way of substance. If a leader leads well and the government governs well, does the country not enjoy stability, peace and prosperity. Are we lacking heavily in those areas? Is this country a lot poorer than it seems? 

Note, that just because we enjoy prosperity does not mean I contend no one is poor here. That would be a ridiculous statement to make. What I ask is, is the country not stable? Is the country peaceful, are the citizens able to make a living on their own. Does the government try to connect with the people, help the needy, use the funds for the betterment of the nation's infrastructure? What are you comparing this place to that your tirades make it sound like this is a shithole? Which place are you comparing it to? 

1.8  AN IMPORTANT NOTE:

(a)  The above-stated mind-boggling SINGLE-DIGIT MILLIONS represent just  BASIC Annual Pay i.e excluding mid-year bonus, year-end bonus, Performance Bonus, GDP Bonus, CPF/PENSION 

and other perks.

TOTAL Annual Pay = (disclosed) BASIC Annual Pay + (undisclosed) bonuses/other perks.

(b)   For our political office holders, their Basic Annual Pay are publicly disclosed.    However, theirundisclosed Total Annual Pay packages  have been an endless source of speculation 

and bottled-up public anger on the Internet.

(c)   For Comparison, the 2010 TOTAL Annual Pay packages (as DISCLOSED in published Annual Reports) of the CEOs in various public-listed Temasek-Linked Companies* range from  $6.7m 

to $11.5m.

[ *DBS, Keppel Corp, SembCorp, CapitaLand]

In 2007, CapitaLand CEO Liew Mun Leong (a former pen-pushing Civil Servant) received a whopping Total Annual Pay of $20.5m --- which led to a public outcry.

(d)  Taking the cue from the CEO pay packages of Temasek-linked companies, many netizens have "deduced"  that the Total Annual Pay packages of Temasek Holdings CEO Ho Ching 

and our Cabinet Ministers would likely be in the two-digit millions and upwards of $15m. 

But this could mean anything between $15m and $99m --- hence the never-ending and widespread  Internet speculation surrounding Ministers' Pay

1.8 I still don't get what you are ranting at. Do you want more funds to be allocated somewhere? Is there an area which needs more funding? To the needy? Perhaps the government should indeed look into that. I will say this of (d) though. You're just speculating there. If you come back with concrete proof I'll have to concede that point. But if you're just basing it on speculation, then I cannot take that point seriously. 

2.1  Since 1994 (when the PAP Govt first bull-dozed through Parliament and arm-twisted Singaporeans on the Ministerial Pay Issue), there has been never-ending public consternation 

over the million-dollar remunerations of our political office holders.

As such remunerations are paid out of public funds, Singaporetaxpayer-voters certainly have every right to know the full facts and figures. 

Lack of transparency on this rightful public concern will only aggravate the voter disenchantment that turned into a Super-Tsunami Wave of Public Anger during the recent general elections.

2.1 Sure, some transparency. Why not. I agree with this. Can't be that much of an issue is it to the government. Please consider that would be a good way to start I suppose. 

Also, your SUPER MEGA ULTRA TSUNAMI OF RAGE where... 60% still voted for the government.... don't get too hyperbolic. Of course it would be good to see change and a more transparent workings, but don't presume to speak for the population as a whole.

2.2   In the private sector, to promote good corporategovernance, the Singapore Stock Exchange requires public-listed companies to disclose the Total Annual Pay packageswithin salary bands for their CEOs and other senior staff.

Our public sector should also follow suit as an act of good political governance.

2.2 Sure, why not. I agree. 

2.3   Put simply, "TALK IS CHEAP" and S'pore Voters expect nothing less than PM Lee Hsien Loong to "WALK THE TALK" on the following:

(a)  his inaugural speech (as PM) calling for "an open andinclusive Singapore".

(b)  his brief to the Salary Review Committee to make recommendations which will "help ensure honest and competent government".

[ NOTE:  All the three words  "open, inclusive, honest"  carry this same message ---  to "come clean" and "clear the air" once-and-for-all  on whether our Cabinet Ministers are reallyserving the people (as their true masters)  or  enriching themselves at the expense of the people (as taxpayers). ]

2.3 

(a) Its not even 6 months yet. Wait a bit. I'm not even sure of the context of his speech. Open and inclusive. Well, we certainly are trying to be inclusive. Not sure what you mean by open. If you want Minister's pay to be open. Then sure fine. Why not. 

(b) I still don't get where you feel that the Ministers are doing nothing but enriching themselves at taxpayer expense. What area of the country looks like the Minster has been sitting on his/her arse all day playing Minesweeper? 


Enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer is the kind of term you'd use for terrible lousy governments where nothing is done for the people or the country. Is that how you feel this country is like? 


If you think the government is corrupt, bloated and incompetent, this must be the most amazing bloated, corrupt and incompetent government I have ever seen in world history. Not even for this current era. World history. For a bloated, corrupt and incompetent government somehow Singapore has risen high up in the global rankings as a country.


Check the links out for Singapore's ranking if you don't believe it yourself. 


http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2010-11.pdf
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results
http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/SGP.html

GAME OVER

ps. The email was not well researched, argued or compiled. Just letting you know that. Whoever is sending this around, this is not good academic or journalistic writing. Half of it are rants, which have no sources, no good comparisons, nothing. The end was better. The author calmed down and raised valid points. Yet, I state again, just because you are one angry person on the internet, don't presume to speak for all of the population.