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.