I is for Inspiration

http://www.youngfreemaine.com/soundoff/#!/entry/247326

What if everyone expressed themselves this way?

I really think we need more music like this in the world so I encourage you to go and vote for this girl so she can record some new stuff.

H is for Hello

It's all changed again.  Those of you following my blog will notice that I've basically gone the entire month of February without posting anything new.

I immersed myself in news and global affairs and was appalled by what I read.  I've actually been through a spell of emotional depression as a result - similar to when I read "Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda".

So now I'm choosing another route.

Human rights begins HERE.

How often do we say hello?  A few dozen times a day maybe?

But how often do we say hello to someone new?  Would you say hello to a total stranger if they were in tears?  Do you say hello to your bus driver or the postman if you see him?

This isn't even about human rights, it's about being human by treating as human those that cross our paths.

And this is most especially important, I think, when...

H is for Help.

Human beings need help.  And often that help comes in a form that we didn't even know we were looking for.  Sometimes it's as simple as a brief conversation with someone, even a total stranger.  I know this because I've spent most of the last month working in a small office doing data entry, only rarely seeing or speaking to any of the people I work with.

H is for Human.

We are human.  And so is the man that removes the rubbish, the woman who drives the bus.

Smile and say hello.  You might just make their day.

G is for Greed

Unlike the last few posts, this one is just going to be an idea with very little explanation (where before I've taken a few 'disparate' strands and woven them together to form something like a cohesive whole.

First thing's first: if you haven't seen the film 'Instinct' with Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr, go watch it.  NOW!

Alright, alright, the main reason I've said do that is because of one word that Hopkins' character, Ethan Powell, uses: TAKERS.

Just after watching a few clips of 'Instinct', for the first time in years, I had this sudden revelation.

That's what we are, all of us.  Us in our comfy, coseted, western civilisation.  We represent an entire race of people that don't build, or give anything.  WE ONLY TAKE.

I've been continuing to read 'Rhodesia: Last Outpost of the British Empire' and in reading about the days of that part of Africa that is now Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), I hit upon this little piece of truth.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

In the days of the 'glorious' empire, we sent men of enterprise and thousands of soldiers to distant parts of the world where we were neither needed, nor wanted, nor welcome and simply TOOK whatever we could.

If you go back far enough, you'll see this same 'pattern' as far back as the Vikings, possibly further.

And what are we doing today?  Exactly the same thing.  Only now we call the men of enterprise 'multinational corporations' and we call the soldiers 'UN peacekeepers'.

And here's the miserable, tragic irony of it: WE ARE NOT TAKING ANYTHING WE NEED.

We have everything we need right here.

But in sending 'men of enterprise' to other parts of the world, they have created businesses based on the minerals they found there, and have used their financial power to weave these luxuries into the fabric of society to such an extent that they are now considered necessities.

And so the cycle is perpetuated: TAKING HAS BECOME A WAY OF LIFE.

G is also for grief.  I grieve over humanity: those that take, and those that are taken from.

F is for Faith

Intro

Writing about faith is a little bit of a strange decision for me: in many ways and for a lot of things, I don't have any.  May be a fatalistic resignation to one concept over another but actual faith?  I'm not so sure.

F is for Faith

Usually when I use one of my alphabetic designations like this, the word the relevant letter stands for is a problem.  And so it is here.

Faith is a problem.

There, I said it.  Yes I'm being deliberately inflammatory, and it's not even exactly true, but it's close - much like saying 'money is the root of all evil' when the full, correct quote is 'the love of money is the root of all evil'.  But then, the whole point it is misquoted is that the human condition all but dictates that the former is just as true as the latter.

For example, the Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state would represent an unacceptable threat to their very existence.  The Palestinians believe that without creating a Palestinian state, they are doomed.

Both viewpoints are actually articles of faith, and both are fundamentally flawed.

F is for Fundamentals

It's usually the fundamentalists of a particular belief that are singled out as living proof that faith is at best a problem, at worst a plague.

Let us examine the fundamentals behind my example.

Why do the Israelis so deeply fear the creation of a Palestinian state?  I believe it is primarily because there is a massive historical precedent for conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, far older than the creation of the modern state of Israel.  In one form or another, the Israelis and the Palestinians have been in conflict for thousands of years.  So to the Israeli mind, the creation of a Palestinian state wouldn't be about doing justice to the Palestinians, but about setting up their arch enemies as their neighbours, where they would be a threat to their security, their economy and their increasing dominance on the world stage through their exportation of technology and private security.

In other words, Israelis believe that the creation of a Palestinian state is tantamount to taking away the land they have been given - by God, from a Jewish point of view; Britain and the US from the political.

Strangely, it is actually the Palestinian fundamental that is more interesting.  Why are they so keen on the creation of a Palestinian state?

F is for Frontier

There was a time when there were no frontiers in the strict geographical sense that we understand by the word 'borders' today.  A frontier was a fluid thing that moved by the day.  Many people were hunter-gatherers of a nomadic nature, never settling in one place for long.

In my reading of "Rhodesia: The Last Outpost of the British Empire" by Peter Baxter, so far, Baxter seems to share my view that the imposition of borders in Africa accounts for a great deal of bloodshed (to put the idea very, very roughly).  Where before tribes could move at will, skirmish as necessary and relocate accordingly, with the arrival of the Europeans these tribal peoples frequently found themselves pinned between one border and another; borders that were violently defended by Europeans insisting that the land and resources beyond 'belonged' to them.

In today's capitalist world, a piece of earth to call your own means stability, safety and the protection of international law.  What's stable and safe about it?  Well you can stamp your seal of ownership on something (whether it actually belongs to you or not) and charge people twice as much as it's worth (minimum) so that you can earn a living.  So far so good, even I admit that.

The problem is, human beings aren't content with having enough - enough is NEVER enough.  Having enough means having a base to operate from so that you can get more.

Being successful in our society means having more than the next guy.

F is for Finance

So, while the developing world is evolving towards capitalism, the world's foremost financial minds are meeting at the luxury resort of Davos Switzerland to discuss the future of the European Union.  And what is likely to feature as it has done before: why doesn't capitalism work?

And why do I object to this?  Well, let's consider it.

Let's think of a previous cycle: the production of energy on an industrial scale.  First, 'western' civilisation had energy produced by burning fossil fuels.  By the time today's emerging powers caught up with that idea, fossil fuels were being superceded by the cleaner, more efficient - and by the way more dangerous - nuclear power.

On the one hand you could say that 'encouraging' (aka forcing) the developing world to adopt nuclear power was a concern for the environment.  But of course that's not the real reason.  The real reason is money, as always.  Nuclear power was something western civilisation developed so we could export it, sell it, mass produce it - simultaneously earning ourselves a fortune, and forestalling the inevitable changes on the leader board.

And here we go again.  Just as Brazil, India and China are starting to be major players in a globally capitalistic society, the traditional economic superpowers are busy discussing what to replace it with.

F is for Futile

There's a reason that philosophy, politics, economics and a variety of other academic subjects do not meet humanity's needs when they are practically applied.

It's a very simple reason.  Are you reading closely?

All these areas of academic reasoning are concerned with working within the system.

The most fundamental thing human beings will agree on if asked is that this system isn't working.  That's why we complain about it all the time.

But all these methods are about improving the system.  We think that if we work hard enough, everything will be perfect: if we have enough, we'll be happy; if we pour enough money into it, the system will work: everyone will have not only what they want, but what they need.

The system is flawed.  Adam Smith, the father of modern economics basically said that the best result will come with everyone doing what's best for himself.

The trouble is, that even when we started working with modern economics, even back at the dawn of time, there was no level playing field.  Communism tried to create one and it didn't work.

Capitalism is the individual looking out for himself.  Communism is the state looking out for everyone.  Those are basically the two outlooks we're stuck with.

And everyone's so busy trying to perfect one or the other, that it never occurs to them to try something different.

America could stop trying to run the world at the cost of everyone else's freedom.

Israel could work through the challenges of allowing the creation of a Palestinian state.

The Palestinians could move somewhere new.

But it's easier to fight about the way things are.

"The only thing that will redeem mankind is co-operation." (Bertrand Russell)

BUT

"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.  And I'm still not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein)

E is for Equality

Intro

Depending on how you read things, it's easy to assume that equality is a problem of the past.  But is it?  It's not as straight forward as we might think, at first glance, no matter what our instinctive response may be.

E is for Equality

Beyond the most basic of human needs that ensure our ability to continue living - air, food, water, warmth and so on - there is the human need that, one way or another, defines our existence: the need for love, connection, relationship, call it what you will.  Our ability to have this need met defines us as individuals, and our inability to have it met defines us as a society (whether local, national or global).

It is a sobering thought that even with the meeting of its basic physical needs, without meeting its most basic emotional need for love, a newborn baby will simply die.

What is more sobering still, is that in many societies throughout the world, female babies are allowed to die, are literally thrown away or simply treated as less important than their male siblings.

I commend to your reading, at this point, the book "Half the Sky" by Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl Wu Dunn.  I find it amazing that the title of the book is based on a phrase coined by Mao Tse Tung, as in "Women hold up half the sky."
That simple pronouncement is the reason that China has a far higher ratio of engaged female workers than would, quite likely, otherwise be the case.

I'm not going to belabour the point of inequality: the book is rife with it.  And if you don't feel like trawling through the whole book, have a scout of the movement's website.

But there are two points that seem most important to me:
1) It is not only men, but women as well that are perpetuating the cycle of inequality.  I have seen this first-hand in Georgia, even heard it from girls' and womens' own mouths, that it is their husband's right to mistreat them in whatever way they feel fit.  The reason for this is no doubt cultural, from a time where having a husband was a right to life, being without a husband was a passive invitation to be molested, raped and or bride-napped, and it was socio-economically impossible to survive as a single, individual woman.

2) The inequality goes both ways: the story of Meghalaya, India is as recent as January 19th 2012.  In this state of north-east India, men are the down-at-heels citizens, fighting for their right to equal treatment.  What interests me most about this is that the leader of the movement cites the inequality as the reason for men's disengagement at all levels, including alcoholism and drug abuse.  My interest in this is that the same behaviours are cited as symptoms of inequality in the other direction.

Closer to home, there are frequent media references to the fact that women are generally paid less than their male counterparts in any given profession/field.

The second point above gives me cause to wonder: what is it that men think they have accomplished that they mentally give themselves license to sit back and do nothing?  I can only come up with one answer: they have created an attitude among themselves that is also widespread among women: that women exist only to do a man's bidding, to bear his children and tidy up after him.

Men are overgrown children.

Last year in Georgia, my host family consisted of two grandparents, two parents and two small children.  The boy was maybe 4 years old.  One evening, tired of all his lip, the Mother - having told him several times to stop licking food out of his bowl - tapped him firmly in the mouth.  The resulting screaming fit was not surprising - the shock of it would have done something similar to most of us.  What shocked me was his raised hand and how close he came to hitting his Mother back.  At 4 years old.

Based on this seemingly intrinsic global outlook, one could be forgiven a) for laying all of humanity's problems at the feet of men and b) for placing all one's hope in the emancipation of women.

Indeed the book 'Half the Sky' falls very little short of this attitude.  But on the other hand it cites numerous examples of why this attitude is not unreasonable.  From international health initiatives to grassroot microfinance organisations, the focus is largely on women - the former because of the massive need associated with pregnancy and childbirth, the latter because they make more reliable clients virtually every time.

E is for Empowerment

With the example of Meghalaya as a base, it is easy enough to conceive of a world where the tables are turned and men are fighting for equality on a global scale.  If this happens it won't be because enough men have given enough women enough opportunities to take over existing companies, it will be because of the opposite: the chauvinistic attitudes of today will still abound and as such, women everywhere will become gifted, innovative entrepreneurs with enough market dominance to drive male-dominated companies out of business.

That is why E is for Empowerment: the only way to acheive and maintain equality is to ensure that ALL people are empowered.

There is only one difference between people who 'succeed' and people who 'fail' (I use these terms loosely to avoid the idea that certain things count as failure and certain things as success: the only definition of either is the attitude of the individual):

The successful don't give up.

Behind the dogged determination of the successful there may be numerous things like flexibility/fluidity (to circumstances of all kinds), psychological tools for self-motivation, back-up plans, or what have you.  But the successful never give up.  Many people in the UK have already given up: they have swallowed the lies of society for so long that they no longer even remember what their dreams were.

I see this all around me in my friends as much as anywhere else: people are rudderless, devoid of imagination.  Whatever flare and vitality they once had has been dimmed.  There are exceptions of various kinds that I thrill to see, and there are those who command respect for their choices because they have decided that some end or other (whether frequent travel or maintaining a long distance relationship) justifies the means of saving dreams for another time.

If I could wish anything for my life it would be the constant empowerment of people around me.  We are all capable of so much more than we pretend to be.

The main 'complaint' I hear is that people don't know what to do.  I fell into that category myself until recently.  For that reason I frequently recommend the book 'What Colour is Your Parachute', by Richard N Bolles.
Unlike many other books/tools, this one doesn't try to find you your ideal job or career or even job sector.  Through various means it helps you to determine your skills on a more general level, the kind of place you would want to live geographically, the kinds of people you would want to be surrounded by and so on.  And I suspect that each area will have different values for each person.  My own was finding a job that I would feel worthy of my full attention/commitment and the 'sacrifices' I make are in order to attain my goal; others may focus on living in the 'perfect place', others on surrounding themselves with the 'perfect group of friends' or finding the 'perfect person'.

After that, there are two simple tools that I commend to you.  They are mine, and they are recommendations from my friend, Bonnie:
1) Act with courtesy.  This is such a simple thing and yet it is infinitely powerful.  To act with courtesy takes skill and courage when it is to be a universal application.  Anyone can pretend to be courteous when it suits them, but how many can maintain it in the face of someone else's discourtesy?
Enlarging upon this is to act with love.  Anyone can see what is happening on the surface of a person's life: we see joy, we see misery, we see pain, we see rage.  But how often do we take the trouble to see beyond that?  And how often do we (mentally) chastise people for their inability/refusal to treat us better because of the pain we feel?
This leads us to the second, because love opens doors...

2) Take the open door.  Or as Bonnie puts it: Is this how I want my life to be?  Your life is not the feelings of joy you had yesterday for whatever reason, and it is not the 'better' that your life will be tomorrow when things are 'back to normal'.
THIS is your life.  Right now.  How does it look?  How does it feel?  And if it isn't what you hope(d) for, what can you do about it?
Ever since I found a clarity about the direction of my life by working through 'What Colour is Your Parachute', I have frequently found myself in conversation with people of similar outlook, and that cannot be put down to coincidence.  It is about attitude, and flowing with the energy around you.
This may sound ridiculous to some of you but let me put it another way...

E is for Energy

If you're into physics and/or you've read Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons", you will be aware of the advances in modern physics made through using the particle collider at CERN.

Elsewhere there is the Principle of Uncertainty, and the gradual realisation that even Einsten's theories of relativity are not as all-encompassing as was once thought.

To put it as simply as possible, even at a sub-atomic level, there are fields of energy.  The Principle of Uncertainty states that it is impossible to know the exact weight AND speed of a particle.  As you approach one value or the other, it evaporates.  Most often, these are not called particles at all anymore, they are described as 'probability density fields' and/or 'energy packets'.

Sometimes the appearance is more particle-like and sometimes more wave-like.

And what scientists are slowly realising is that each of these energy packets, through every action, affects those around it, and this ripples out ad infinitum as in the theory of Chaos tenet:

It has been said something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world. - Chaos Theory

It seems the Chaiticians have been right all along, and more so than they realised.

And it is what we all must realise: every action we take or refuse to take has consequences.  Don't worry about it, just try things and see where the energy leads you.  We're still in control, we can change our minds, back up, switch directions at any moment.

E is for Empowerment

It's time to reach out.  It's time to be great - hell, it's time to be awesome!!

We're back at empowerment.  I'm not saying I've empowered you, but I find that the easiest way to feel empowered, is to empower others.  So, what are your skills, talents, interests?

Now take them and use them to empower someone else.

Two final things for you.  The first is a YouTube video created by Tony Robbins that inspires me hugely.

The other is a logical next step, I think.  There are literally millions of people out in the world who are more empowered than anyone most of us have ever met.  And the only thing that stands between them and their dream of a better life for their families and their community, is a loan of $25.

I don't know about anyone else, but that's less than I spend on my bus pass every week.

Here's to Kiva Microfunds and a revolution that WILL empower the human race.

Film Catch-Up

It's been an interesting week, film-wise.  My last writings were almost a week ago about Shame and War Horse.

On Wednesday night I saw Haywire.  Don't bother.  It's awful in practically EVERY way possible.  'Nuff said.

Last night I saw J Edgar and Corionlanus back to back.

J Edgar is less a biopic of the man, to my mind, than it is a searing endictment of US intelligence services.
On the one hand, the film is naturally a biopic, and there can be no doubt that Hoover's reforms of the Justice Department - up to and including the creation of the Bureau of Investigation and then the Federal Bureau of Investigation - created a new kind of crime investigation, and much of what he did was definitely laudable.  And within the biopic, there are hints (only hints - and this is where the film has been heavily criticised I think) of his morbid obedience to his mother, his viciously repressed sexuality (as a result of the former) and his driver of mistrust - of almost everyone, ultimately including his own staff if their 'loyalty' ever came into question.
It is obvious, for one, that Hoover's own attitude helped push the massive mistrust of Bolsheviks and Communists throughout the history of America, to such an extent that it still persists today, despite the fact that it is a huge anachronism.  I'm sure that this must have contributedto , if not been the bedrock of, the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s.
The second, less obvious idea, is that Hoover's attitude to his own bureau is also the bedrock of mistrust in and between various government agencies/departments - something that may explain the cycle of information release that we see: something happens (like 9/11) and later, it apparently comes to light that some government agency/department or other, had some kind of knowledge of this ahead of time.
The point that came across to me, especially, was the cycle of attack.  It was during Hoover's life (assuming that the film is accurate on this subject) that the US government first concerned itself with pre-emptive action - that is, finding and arresting people for what they are planning to do.  It was Hoover who also began the process of using evidence based on science and technology, as well as the testimony of expert witnesses.
While this was undoubtedly groundbreaking work, it also began the era of the super criminal, if you will.  As fast as the FBI evolves methods of fighting and preventing crime, so the criminal world invents new ways of outsmarting them.
Hoover's name is synonimous with the FBI of course.  But the FBI is the invention of a paranoid, deluded man attempting to protect his country, and more importantly himself, from invisible enemies.  In speaking of the man, or the bureau and remembering the human rights abuses and REMOVALS that both have been responsible for, one might well cry SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
Likewise, Hoover used his secret files to (try to) intimidate and control every President he worked for, and also Martin Luther King Jr, among others.  And that attitude I believe has also prevailed: Hoover believed that in times of peace, the people grew lazy and inattentive to the evils that beset them, and he was right.  His error was attributing such evil to outside forces, rather than the inherent struggle of the human spirit for what is right over what is easy.  And as such, he used such power as he had to try to invent the dangers and the evils he would have everyone cower from, in order to maintain his own personal power.
In light of that idea, the mistrustful attitudes of people everywhere, one might make the leap of thought - unaided - as to how the Twin Towers were really torn down.  Were they destroyed by minions of some foreign power?  Or as an exercise in distraction, grieving the American people so their government could go to war on the most invisible adversary in history, all the while securing the oil its country demands?



Corionlanus is a fascinating film.  Being a Shakespeare play it needs no explanation or recapitulation.  What makes it so fascinating is the manner in which Fiennes makes Shakespeare relevant to the 21st century by putting it in a fiercely modern setting.  The scenes of street-level fire-fighting between the Romans and Volscians could be scenes from any piece of modern warfare for the last 20 years.
What I see in Coriolanus is the seed of a problem that looks set to beset our own society.  I have made no secret of my reading of events around the current Falklands scuffle.  But in speaking to others it seems that many would, out of loyalty to friends and relatives who fought, suffered and died in the last Falklands War, would support another such war, so that the losses incurred by the first may not have been in vain.
It is a similar attitude to those that have remarked on War Horse as a good introduction for young children to the horrors of the First World War.  Yes, the First World War was a global attrocity, but yes it was dwarfed by the Second.  And if truth be told, both conflicts belong to a world that does not exist anymore.  The war we fight today is not against armies massed against us that must be slaughtered until both sides feel sufficiently wounded and reported of to make terms for peace.  We fight against the insidious apathy of human nature whereby tyrrants take the rights of the people and make of them a mockery on the international stage, in the faces of the very leaders sworn to uphold them.
If children must be schooled, it should be in peace, not war.  Without the learning of war, there might be less of it.  And with the learning of peace there might be more of it.
Coriolanus is cast out by his people for his warlike nature, and he throws in their faces their taunts of disrepect towards the very people he protects.  There is nothing spoken of the politics of the situation - even in ancient Rome, armies did not go to war for sport.
Much like the repercussions against 9/11, no-one ever questioned the motives of the agitators - if indeed Al-Qaeda was the root cause of that hideous day.  And that is because governments the world over see more profit in securing what they want through war, not peace.


The road of peace is slow because the gentleness of its approach invites indifference, whereas the violence of war is much harder to ignore.

Consider the following quote from Hernan Reyes in "Fast 5":
'If you dominate the people by force, they will eventually fight back, because they have nothing to lose.
[This is the trademark of political tyranny]
And that's the key: I go into the favelas and give them something to lose - electricity, running water, schoolrooms for their kids.  And for that taste of a better life...I own them.'
[This is the trademark of economic tyranny]

We think ourselves so free, and that is because we have everything we are told we need, while we cower behind shields of political and economic agreements, drawn up on the back of war, written in the blood of people we don't care about because we never, ever hear about it.

In the end, Coriolanus becomes a scapegoat for both sides, having made war on Rome and peace with the Volscians.

Those that live by the sword will die by it.

D is for Demand

Intro

Following a brief read of a BBC article this morning about exploitation in the cotton industry worldwide, it occurred to me that the root of most human rights problems is greed - or demand.

D is for Demand

What are the things we demand?  If we look at the world in general, I think it's clear:
(These are in no parituclar order, just as they occur to me)
1) Oil and plastics - hence all the conflict that drives the prices up, our continuing dependence on fossil fuels for all our energy needs despite the growing availability of green(er) alternatives like electric and salt water cars)

2) Coltan/tantalum - minerals I've discussed before that contribute to the conflict in eastern Congo where the bulk of this mineral is to be found on our planet (and also on that list should be copper, gold and tin, all of which are also to be found there); these minerals feature in electrical components in the bulk of electronic devices like computers and mobile phones

3) Cotton - this is in such high demand that people are trafficked in order to produce it, children work for nothing to process it (and there are reports of workers dropping from pure exhaustion and suffocating to death in the cotton itself)
This and similar points are the case with the production of many foodstuffs like chocolate, coffee and so on

4) Fruit and vegetables - this issue also applied to the items above, where GM techniques, pesticides and growth hormones are used to produce the food we DEMAND all year round regardless of the cost involved

We must face this simple truth: the chaos on our planet is driven by our greed.  If there were no demand for oil, we would not fight over it; if there were no demand for unethically produced fabrics and foods, people and the environment would not be destroyed to manufacture them.

If you want a wealth of information on the politics and pollution of the existing supply-DEMAND infrastructure, I strongly advise you to visit the Environmental Justice Foundation website.  It covers areas like cotton production, fishing, pesticides and on and on and on.

D is for Disdain

I know that anyone who visits the shop pages of organisations like EJF will be shocked to the point of abandonment, by the prices of their products, compared to the prices of massive chains like the Arcadia Group (Top Man/Top Shop for example).  And there's a reason for that.  We can't have it both ways: we either pay more for what we want so that the people providing the goods have the chance of a life like ours, or we pay less and simply accept that the cotton - for example - that constitutes our clothing may literally be full of their blood.

D is for Delusion

If we consider our society, it is painfully obvious to me that greed is our most fundamental problem.  No matter how much we have, we always want more.  Quite simply this is because our society is designed to feed and convince us of the lie that "if only I have x, my life will be fine".  And that can be anything from a material thing (like a computer game, a particular DVD or music album) to something more abstract (like the concept of having a boy/girlfriend, a house, a car, a family or whatever).

The problem with this is, that the more we feed this belief, the stronger it becomes, and one form of it leads to another.  Consumerism is designed to be self-perpetuating: I want a car, so I need a job, I need to take driving lessons, I need to buy insurance.  And once you have the car, you want a better car, a faster car, a safer car, whatever.  And with the abstract concepts it's worse: I want a boy/girlfriend, so I need better clothes, a better job, more money, a better body, I need to join a gym, take supplements, pay for cosmetic surgery.

And at the end of the day, the average person will tell you, all these efforts are not only unsuccessful, they are actually unhealthy and destructive.

D is for Dependence

I know from personal experience that it can take YEARS to overcome the society-cemented barrier of consumerism and see the 'real life' beyond it.  This is because the lies that are pushed on us from birth until we are 'freed' to live our own lives, are difficult to shake.  The old adage "It's easier to make a habit than to break one" hold true here too.

We become dependent on the lie.  We can see this all around us: the more unhappy a person is, the more they try to compensate by working, buying things, moving from place to place and/or sexual partner to sexual partner.  This is why the richest people in the world are often the loneliest and the most unhappy.

Dependence is any behaviour that we are unable to live without or that removes our freedom of choice.  By the latter definition, we could attribute dependence to anything in our lives: money, food, sex, oil, reading, cinema.  But we could also apply it to our very society.  Society, whether we notice it or not, is gradually removing our freedom of choice in order to create a race of automotons that will feed the economy without threatening it in any way whatsoever.

The endgame may well be that one day people will not break the law because there will be no legal due process remaining; people will not buy coffee from independent shops because there won't be any; people will have no choice because there will only be monopolies: Tesco, Starbucks, coalition government.  These all represent dependencies precisely because their existence and ongoing expansion is gradually removing our freedom of choice - not to mention the concept of individual free enterprise.

D is for Depression

Einstein defined insanity as the incessant repetition of a certain behaviour whilst expecting a varying/new result.

If that is true, then depression is the (un)conscious knowledge of our own insanity.  I believe that at some level, everyone is aware of the insanity that society is perpetuating, and their own insanity which is unwilling or impotent to escape from.

It is a subject of constant comment that our society is the most privileged in the world, and simultaneously has the highest suicide rates as well as incidence rates of mental ill health, drug dependency, addictions and so on.

Another symptom of depression is laziness.  I believe this is an offshoot of the same problem.  Our ultimate aspiration is to be in a position where we earn vast amounts of money while doing absolutely nothing - as in the multi-billionaire owner of a multinational super-conglomerate, the more so if their company is (practically at least) a monopoly - like Mexico's national telephone company (Carlos Slim Helu) and Microsoft (Bill Gates), representing the two largest personal fortunes in the world.

D is for Dumping

This in turn leads on from laziness.  The US is still the  largest exporter of cotton in the world.  China is the largest producer, but most of it is used domestically.  The US, by comparison, has discovered that it is easier and cheaper to simply export all of their cotton, and not for sale but for processing.

This has two negative side effects: first of all it destroys - to all intents and purposes - the cotton industries of other countries, especially small family-owned enterprises by demolishing the price of cotton through market flooding.  Second, and more important, it removes, to a large extent, the regulation of a cotton industry that doesn't exist: it is not the remit of the America cotton watchdog, the National Cotton Council of America, to regulate the use of American cotton overseas.

D is for Denial

The buck doesn't stop with cotton either.  It runs in a somewhat similar vein to the NDAA (National Defense Authorisation Act) that Obama signed at the end of 2011, breaching international human rights law by denying:
1) Local, national jurisprudence and
2) Legal due process as set out by any country on earth
(To reiterate: the NDAA in part authorises US military and/or intelligence operatives to arrest anyone of any nationality anywhere on earth and detain them at a US army base without trial for an indefinite period - for life if necessary).

I would say it is clear that the implication is the deniability of such actions as they take place on foreign soil so that arguing of whether to adopt one set of legislative statutes or another will delay application of either indefinitely.

D is for Death

All that these massive industries have in common is death: people die in the struggle for oil - very often, it seems, at the hands of intelligence operatives from various countries to ensure that the 'right' people get to power in order to favour contracts with one country or another.

For example, it's all very well for David Cameron (the UK's Prime Minister) and Dick Sawle (an MP in the Falklands) to claim that the Falkland Islanders want to remain British, but James Peck clearly preferred to take Argentine citizenship.  I wonder how many others share his sentiment but are unable to so easily follow through on it because of job and family ties.  What is clear, is that the UK private sector stands to make a fortune on the oil under the oceanic shelf surrounding the islands, and it is not inconceivable (30 years on) for there to be a repeat of the Falklands War.

The lessons of the film Syriana are strikingly similar: of two royal brothers, one is murdered to ensure that he doesn't take power and then take oil away from the US delegation already in negotiations with his younger brother.

D is for Damned

My outlook is bleak; it often is.  I have little enough faith in humanity and these are the simple issue.

The simple fact of the matter is that 'no-one' is going to get out of their car in protest at the true cost of oil.

No-one is going to spend GBP30 / USD50 on a T-shirt in protest at the true cost of cotton.

No-one is even going to email the manufacturers of their electronic communications devices to urge them to go conflict-free.

Or are they?

C is for Cameron

Most Importantly

2012 is apparently IYC, International Year of Co-Operatives.

So C is obviously for CO-OPERATIVE!

Intro

If ever a Prime Minister was controversially brought to power it was David Cameron.  Quite why the Lib Dems chose to partner with the Tories is beyond me - true they had to partner with SOMEONE, but the way they've been marginalised by Cameron's cabinet since winning the election is clear cut proof, to me, that they made a very bad judgement call.

And the last 3 days in UK politics alone is enough to convince me that Cameron is an idiot and a liar.

C is for Colonialism

If you follow this link you will find a story about the UK refusing to enter into negotiations with Argentina regarding sovereignty of the Falklands Islands.  The irony of this situation so close to the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War is not lost on anyone, I shouldn't think.

What amazes me, is that on the one hand Mr Cameron is accusing Argentina's motives of being colonial.  On the other hand he is so very obviously protecting his private investors (the notorious national public service tax cuts that always accompany Tory administration amount to this) - in this case the Wiltshire-based gas and oil exploration company Rockhopper who in the last few months have announced a commercially viable oil find of up to 60 billion barrels of oil in the waters surrounding the islands.

And again, the proximity of last years drop in offshore drilling by one-third (bring levels to their lowest since 2003), is of no small consequence.

I see Mr Cameron's surface point: the continuing or changing sovereignty of the Falklands is their business; but what I cannot stand is the obvious skullduggery of both nations - AND the United States who are also urging negotiations between the two countries, no doubt to protect their own oil interests via South America - in speaking of the issue as if it were to do with the political and economic rights of the islands, rather than their own interests in oil.

C is for Cuts

As if further proof were needed of the Tories ubiquitous tax reforms, two unions that represent the NHS, along with a multitude of 'independent' staff, are protesting at the government's proposed plans to make savings totalling GBP20 billion in the next three years.

And as if anyone needed reminding, that means unhappier staff, worse food, longer waiting times...

C is for Cycle

The cycle of Labour to Tory is absurd - even when the Tories are masquerading as Lib Dem.  Labour spend years building up public services to a reasonable standard by basically catering to the general public.

The Tories then spend years undoing all that work by cutting taxes to cater to the elite, rich minority.


C is for Collusion

The scarier side of our current administration is their action on secrecy versus human rights - specifically rendition, torture and legal due process.  As of 18th January 2012, the government is closing an enquiry into allegations that MI5 and MI6 were complicit in the rendition and torture of men in Libya.

At the same time, the justice and security green paper that I have previously written about is under review before going to the Commons.

Is anyone else seeing the only possible conclusion to this episode? 

I have no doubt that some how or other the bill resulting from the green paper will be pushed through, the current police investigations that are to be concluded before the inquiry is resurrected will become "a matter of national security", their results witheld from the public domain, the inquiry too and any action regarding the actions of our intelligence services in Libya will remain a state secret for at least 50 years.


C is for Conflict

Thanks to Blood Diamond and the general news media, most people are aware of the situation with conflict diamonds coming out of various African countries - I myself have already mentioned the situation between Russia and Zimbabwe.

Something I think is more important is the situation of "Conflict Minerals" because where as the average person in our society may not buy or have diamonds as personal posessions, the average person DOES have a mobile phone, a laptop and so on.

I may be wrong but I would consider the mobile phone the most important item to the average person as they have gradually replaced land line phones, MP3 players and now even computers to an ever extending degree.

Having done what little research is evident from my previous piece on the DRC, I discovered the widespread use of coltan in the form of tantalum in most modern electronic devices.  On the back of this, I contacted HP - the manufacturer of my current and previous computers - to ask about their policy on this.

I was relieved and delighted to find that HP is the industry leader in terms of ethics on conflict minerals as this link shows.  I do wonder where HP may be falling down, as they surely are somewhere; just as Intel and Motorola represent massive financial concerns for the nation of Israel, who are systematically displacing and killing what remains of the Palestinian minority - with Rick Santorum's help, it seems!

My HTC phone, interestingly enough, represents a massive financial concern for the unrecognised nation of Taiwan, which may explain why the company doesn't appear on the Enough Project's list.  At the time of writing I haven't got round to contacting HTC to ask about their policies on coltan and other conflict minerals, but it's on my to do list.  There's more on mobile phones here.

I'd be fascinated to hear what other people find out from their computer companies if they choose to contact them.

This link has a wealth of further information and recent news on the issue of conflict minerals, including Global Witness' recent withdrawal from the Kimberley Process (the process due to target the problem of dealing in conflict minerals globally).

C is for Congo

If C is for anything else, it must be Congo.  The suffering of the Congolese people while our lives are made simpler and simpler with materials that should be benefiting their country, is beyond belief.

Here's where you can do something about it.  Including emailing the 18 leading manufacturers of electronic devices asking them to act.

Rick Santorum

Who is this man?  How is he not dead simply because his brain isn't capable of maintaining bodily functions like breathing and his heartbeat?!

“There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land."

I wonder if he thinks and/or would say the same thing about the Native Americans living on reservations?  Or the migrant Mexican communities?

Someone please lobby Obama to have him institutionalised before someone kills him.  PLEASE!

B is for Banks

Intro

Banks are the villains of our societies at the moment aren't they?  I actually wonder whether that first sentence even DESERVES a question mark...

In the last few years they have plunged the world into recession through excessive lending, lack of foresight and just plain criminal activity.  More recently, western governments have actually bailed out these banks - effectively paying them for their stupidity - and in the last couple of months, the UK's prime minister, David Cameron, has refused to sign the EU treaty on the Eurozone debt crisis, arguing that it doesn't properly defend financial services competition or the UK banking industry.  Where he gets the gall to stick up for the very institutions that have ruined this country is beyond me.

B is for Banks

The attitude of banks lately has been so ridiculous that US membership of credit union organisations (banks and/or groups similar to the UK's Co-Operative group) rose by 650,000 members last year - following the Bank of America's proposal to slap a $5 account fee on its customers.  Whether their reversal of this decision has ballasted their sinking ship sufficiently is hard to say.

But it's not just their fellow citizens that banks are stealing from.  By carefully registering as offshore corporations (hence the presence of Barclays, HSBC and others in places like Jersey and the Isle of Man), they can loophole their way round tax laws in any country from which they operate, stealing millions - if not billions - from the country's infrastructure.

And it's not just the banks either.  Amazon and HMV are both registered in Jersey (where Amazon has the curious name Indigo Starfish) in order to avoid UK taxes - although in these examples, one might argue that the UK public makes back in savings what it loses on national taxes; the problem there, of course, is that accessible consumerism is a poor swap for decent public services that are already under threat from the ubiquitous Tory tax reforms.

One of my near future reading efforts is likely to be "Treasure Islands", which covers the topic of offshore finance centres.  Coming from the Isle of Man myself one might say that I've turned traitor because the finance industry provides literally thousands of jobs and millions of pounds of investment on the Isle of Man.  But there is a simple truth that seems to hold true regardless of the context: if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

I wonder how many foreign national debts could be paid off if one country started the domino effect of legislating against companies operating in their countries being able to avoid paying local taxes.

David Cameron's abandonment of the negotiations around the Eurozone crisis treaty is made all the more alarming considering that as recently as September 2011, Josef Ackermann (CEO of Deutsche Bank - the second largest banking group in the world after BNP Paribas) stated that most European financial institutions had ratings of "below the book value at best".

Considering that banks thrive on lending rates, the natural liquidity ratio of 10:1 (see the film Zeitgeist Addendum) and asset to liability ratios, this is a terrifying prospect.  In essence, Ackermann was saying that Europe is primed for a crash similar to Wall Street in 1929: below the book value at best, basically means that if people panic and start asking for their money in cash because they don't trust the banks, the average bank doesn't have enough cash to cover its liabilities.

It is interesting to note, then, that Ackermann was the target of a letter bomb sent to Deutsche Bank just 3 months later (December 2011).

B is for Bullshit

The other side of the coin with banking is the double standards applied.  On the one hand, banks are trying to bolster themselves by continuing to lend fictional money.  According to Zeitgeist Addendum, in 1950s America, a man successfully won the right to keep his house, after the bank foreclosed on his mortgage, because he proved to the court's satisfaction that the money lent to him DID NOT EXIST, until he asked for it.

In a more modern context, the World Bank looks set to create and then loan $6.2 trillion to Obama's administration, while telling the entire Developing World, that they should be ready for global belt tightening.

More simply put: banks thrive by lending money to those who can pay it back while telling those who NEED it, that they don't have it.

Let's say that YOU (my dear reader) are someone who needs money.  You have a small but steady account with your bank.  They make money by loaning your deposit to someone else and charging them more interest than they pay to you.  The large borrower has assets to back up their request so the money is loaned.  What happened over the last few years with a number of banks and other financial institutions is that their massive nets of borrowers couldn't repay because they over-borrowed (something for which their was no industry set protocol) so the bank began seizing assets.  This action created the recession because suddenly YOU didn't have your money, the bank had a load of assets and was faced with a devalued market where these seized assets didn't have sufficient value to cover their liabilities.

In other words: the rich man had so many debts that he couldn't pay everything back so the bank took his house; because this happened on a massive scale, the house wasn't worth as much and the poor man lost his money.  The government picked up the tab, something the poor man will be forced to pay for till kingdom come, while the rich man continues to profit from his untaxable offshore holdings.


I'll be returning to B as soon as possible - bullets, bombs...

But for now, I think banks is enough to be going on with.  Regardless of any other factor, I should think the generic and recent history specific behaviour of banks should encourage everyone to opt out and head for Co-Op or another credit union in terms of looking after their money.

http://www.findyourcreditunion.co.uk/home

A is for AIDs

Intro
OK, back to basics a little here.  I think I lost my sense of human RIGHTs with all my writing about politics.  So here's back to the alphabet idea, and see if I can't tackle the whole thing a little better this time.

A standing for AIDs is an obvious one, but it seems to me that it must go hand-in-hand with awareness and assault.  In many places - especially rural parts of most countries - AIDs is little understood beyond the fact that it kills people, and its deadly spread is largely due to sexual assault, which has become THE weapon of choice it seems.  There'll be more on sexual assault separately under R is for Rape I should think.

A is for AIDs

In various readings over the years I've come across the idea that it seems likely that AIDs first appeared in human form in west-central Africa, that its terrifying spread is in part due to the Kinchasa Highway, and that it is the modern day equivalent of leprosy.  Since its 'discovery' in 1981, AIDs has infected 60 million people worldwide, almost half of whom have died as a result.  2 million new cases are estimated each year and with the ongoing rate of infection and the lack of impact in educating people in how to prevent it, the mortality rate is only climbing.

There are already 14 million AIDs orphans, and many are born HIV positive or contract it through breastfeeding.

This is an issue in itself: one of the most effective ways of preventing mother-to-child infection is for the mother not to breastfeed.  But if there is no option?  If the mother doesn't breastfeed, the child WILL die; if she does, it will only PROBABLY die.

For my part, South Africa is the place to look in terms of working with AIDs.  With nearly 6 million people infected, 18% of people have AIDs...

BUT...

Demographics are more telling: 1 in 3 South African women between 25 and 29 have the disease; and 1 in 4 men between 30 and 34 have it.

Causes for Hope

In 1997, the number of deaths in South Africa attributed to AIDs was approximately 300,000.  In 2006, it was double that number.
In 2011 it was back down to 300,000 because the South African government launched a massive HIV counselling and testing campaign in 2010.

2 million of the world's 14 million AIDs orphans are in South Africa alone.

There is still a massive amount to be done, but progress is being made.

Notably, an article in Nature (International weekly journal of science) printed an article on January 4th of this year saying that scientists have had some initial success trialing a vaccine on monkeys with SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus - the strain that is believed to be the origine of HIV).  Monkeys can be safely tested because of the similarity of the viral strains, and because HIV does not cause disease in monkeys.
In theory I'm not in favour of testing anything on animals, but this has been done, and for the millions of AIDs sufferers worldwide, it is a cause for hope.

http://www.nature.com/news/monkey-vaccine-hints-at-how-to-stop-hiv-1.9738


It is interesting to me that the proposed origin of AIDs coincides with the geographical location of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which I have written about previously, quoting the notion that it is the rape capital of the world.

A is for assault

Rape is a major cause of the prevalence of AIDs in South Africa.  If you look at the rape/sexual assault statistics here it is horrific to consider the violence that is spreading the disease.

But that brings us to an interesting point.  Beyond treating AIDs and ending gender-based violence there must be some kind of work towards bringing greater understanding.

I recently listened to a Nottingham University podcast featuring Nigel Hunt, author of "Memory, War and Trauma", talking about the psychological effects of war on both individuals and societies.  He noted, as a simple fact, that better educated people are more likely to cope with traumatic events than uneducated people.

With such a widespread use of rape and violence in the African continent, I can't help but remember, with disgust, the UK's failure to ratify the Europen Convention on Domestic Violence.

Overall, I don't think it's feasible to tackle the problem of violence and rape head on.  It has to be dealt with sideways.  To explain: if we stand up and protect the most vulnerable people in any situation, we only confirm their weakness.  If we stand up and lecture the opposition on behalf of someone, we only confirm their lack of education.

So, this issue will be visited further in R is for Rape as well as E is for Education and Empowerment.

A is for Awareness

What do you know about AIDs?  What can you do about it?

www.avert.org

United States of Assault

Syriana is a fascinating film, is it not?  In broad terms it portrays the difference in foreign policy between the Republicans and the Democrats.  One opts for diplomacy followed by assassination, the other opts for assassination outright.  (I'm not saying this is truly the case but in very broad terms that is the premise of the film in the context of Arab oil dealings).

And what do we find this morning?  A story in the Guardian newspaper claiming that Iranian nuclear scientists are being murdered, not assassinated.

The US is putting increasing pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons programme and ordering sanctions against them and any country still doing business with them in terms of oil - including China.

In the last couple of years, three such scientists have "turned up dead" as Rick Santorum so delicately put it (alongside airing his view of it being 'wonderful' - sentiments echoed by the Israeli military spokesman and British historian, Michael Burleigh).

Where this insufferable arrogance and disdain for human life originates from is beyond me.  To the best of my knowledge, all three scientists were in their 30s, with young families.

Based on my limited knowledge, it seems clear to me that it is inconceivable that US non-acceptance of Iran's activities (I stop short of siding with the US attitude that it constitutes a "nuclear weapons programme" as being a concept without proof, much like the commencement of war on the basis of apparently invisible weapons of mass destruction), has nothing to do with these "assassinations" since they so clearly align with apparent US foreign policy.

The alternative?  Well the simple answer is that these deaths are state-sponsored murder designed to further US foreign policy in Iran - that is, to decommission their nuclear weapons programme and try to stabilise the Arabian peninsula and, thereby, international oil prices...or perhaps to continue to destabilise the area and drive prices ever higher.

In more detail, this will involve deals done by local hitmen with large wads of cash in their pockets (or their families pockets), US intelligence operatives with no accountability and low- to mid-level politicians with utterly plausible deniability - all of which will, no doubt, become common knowledge...in about 50 years.  In the meantime AND thereafter, no prosecutions will be made since the US is only happy to advocate the existence of the ICC as long as its statutes aren't brought to bear upon US citizenry (despite the US having been instrumental in the ICC's inception).

In other news, Hilary Clinton is visiting various countries in north-west Africa, looking to secure the routes and ports for exporting Nigerian oil as well as strengthening ties with the corrupt coffee and cocoa industries that see 40,000 people a year being trafficked throughout sub-Saharan Africa.


I may stop writing this kind of entry soon: studying politics is an exercise in futility - just as the study of international human rights politics is a preparation for a life of cynicism.

If I replace it with anything, it will be pieces on charities and activists on the ground.

Politicians are liars, politics is illusion and side-show.

Only direct contact and action has a chance of being deemed authentic.

Shame

Fresh-faced from the frosty night during which I've seen Steve McQueen's new film "Shame".

Word to the uninformed: Steve McQueen is the name of the director, the 60s icon still being dead!

Seeing Shame was fascinating for a number of reasons.  First of all I feel compelled to compare it to War Horse because there certifications are miles apart, their subject matter utterly different and there mood and pace incomparable.

What I realised is that my reaction to War Horse was to do with the mood communication.  What I saw of the film was a non-stop assault on my senses and it utterly destroyed my composure because it was an upsetting theme, shown in an upsetting way with far too little done in terms of balance - that is, by way of humour or what have you.  All of this was compacted by the fact that after the first few minutes, the pace is bone-jarringly relentless.

Shame, on the other hand, is another study in slow build - very similar in style to Harry Brown and Drive.  A lot of people don't like this style and I can easily understand why, but to me it makes very painful subject matter more accessible precisely because it is a very gradual descent into the mindset of the main character: Harry Brown's vengeful rage, Drive's protective homicide and Shame's self-absorbed sex addiction.

There are brief moments where the film verges on ridiculous - notably the nude scenes at the opening; but I think overall these moments are intended to be visually humorous, albeit in a very adult way.  It's all part of a very underplayed introduction that just barely confirms the synopsis of Michael Fassbender's character as an addict.

His sister - wittily name Sissy - is played by the adorable Carey Mulligan.  I can't help but wonder at her presence in another so emotionally intense film.  When Brandon (Fassbender) discovers her arrival at his apartment, the 80s classic 'I Want Your Love' is playing.  It's not a subtle herald, but there is something wonderfully acceptable about it all the same.

The film is full of such delightful little touches, including the much praised scene of Sissy's rendering of 'New York, New York', which despite himself, moves Brandon to tears.

Without giving too much away, the film is as much about the twisted dynamic of the sibling relationship as it is about Brandon's addiction.  It is difficult subject matter but it is handled as tastefully as the vehicle allows, and the descent is very gentle indeed and through the skills of both McQueen and Fassbender, by the end we actually feel sorry for Brandon and hope for better things.

DRC Goes Mobile

I have already made my attitudes towards US Exceptionalism and international interference / manipulation well known I think.  Suffice it to say, as a brief summary at this point, that the US constantly and consistently sets itself up as God on this planet, abusing all peoples equally for the sake of their own selfish interests.

I want to add here that when I write of the US in this way, I am not singling them out for bad-mouthing.  The same is true of all the major players in today's global society, including the UK.  The reason I consider the US more culpable than its fellows in the UN's Big 5 is that they are more powerful, one way and another, and therefore more influential.

I have already written on the subject of oil, and I think it a no-brainer as to why: all countries are addicted to petroleum - a line used in the 1997 film Chain Reaction, and even then it wasn't news.  The world depends on oil for far too much: fuels of various kinds and plastic and the two major categories.

Today I want to consider a different substance: tantalum.  Tantalum is used to produce electronic components, particularly in computers and mobile phones.  If our addiction to oil represents our dependence on cars, then we are also addicted to tantalum, which represents our dependence on computers and phones.

Now, what does this have to do with the Democratic Republic of Congo?  Well, tantalum is extracted from a mineral called coltan and 70% of the world supply comes from the DRC.

It is painfully ironic how the unspoken, unwritten rules of economics play with the poor: the DRC has the second lowest nominal GDP per capita in the world.  In layman's terms, this means that the average person in the DRC is forced to survive on an annual income of little more than US$300.

The other side of the economy irony coin is that the DRC's untapped mineral wealth is estimated to make it the richest country in the world - its natural resources are conservatively estimated to be worth $24 trillion!  In addition, 50% of Africa's remaining forests are to be found there, along with a river system that could be harnessed to the point of providing hydro-electric power to the entire African continent.

The explanation for this gaping paradox is, of course, politics: the DRC is one of the 20 most corrupt countries on earth, and with the ongoing fighting and resulting smuggling of conflict diamonds and minerals, it looks set to head nowhere fast, especially with the ongoing disputes over the re-election of Joseph Kabila in November of last year.

If you look at the news articles on the BBC, or better yet read the book "Half the Sky", you will see enough evidence for the UN's nicknaming of the country: the rape capital of the world.  According to a study mentioned in the Huffington post, the rate is equivalent to 48 sexual assaults every hour. 

That's basically one woman being raped every 75 seconds.

This is done to destroy communities and keep the country off balance - the stigma, disease and pregnancy-related problems mean that rape is a very effective way of targeting specific areas.

And where are the Big 5 in all of this?  Well, quite predictably (with a record that boasts the activities of the L'oreal-Nestle partnership) Switzerland is burrowed in deep, but the major player there is China.  With the preferential terms over mining that they have one in return for their 'bolstering' of the economy (ripping off the poor and rewarding the rich as usual) it's no wonder that people are unhappy about Kabila's administration.

And of course, the UN is nowhere to be seen because China will veto action proposals for fear of losing its lucrative, monopolising presence there.  We all know that almost everything is made in China, and this is how they obtain the resources to do it.  And no-one is going to upset the situation further because with 70% of the world's coltan there, we cannot 'afford' to cut off ties either with the DRC where the mineral is, nor with China that apparently produces almost 50% of all products on earth.

How many of us would be willing to give up our computers or phones for the sake of a war-torn, corrupt country in central Africa simply because their production depends on the rape of 1,000 women a day?

Film Standards

Following my outrage at the state of War Horse and its certification, I thought I'd air some thoughts about what may be happening to the film industry and its standards.

Based purely on my own experience, I would say that when I was young - so going back anything from 15 to 25 years - the majority of films seemed to be aimed at teenagers and young adults: the number of films with a 15 or 18 certificate at the cinema seemed remarkable.  Films that were for general consumption were quite few and far between, or so it seemed to me.  Does anyone agree?

Somewhere during the last 20 years or so, the film industry has realised something: the more people they can get in to see a film, the more money they can make.  And with the rise of the incredibly talented film writer, we have films like Shrek, studios like Pixar and Dreamworks, and a whole array of ever-improving animation techniques, which all combine to produce films that can appeal to children, but also keep adults wonderfully entertained - much like most of Neil Gaiman's books.

But now a door seems to have been opened.

I can remember, not even that long ago, the murder of James Bulger bringing to the arena of the public press, the debate of whether violent films and computer games were creating violent individuals.  While it seems unlikely as a sole cause, there is no doubt that a violent environment can lead to violent tendencies in an individual - as in the abused child who grows up to abuse his own children or others.

The dilemma in the film industry, it seems, is not "Who/what age group is this film intended for?", but rather, "How can we get this film to the widest audience possible?"

As a result, as I wrote about briefly before, there is now a 12A film about the First World War - subject matter that I would have thought most people reticent to invite 15-year olds to watch, never mind 12.  The loophole here is the lack of bloody/gory violence, but the psychological violence is clear.

Having got so far with entertaining audiences of all ages with a single film, Hollywood now seems to be trying to entertain audiences of all ages, with any film.  The proof of this, to me, is that compared to when I was a child, there seem to be far fewer 15 rated films, and 18 rated films are unusual to the point of rarity.

Maybe I'm alone in my outrage, but it seems to me that an historical event as harrowing as the First World War is not good ENTERTAINMENT (and that is the vital world in the sphere of cinema I think) matter for someone as young as 12 - and with a 12A, parents are actually permitted to take younger children!

From here I can sense a slippery descent into madness.  Films have changed so much already.  There was a time when a film like War Horse would have been an 18 in this country, then a 15, now a 12A.  Where will it end?  And what does the BBFC think has changed so much that this gradual lowering of standards is a good idea, never mind acceptable?

I would hazard a guess that if such lowering of standards goes unchecked, it won't be long before a 12A film is allowed to contain the kind of bloody violence that is currently unacceptable; a 15 will contain the graphic sex scenes that are currently only permitted in 18 rated films, and an 18 certification will be reserved for films like Human Centipede II, a horror film that the BBFC has just outright banned in the UK.

Films

I suddenly realised that I haven't been keeping up with my film writing.

The first film I'm going to talk about is "The Darkest Hour", about an invasion of invisible aliens, with the main story taking place in Moscow.  As usual I'll try to avoid giving things away.  First of all the main character is Emile Hirsch, who I've been looking out for as a future great ever since I saw him in Speed Racer.

To put it in a nutshell, The Darkest Hour is quite entertaining - but only once you've accepted that it is lovable as one of those myriad films that fit the B-movie horror genre (as in lovable in a slightly absurd kind of way).  The story flows well enough but the script is questionable, and so is much of the acting - especially the Australian girl that makes up one of the lead foursome (one half of whom predictably ends up dead!)
If you're into this slightly silly sub-genre of cheesy horror, you'll love this.  I wasn't sure what to expect and I still enjoyed it reasonably well - accepting, finally, that its cheesiness is a kind of charm.



Next, there's the much talked-of "War Horse".  Even before I went to see it, I had my doubts and worries about the wisdom of allowing any film about the First World War to be rated as a 12A, no matter how many legs or how much hair the main character has!  Sadly, on this occasion my fears were well-founded.  For the first part of the story, we are safely far away from the battlefields of France, and the story is progressing along the lines of "Babe" but with a horse.  But as soon as the focus shifts to the war, the first images that confirm my fears begin to emerge: men being struck down by machine gun fire and the bodies of both men and horses littering foreign fields.  Then we see part of the 'enslavement' of horses as transports of war machinery until they literally drop dead.  So far, so bad...the clincher for me was a scene wherein the horse is tearing across an open battlefield until he is literally wrapped from tail to tooth in ream after ream of barbed wire.

At that point I got up and left the screen and made my disgust known to cinema staff, who assured me warnings would be posted.  And the BBFC is not going to hear the end of this in a hurry.



Then there's "The Artist".  This film is what it is touted to be, believe me: every aspect of it is a sublime work of art, from the black and white film overall and the old-fashioned credit style, to the makeup, costumes and the deliciously underplayed soundtrack.
In theory the lack of spoken dialogue is a serious sticking point, but I found it beautifully refreshing to watch a film where there isn't the constant aural assault of voices to deal with.  And the use of fullscreen subtitles is very delicately and infrequently used.  It gives the whole film the feeling of harking back to a time where words were used with deliberation and care - a far cry from what they have become!
Quite simply, The Artist views like a wonderfully stylised realisation of a short story, and the obligatory twist in the tale is so delicately played out that for once it feels like a resolution, not like a slap in the face that necessitates seeing the whole film again.
The Artist is a return to an old top form of film-making that has been sorely missed I suspect.  There is a wondrous integrity to everything about the film, the more so because of silence over dialogue.

Even I will admit that the 'threats' of an Oscar for the dog are pushing things a little!

America's Crude War on Venezuela and Iran

It is a simple fact to my mind: the state of political and economic war - in the wake of declining military war, for which we may be thankful? - is due to the cost of oil.

One way and another, conflict is used to drive the cost of oil and keep the ultra-rich on the path to godhood.

However, since his installation as President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has nationalised a large proportion of the country's economic base, including the oil industry.  Critics rage that this has contributed to the high inflation rate, while supporters say it has given access to the profits from this industry to the people.

Either way, Mr Chavez has, I am certain, become a target of economic assassination.  Besides weakening America's influence in that part of South America, his nationalisation of Venezuela's oil industry has robbed the US of that income, as well as driving up the cost of Venezuelan oil being exported to the US (about 45% of their total annual production).  His actions have also strained relations with the pro-US government in Colombia.

In addition, his covert disdain for American influence in his continent - never mind his country - has left him with few places to turn than other "enemies" of the United States, most recently Iran.  Even as the US pressures Iran to give up its nuclear weapons programme and Iran aggressively refuses, threatening oil export routes, Venezuela is one on a list of South American countries currently being visited by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Despite America's continued stance on oil, it looks like their position may be weakening in the face of a new web of alliances between the Middle East and South America - both of whom it depends on for continued oil supply and/or safety of transport (no matter who the oil companies may be owned by).

On the other hand, with economic assassination having failed in the face of what one might judge as Mr Chavez's loyalty to his country and his people, he may be on a black op hit list, destined for "retirement" any day now.  That is the usual routine of economic assassination if the usual inducements aren't effective.

But America may well be forced to be careful.  Despite Middle East projections, it is Venezuela (not Saudi Arabia) that is the PROVEN holder of the largest oil reserves on earth.

China's Economy, Taiwan, Tibet and the US

The BBC is heralding 2012 as a year of major change in China and it's not hard to see why.

China's leaders will be replaced later this year - which is no doubt driving a silent crackdown on dissent and an avoidance of any kind of controversial decision.  And with their economy already set for its worst quarter in years, the upcoming American presidential elections must also have them worried.  A Chinese-dominated market has been on the cards for over a decade, but it seems that even that behemoth can't avoid the minefield of the global recession.

And on top of that has been the bombshell about the "streamlining" of America's armed forces, pulling away from the hornets nest of the Middle East and shifting their focus to the Asian-Pacific region - which, experts generally seem to agree, means China.  On the one hand, Obama proclaim's their welcome of China's peaceful rise to economic power, but at the same time openly proclaims their military restructuring as a way of maintaining their global leadership and military superiority.

Now, why does this concern Taiwan, or indeed Tibet?

Well, Taiwan also has elections forthcoming, and the continued self-immolation by various Tibetan monks and nuns are of massive global concern.  The very nature of such acts of protests is guaranteed to bring the issue to the world stage.  First the act is reported, then condemned by the Dalai Lama, who is then blamed for insiting such protests by the Chinese government.  Every step on this path is a step towards full recognition of the problem.

And the problem is, that China is looking to be accorded the title "superpower" in terms of its economic strength and perhaps, ultimately, its military strength.  This is, no doubt, America's worry, and why they are pressuring China in terms of their military presence in South-East Asia, and a presumably state-engineered decline in demand for Chinese exports (something that is being mirrored in Europe).

With so much pressure, and so much spotlight on its human rights abuse record - in a year that may be more about saving money on military campaigns than truly about authentic concern for human rights welfare - China is in no position to upset anyone.  If there was ever a time that Taiwan might successfully push for global recognition, and Tibet might at last be free, it must surely be now.  China's proposition to extend national benefits to Tibetan monks back in November seems to support this idea, but with China, it's impossible to tell.

The tragicomic element of all this is that China's actions are only a very grey area - never mind dividing line - away from the actions of the US or the UK or any other significant globally powerful country.  But because its rise and spread threatens the security of America's position as THE global superpower, they too are coming under fire.  Still, if the end result is to be independence for Taiwan and Tibet, perhaps it is something to be tolerated, for now.

http://www.freetibet.org/

In other news, the emotion of Grief, has been linked to a higher risk of heart attack.

It seems one can die of a broken heart after all.

Yemen 'n' Saleh

It seems that despite the criticism of Navi Pillay, Yemen has gone so far as to draft the amnesty law that will grant President Saleh and his family immunity from prosecution for any human rights abuses committed during his 33-year rule of the country.

Feeling somewhat cynical about the global attitude to human rights as a whole, I might almost be tempted to say that they have proceeded precisely BECAUSE the action was condemned by the UN.  At least on the face of it, the UN's condemnation would stand as positive proof that there would be very serious repercussions if Saleh and/or his family were ever put on trial for their actions.

There is a notion, or so observation tells me, that human rights itself is a divided issue: there are those that argue for the rights of the 'collective' over the rights of the individual, and those that argue the opposite.  For my part, I stand with St Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians: If one part suffers, every part suffers with it.  My reason for agreeing with him - in or out of a Christian context - is precisely in line with what has been happening in the US and the UK lately.

The US has just adopted the NDAA (National Defense Authorisation Act), effectively allowing the indefinite detention, sans legal due process, of any person, of any nationality, anywhere by US military or intelligence operatives.
The UK is half way towards adopting the law following on from its justice and security Green Paper that would allow any evidence that is deemd 'sensitive' (in any trial) to be witheld from the public and the subsequent ruling on the trial to likewise be witheld.

The justifications given for both these legislative actions is, of course, "national security".  In other words, these two governments are choosing the good of the 'collective' over the good of the individual.  In the former case, detainees will have no recourse to local, national or international justice as they will simply 'disappear' into one the US's myriad army bases across the world.
In the latter case, those being tried will find themselves in the untenable situation of trying to defend themselves against evidence of which they themselves have no knowledge, and nor will they find any recourse in a media vehicle that has no knowledge of their trial or its outcome.

In the case of Yemen, one might say that the country is looking to invert its situation: where everyone has been suffering but one family, they want no-one to suffer except the one family.  I, personally, would ask the question, what will happen to Saleh and his family once he steps down from office?  Is he to be deported for his own safety, or will he remain in Yemen under the protection of the law?  And on the other hand, would the protection of the law actually ensure his safety?

One could argue that the presence of AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), Saleh has only remained in power this long as a smoke screen for their presence.  Would a popular, democratically elected government try to allow US access to Yemen in a hunt for, among others, Anwar Al-Awlaki - the preacher linked to various plane bomb attempts in 2009 and 2010.

And the US' desire to hunt for members of AQAP in Yemen opens another can of worms entirely.  As Noam Chomsky has routinely been at pains to point out: when considering the "righteousness" of the US' so-called War on Terror, very few people consider the provocatory actions of the US against a multitude of countries that lead to deep-seated hatred - generally the economic sanctions that do little to accomplish anything than cause further pain to the common man as the despotic dictator of his nation leaves less and less for public spending in order to make up the sanction shortfalls.

It seems that, in many instances, the term "human rights abuse" is little more than synonimous with "incompatible with US foreign interests".  Where once Communism was the defining label of a Soviet satellite state (whether part of the USSR or not), economically speaking the same thing is now true of democracy and US satellite states.

What Yemen must decide is how badly they want President Saleh out of power.  If they simply want a new leader and the promise of democratic reform, they may have to abide his continued existence.  If they threaten to refuse to accept the amnesty law, they may have to prepare themselves for violent repercussions as Saleh uses all means necessary to hold on to power.

And in the background, AQAD must be praying that America's 'streamlined' military capacity will forestall any thoughts of returning to Middle East so soon, however attractive the potential benefits, if indeed Saleh steps down and/or a properly elected representational government is formed.

For your consideration in terms of "what then must we do", I have found the charity 'Qatar Charity', which operates in Yemen and much of the Middle East region I wrote about previously - including Somalia.
http://www.qcharity.com/en/

European Convention on Domestic Violence Action

Well, it was entirely by accident, but following my previous post about the Istanbul Convention, I've been able to find a site where you can sign a petition to pressure the UK government into signing this piece of legislation.

http://action.goingtowork.org.uk/page/s/tell-the-uk-government-to-match-its-rhetoric-on-violence-against-women

Go sign it, tell your friends, your girlfriend/boyfriend's friends, family...TELL THE WORLD!!!

From Abkhazia to Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Yemen

Although I acknowledge the inaccuracies of my last post (-) on Abkhazia, I am rapidly acquiring the idea that much of what is happening in the news of late, is partly a welcome change in terms of various countries where human rights abuse is not just commonplace but expected - in the case of Bahrain and the recent beating of activist Nabeel Rajab the BBC website states that,
"Confrontations between security forces and demonstrators occur almost daily."

To give the next paragraph context, please have a map of the Middle East open - I used this one:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
(Link will open in a new window)


From the continuing conflict between Russia and the US in Abkhazia and Georgia,
the extension of a state of emergency in the "oil town" of Zhanaozen across the Caspian Sea in western Kazakhstan,
the continuing tension between Turkey and Armenia over the much-denied Turkish genocide of Armenians almost a century ago,
the crackdown on political dissent in Azerbaijan towards the end of 2011,
the arrest of Turkey's General Ilker Basbug over allegations of government overthrow plans,
the recent bomb blast in Damascus,
the endless tension and violence between Israel and Palestine,
three consecutive days of roadside bombings in Iraq (hot on the heels of America's declaration of military downsizing and their withdrawal in December),
Iran tightening its grip on control of the seas around the Middle East (including the oil shipping routes that could threaten Western economies and energy needs),
the 105,000 stateless bidoons in Kuwait in stark contrast to the looming $9bn Chinese oil refinery deal,
the UN's alarm at an increasing rate of state-condoned execution and other capital punishment in Saudi Arabia (according to Amnesty International this is often to silence those simply exercising their right to freedom of speech and religion),
the fore-mentioned beating of Nabeel Rajab in Bahrain (as well as the linked "scandal" over the Countess of Wessex's gift of jewellery)...

the trail of chaos runs all the way from the Caucasus to Yemen on the south-west tip of the Arabian Peninsula, where the current President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, is only willing to step down from power next month if he is granted immunity from prosecution for human rights abuses.
And just across the water, the political mayhem continues in Egypt, North and South Sudan and Somalia.
The Middle East is an alphabet soup of utter political and economic chaos.

Against the news that Russia has surpassed Saudi Arabia in oil production, we must weigh the fact that this is based on last year's figures, not Saudi Arabia's unannounced projected production for this year.

At each turn there is cause to question the politics involved: who is manipulating who, in other words?  Is Russia manipulating Abkhazia and South Ossetia?  Is the US manipulating Georgia?  And has the US ever NOT been manipulating the Arabian states since its installation of the Israeli state?  And is Saudi Arabia manipulating everyone, running rough shod over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights while they keep the entire region unstable for their own benefit, trying to recover on losses?

Or is the US using its systems of political and economic assassination - I HERE REFER THE READER TO THE FILM "ZEITGEIST: ADDENDUM" AND THE BOOK "CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN" BY JOHN PERKINS -
to continually destabilise the entire Middle Eastern region so it can hold the rest of the world to ransom with oil prices?

In the opening chapter of his book "Crimes Against Humanity", Geoffrey Robertson lays down a brief but concise history of the evolution of human rights.  Initially they were based on might makes right, and in some senses not much has changed - it is still the ruling attitude in Burma and Zimbabwe, for example.

So the ultimate, original "right" was the Divine Right of Kings, and for a long time it held sway.  Ultimately, though, it was removed - however gradually - starting with the trial and execution of England's Charles I (beheaded in 1649).  This has been compounded more recently by the trial at the Hague of Slobodan Milosevic, as well as the Arusha trials after Rwanda.

Later, the most important "right" was considered that of the individual to their life and liberty - going through various "drafts" in England and France before (questionably) finding its paradigm in the US Bill of Rights.  This has gradually been magnified, it seems, so that "life and liberty" now means the freedom of some hegeminous despot or party to tyrannise their own people without fear of repercussions at an international level.

Robertson seems to argue that things are slowly changing, using the examples of Yugoslavia, Rwanda and so on.  But are things really changing?

If we combine the idea of economic assassination and that of human rights lobbying (which is effectively what the US and UK visits to Burma constitute), then things aren't really changing, they're simply going through a different kind of evolution.  Are the US and the UK really interested in human rights in Burma?  I very much doubt it, however much public opinion might be brought to bear upon the matter.  The simple truth is that China poses such a massive economic threat already, that unless democracy can be installed in the countries China currently subjugates, the US and UK economies will never be able to survive - reliant as they already are on a vast array of Chinese exports.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were news, soon, of similar visits to Tibet and/or China on the subject of that country's loss of freedom.

The point is, human rights only seem to hit the international agenda when they are aligned with the interests of one of the Big 5 at the UN - most especially the UK and the US, less so Russia and China.

And here is the question:
When the UN begs Yemen not to make a deal of amnesty with its current President, it is only voicing the voices of the Security Council, and that basically means the Big 5, none of whom can have seen fit to veto the idea; but would the Security Council ever sanction such "action" against one of the Big 5?  Of course not. 
Not even when the US President signs the National Defense Authorisation Act, which will legally allow his administration to detain, indefinitely and without trial, any person, of any nationality, ANYWHERE!

Our supposed freedom to life and liberty is only so long as it doesn't impinge on the interests of another, at an individual level or an international level.  That seems to be the crux of the matter.  But our governments are now extrapolating from this concept, the idea that no-one may do anything that may impinge on the possible interests of another at any point in the future for any reason whatsoever.

This, then, is why we must fight for the rights of others: because even as they lose theirs, we give permission to others to take our own.