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.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
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!
“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
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
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
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
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.
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.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)