Something tells me that the story of the Mabhouh murder in Dubai has more legs than it has already run on, and it appears to be the apex of a trend of continuing stories coming out of Dubai and UK papers over the last year or so.
Yesterday, a minor leak in a Dubai shopping mall aquarium was picked up by a major UK paper and put it as the latest in a litany of Dubai 'misfortunes' that were recited: a bad real-estate sector, a lift problem in the Burj Khalifa (tallest building in the world), the Mabhouh murder and now the aquarium leak that closed down a section of the mall for a few hours. If you follow the story between the lines, you may think that Dubai may turn out to be more 'unstable and unsafe' than Afghanistan in a couple of weeks or so!
Well, on a scale of disasters, the simultaneous weekend closure of the Jubilee and District and Hammersmith lines was more disruption to many more people (yours truly included) than any of the aforementioned incidents in Dubai. At least, Dubai reportedly completed its metro train project ahead of schedule (something that works like the DLR but more extensive), something Tubelines can learn from.
OK, back to the Dubai thing. Dubai knows it has someone on its back -- something has turned against it. The scathing criticism in the Western media, though with cause, was much resented there. So, now Dubai is playing its cards as it knows that this might it has to counter-attack. This little PR skirmish has much greater repercussions with the whole US-Iran-Israel game in the Middle East. More on this in a later.post.
Insightful Debate at Newsweek
With Joe Stack flying a plane into a building in Austin, Newsweek did some soul-searching over using the word 'terrorist', and provided insight into their internal e-mail debate. Admittedly, the language has changed since 9/11.
Michael Isikoff: . . .And as for your point— haven't domestic groups declared war on the government and demonstrated a willingness to inflict mass casualties— well — I'm sure some domestic wackos have said wacko things, but I cant off the top o f my head think of a serious domestic group that has openly declared "war" on the United States or one currently in existence that has a documented history of inflicting mass casualties on civilians or announced its intention to do so in the future — all of which applies to Al Qaeda.
Mark HosenballThanks to Drudge — no Osama either, though perhaps a political party of one — we now know that the Austin plane crash guy had a famous admirer. This doesn't make Wesley Snipes a terrorist or even a sympathizer. but it does make you wonder how much difference there is between some of the American cultural icons (like Snipes and maybe Glenn Beck but not Drudge or Palin) who enable or validate some views on the lunatic fringe and the rabid Wahhabi clerics in the Muslim world who aren't terrorists, but foster a culture in which they breed.
Michael Hirsh, Senior Editor, Washington Web Editor: Isikoff pretty much has it right. Al Qaeda and Islamist extremism co-opted the term "terrorist" after 9/11. No one had any problem calling Timothy McVeigh a domestic terrorist before 9/11.
And Stack is pretty isolated. There was the same fear after OK City. But it turns out there aren't as many copycat killings of this nature as there are, say, school shootings.
Democracy and Big Business
Banking CEOs find the time to 'coach' kids out of college who are going to write the legislation to reign in the financial industry:
In case we forget, greedy credit-rating agencies were at the epicentre of the financial collapse. Here is the US government fighting with consumer credit-rating agencies with ads mocking them after they could not do anything:
Kicking off a two-day event designed to "help" legislative aides who will be writing the rules designed to rein in and reform Wall Street, the CEOs made it clear that they would be there "anytime" a young, confused congressional aide needed help understanding a complex topic.
"Call us, say we met in Washington," said Richard Davis, chairman, president and CEO of U.S. Bancorp. "We'd love to help."
In case we forget, greedy credit-rating agencies were at the epicentre of the financial collapse. Here is the US government fighting with consumer credit-rating agencies with ads mocking them after they could not do anything:
. . . Possin is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Experian that seeks to "stop the fraud and seek compensation for the tens of thousands of consumers deceived by Experian's FreeCreditReport.com to the tune of millions of fraudulently obtained profits."
The complaint notes that the Federal Trade Commission has repeatedly won settlements from Experian for its advertising, to no avail. "The fact that the government got involved a few years ago shows that this is consumer fraud," said Balestriere. (The FTC ultimately started trying to fight back with parodies of the ads.)
Reason over Emotion
A friend and I engaged in a debate about the Indian Famines during the British Raj. Here is the book under discussion and its review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/feb/11/historybooks.martinbright
And here is my take on the issue:
Colonialism was ugly and repressive and exploitative. However, I blame misguided economic policy and changing agricultural and transport means as upsetting the delicate balance of food grain cultivation and its logistics.
Very recently, there was an artificial worldwide food shortage due to market speculation. There were hunger riots all over the world. With concerted efforts, logistics and communications, democratic governments made it a number-one priority as there is nothing that can topple an elected government quicker than hunger. Amartya Sen has also followed up on this link between famine and democracy.
Let us go back to the end of the 19th century. Instant communications and mass transportation are not new inventions, they've just become affordable for the masses. The revolutions of the airplane, TV and Internet are nothing compared to the revolutions of the train and the telegraph. When food prices were quoted over the wire, and local greedy merchants could ship grain out of the local area for gain rather than sell it to a population that could not afford to buy it, bad things happened. These bad things happened all over the world, and with the best of intentions. And the bad trade and economics of nascent globalization was compounded by drought. Were the British rulers and their local masters dictatorial? Of course? Were they carries away by their whims and subjected the population to experimentation of new-fangled theories? Which dictator does not?
The famines during the British Raj were the price of globalization and modernity. Could a democratic government have done a better job - maybe yes. Which government was to blame for them - the government in power - the British colonialists of course.
There was no way that a country as large as 19th-century Inida, over-populated and accustomed to subsistence agriculture could respond to the challenges of globalization in the late 19th century with no repercussions. When China tinkered with its peasants and agriculture, the Great China Famine played out in very similar fashion during the late 50s and early 60s. Was Mao dictatorial and a follower of his whims and fancies? Yes. Was he a genocidal maniac intent on killing and exterminating his own people? Of course not. And by that token, neither were the British colonialists. Just the number of commissions and relief efforts that they mobilised would make them not guilty.
My loathing of the British colonialists makes it strange for me to defend them from unsubstantiated charges. However, the British were probably the best among the colonialists, barring Arab colonialists of the Middle Ages who integrated with the local populations. At its root was the local dictatorship born of colonialism and the late 19th century fascination with manipulating populations through the emerging social sciences. Marxism is an invention of the same period, and since Ricardo, laissez-faire economics and non-protectionism was all the rage. Not to forget that 'survival of the fittest' was being taken too literally by many, especially Lytton, the viceroy at the time.
In conclusion, the famine disasters were man-made but not with evil intention. Rather, questionable theories, misguided policies and dictatorial egomania came together to amplify natural cycles. The outcome is tear-wrenching and tragic, which Davis captures quite eloquently. The sight of my ancestors emaciated and dying makes me very emotional, but again, my reason should guide emotion and not the other way around. If not, would I be any better than Lytton or Mao?
And here is my take on the issue:
Colonialism was ugly and repressive and exploitative. However, I blame misguided economic policy and changing agricultural and transport means as upsetting the delicate balance of food grain cultivation and its logistics.
Very recently, there was an artificial worldwide food shortage due to market speculation. There were hunger riots all over the world. With concerted efforts, logistics and communications, democratic governments made it a number-one priority as there is nothing that can topple an elected government quicker than hunger. Amartya Sen has also followed up on this link between famine and democracy.
Let us go back to the end of the 19th century. Instant communications and mass transportation are not new inventions, they've just become affordable for the masses. The revolutions of the airplane, TV and Internet are nothing compared to the revolutions of the train and the telegraph. When food prices were quoted over the wire, and local greedy merchants could ship grain out of the local area for gain rather than sell it to a population that could not afford to buy it, bad things happened. These bad things happened all over the world, and with the best of intentions. And the bad trade and economics of nascent globalization was compounded by drought. Were the British rulers and their local masters dictatorial? Of course? Were they carries away by their whims and subjected the population to experimentation of new-fangled theories? Which dictator does not?
The famines during the British Raj were the price of globalization and modernity. Could a democratic government have done a better job - maybe yes. Which government was to blame for them - the government in power - the British colonialists of course.
There was no way that a country as large as 19th-century Inida, over-populated and accustomed to subsistence agriculture could respond to the challenges of globalization in the late 19th century with no repercussions. When China tinkered with its peasants and agriculture, the Great China Famine played out in very similar fashion during the late 50s and early 60s. Was Mao dictatorial and a follower of his whims and fancies? Yes. Was he a genocidal maniac intent on killing and exterminating his own people? Of course not. And by that token, neither were the British colonialists. Just the number of commissions and relief efforts that they mobilised would make them not guilty.
My loathing of the British colonialists makes it strange for me to defend them from unsubstantiated charges. However, the British were probably the best among the colonialists, barring Arab colonialists of the Middle Ages who integrated with the local populations. At its root was the local dictatorship born of colonialism and the late 19th century fascination with manipulating populations through the emerging social sciences. Marxism is an invention of the same period, and since Ricardo, laissez-faire economics and non-protectionism was all the rage. Not to forget that 'survival of the fittest' was being taken too literally by many, especially Lytton, the viceroy at the time.
In conclusion, the famine disasters were man-made but not with evil intention. Rather, questionable theories, misguided policies and dictatorial egomania came together to amplify natural cycles. The outcome is tear-wrenching and tragic, which Davis captures quite eloquently. The sight of my ancestors emaciated and dying makes me very emotional, but again, my reason should guide emotion and not the other way around. If not, would I be any better than Lytton or Mao?
Three un-Connected Thoughts
Some thoughts cross the mind during the daily commute, and it seems that fellow passengers do get a bit uneasy by my blank stares, often at someone's shoe, or at the door, or even at the ceiling. I have a hunch that these disjointed thought are somehow connected, but I just can't figure out how:
1. Language and Culture: Research in the social sciences and resulting policies are usually not of much use unless the language that is the medium of the research, policy, or report, is the language of that culture. This is probably why scientific research into social issues, and the Western-language policies derived therefrom, do not usually carry much heft with non-Western implementors and implementees of said policies.
2. There should be some causation between economic and moral stress, and reinforcing each other, they can spiral out of control. Usually, as the economic stress on an individual increases, his moral choices become more problematic. The cumulative effect of moral stress results in a proportional decrease in the optimal efficiency of the economy, resulting in even more economic stress. So, how does the cycle go the right way: when kings guarantee justice and economic security, while teachers (priests, shamans) preach economic morality -- a morality of managing and sharing resources that enables the king's just laws to take hold in society. (I refer to kings, teachers and merchants quite often as the shapers of societies and nations). With the current ongoing economic crisis, which governments are encouraging the virtuous (!) cycle of economic security and economic morality? They will definitely come out better.
3. Periodic dilution of economic values and ethics: If the observable trend is a swift boost, and then a long slow decline: the swift boost is usually by an individual or a non-establishment movement or revolution - while the long slow decline is carried out by the establishment and the merchants. It is like slow leak in a water tank: values and ethics are the potential energy of a society, that causes things to flow and risks to be taken. When the pressure is bled off and trust decreases, flows of human creativity also decrease. Corollary: an established political party can never bring about positive change, unless the party is used as a vehicle by a revolutionary person or group. Hmmm . . . not even likely . . . not only are political parties entrenched institutions, they are also more opaque and un-democratic than and elected government. So, no change.
1. Language and Culture: Research in the social sciences and resulting policies are usually not of much use unless the language that is the medium of the research, policy, or report, is the language of that culture. This is probably why scientific research into social issues, and the Western-language policies derived therefrom, do not usually carry much heft with non-Western implementors and implementees of said policies.
2. There should be some causation between economic and moral stress, and reinforcing each other, they can spiral out of control. Usually, as the economic stress on an individual increases, his moral choices become more problematic. The cumulative effect of moral stress results in a proportional decrease in the optimal efficiency of the economy, resulting in even more economic stress. So, how does the cycle go the right way: when kings guarantee justice and economic security, while teachers (priests, shamans) preach economic morality -- a morality of managing and sharing resources that enables the king's just laws to take hold in society. (I refer to kings, teachers and merchants quite often as the shapers of societies and nations). With the current ongoing economic crisis, which governments are encouraging the virtuous (!) cycle of economic security and economic morality? They will definitely come out better.
3. Periodic dilution of economic values and ethics: If the observable trend is a swift boost, and then a long slow decline: the swift boost is usually by an individual or a non-establishment movement or revolution - while the long slow decline is carried out by the establishment and the merchants. It is like slow leak in a water tank: values and ethics are the potential energy of a society, that causes things to flow and risks to be taken. When the pressure is bled off and trust decreases, flows of human creativity also decrease. Corollary: an established political party can never bring about positive change, unless the party is used as a vehicle by a revolutionary person or group. Hmmm . . . not even likely . . . not only are political parties entrenched institutions, they are also more opaque and un-democratic than and elected government. So, no change.
8 years of war, isn't it time to move on?
There is a lot of response, some of it negative, on my article about the Afghanistan war, most of the serious criticism was around my use of the word 'fluke'.
In summary: We have over 8 years of hindsight on 9/11 to gain some kind of preliminary historic perspective on that tragic event. Was 9/11 a war declared on the way of life of the West lives, and started by a highly organized Islamist organization with sleeper cells everywhere, and supported by Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
Or, was it a crazy plot of fanatics that slipped through lax security, lazy intelligence follow-up, and a couple of poorly designed buildings that exponentially increased the material damage and loss of human life? What do the past 8 years tell us: countries are united with the U.S. against terrorism, prosecutions for terrorism are at pre-9/11 levels.
On the other hand, a great many people who were arrested have been released, and al-Qaeda has been determined to be more of an ideology than an international organization. Iraq was a dud, Guantanamo a sick farce. Since 9/11, if we consider the whole world, the ratio of successful anti-terrorist actions to false and unsuccessful attempts is about 1:1000. With international co-operation, some states think they have been given a license for extrajudicial violence - China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi, etc. And some think that it is time to unleash the worst kind of hatred and misery on Muslims, Christians and other minorities - prime among them Israel and India.
So, my take was: Pursuing Quixotic wars against phantom enemies, and by bombing civilians will never get us anywhere and will fan flames of extremism and terrorism everywhere. 9/11 was, most likely, a one-off event whose terrorist success was far worse than its planners' best hopes, and it was one of history's tragic events, and a turning point. We are much more cautious now and a couple of sinister plots have indeed been nipped in the bud. But after 8 years and about a million killed or wounded, isn't it time to move on? And make the world a safer place using tried, tested and rational means? Intelligence, prosecutions and policy?
Otherwise, there is no end, for 'victory' is undefinable, and even if it is, it will be increasingly out of reach.
That was the thrust of my article, and that has been the verdict of the Nobel Committee today by giving Barack Hussein Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. Basically, the message was: Mr. Obama, you said a lot of nice things, now is the time to really act on them, and move on.
In summary: We have over 8 years of hindsight on 9/11 to gain some kind of preliminary historic perspective on that tragic event. Was 9/11 a war declared on the way of life of the West lives, and started by a highly organized Islamist organization with sleeper cells everywhere, and supported by Saddam Hussein's Iraq?
Or, was it a crazy plot of fanatics that slipped through lax security, lazy intelligence follow-up, and a couple of poorly designed buildings that exponentially increased the material damage and loss of human life? What do the past 8 years tell us: countries are united with the U.S. against terrorism, prosecutions for terrorism are at pre-9/11 levels.
On the other hand, a great many people who were arrested have been released, and al-Qaeda has been determined to be more of an ideology than an international organization. Iraq was a dud, Guantanamo a sick farce. Since 9/11, if we consider the whole world, the ratio of successful anti-terrorist actions to false and unsuccessful attempts is about 1:1000. With international co-operation, some states think they have been given a license for extrajudicial violence - China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi, etc. And some think that it is time to unleash the worst kind of hatred and misery on Muslims, Christians and other minorities - prime among them Israel and India.
So, my take was: Pursuing Quixotic wars against phantom enemies, and by bombing civilians will never get us anywhere and will fan flames of extremism and terrorism everywhere. 9/11 was, most likely, a one-off event whose terrorist success was far worse than its planners' best hopes, and it was one of history's tragic events, and a turning point. We are much more cautious now and a couple of sinister plots have indeed been nipped in the bud. But after 8 years and about a million killed or wounded, isn't it time to move on? And make the world a safer place using tried, tested and rational means? Intelligence, prosecutions and policy?
Otherwise, there is no end, for 'victory' is undefinable, and even if it is, it will be increasingly out of reach.
That was the thrust of my article, and that has been the verdict of the Nobel Committee today by giving Barack Hussein Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009. Basically, the message was: Mr. Obama, you said a lot of nice things, now is the time to really act on them, and move on.
Obama, and the Beginning of the End of Racism
The article version of this post was published by Chowk.
Almost a year after Obama's historic election, the strange wave of euphoria that swept around the world is finally morphing into some long-awaited rational discourse. What was it at the time? What was it that appealed to people's emotions but words could not describe it at the time.
I have been hesitating to write about this as the man stands for a lot more than just his bi-racial ancestry. It felt as if talking about his race was somehow distracting from his 21st-century global persona. However, the 'birther' movement, the tea parties, and the silly signs and antics of demonstrators in the United States have started to form a pattern -- a pattern that finally hit home for a lot of us at the same time, including Maureen Dowd of the NY Times (Boy, Oh, Boy).
Rich Benjamin is dividing this into 'interpersonal racism and structural racism.' While the former is going down, the latter is still there. He also finds class differences to be a major part of the problem also. Poor whites in America are suffering, and it is their plight that Obama was somewhat successful in channelling as part of his victorious coalition.
The implications for the U.S., and for many other countries: With Obama breaking the highest glass ceiling there is, the poor non-white class has finally broken out of the spotlight on its plight and the general put-down perceptions created by structural racism. The laws enacted against racism have finally put a multi-racial person in the highest possible office, but at the same time, the structural racism that developed over time to prolong the status quo is now working against the poor white class itself. In other words, the thinly-veiled non-egalitarianism that took root with Thatcherism and Reaganism, together with the glorification of privatization and greed around the world have resulted in less social mobility and reduced safety nets. There has been a slight decline in social mobility since 1970 levels, and social scientists have studies showing that people are driven to paying less taxes and being less charitable when they perceive that their money will be spent on 'others'. For example, the cost of higher education has gone up for everyone, but non-whites have more opportunities as less racism have opened up opportunities for them, while whites have seen a reduction of opportunities as funds have dried up and the profit motive has invaded all spheres of life.
This economic shift has now created a predicament for a new poor white class. Now, the spotlight is on them, and the next 10 years will decide which message gets picked up by them: The two messages vying for the support of the poor white class are:
1. The non-whites, through sheer numbers, are going to take over and change our way of life. Meanwhile they are the burden on the government that does not let you benefit from its largesse, and you remain poor and without opportunities.
2. We are all very similar in our strengths, weaknesses, and problems. The solution to our problems is to pull together and provide a level playing ground for the weakest of us, so that economic security and social mobility returns.
When you see him comfortable in his skin, you can see a truly post-racial leader, who appeases no special ethnic group. When he told bankers that they were talking to a person who had recently relied on credit cards to get through life, and when he says that no sick person should have to worry on their death-bed like his mother had to, he really means it.
Which message gets picked up by the majority poor white class will determine the national and international peace for the rest of this century.
Almost a year after Obama's historic election, the strange wave of euphoria that swept around the world is finally morphing into some long-awaited rational discourse. What was it at the time? What was it that appealed to people's emotions but words could not describe it at the time.
I have been hesitating to write about this as the man stands for a lot more than just his bi-racial ancestry. It felt as if talking about his race was somehow distracting from his 21st-century global persona. However, the 'birther' movement, the tea parties, and the silly signs and antics of demonstrators in the United States have started to form a pattern -- a pattern that finally hit home for a lot of us at the same time, including Maureen Dowd of the NY Times (Boy, Oh, Boy).
Rich Benjamin is dividing this into 'interpersonal racism and structural racism.' While the former is going down, the latter is still there. He also finds class differences to be a major part of the problem also. Poor whites in America are suffering, and it is their plight that Obama was somewhat successful in channelling as part of his victorious coalition.
The implications for the U.S., and for many other countries: With Obama breaking the highest glass ceiling there is, the poor non-white class has finally broken out of the spotlight on its plight and the general put-down perceptions created by structural racism. The laws enacted against racism have finally put a multi-racial person in the highest possible office, but at the same time, the structural racism that developed over time to prolong the status quo is now working against the poor white class itself. In other words, the thinly-veiled non-egalitarianism that took root with Thatcherism and Reaganism, together with the glorification of privatization and greed around the world have resulted in less social mobility and reduced safety nets. There has been a slight decline in social mobility since 1970 levels, and social scientists have studies showing that people are driven to paying less taxes and being less charitable when they perceive that their money will be spent on 'others'. For example, the cost of higher education has gone up for everyone, but non-whites have more opportunities as less racism have opened up opportunities for them, while whites have seen a reduction of opportunities as funds have dried up and the profit motive has invaded all spheres of life.
This economic shift has now created a predicament for a new poor white class. Now, the spotlight is on them, and the next 10 years will decide which message gets picked up by them: The two messages vying for the support of the poor white class are:
1. The non-whites, through sheer numbers, are going to take over and change our way of life. Meanwhile they are the burden on the government that does not let you benefit from its largesse, and you remain poor and without opportunities.
2. We are all very similar in our strengths, weaknesses, and problems. The solution to our problems is to pull together and provide a level playing ground for the weakest of us, so that economic security and social mobility returns.
When you see him comfortable in his skin, you can see a truly post-racial leader, who appeases no special ethnic group. When he told bankers that they were talking to a person who had recently relied on credit cards to get through life, and when he says that no sick person should have to worry on their death-bed like his mother had to, he really means it.
Which message gets picked up by the majority poor white class will determine the national and international peace for the rest of this century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
