Мﺃđйإgђŧ αl¢hǽmץ

NZ needs a new flag?

2010-02-17T05:28:00.006+01:00

I've been reading and witnessing a lot of kerfuffle recently about why we need a new New Zealand flag. I've also been asked for my opinion from friends and acquaintances alike. It's not something that I had given much thought to over the years, and certainly not something that has warranted much allocation of grey matter towards. However in recent times, the level of discussion around this topic has only increased, and one of NZ's top media outlets has taken it upon itself to start asking for submission for alternative NZ flags from it's readers. TVNZ Close Up also had a viewer phone-in poll to select between 3 alternative flags. So what's all this about? Do we need a new flag?
If there's one thing law school taught me, it was that I need to begin any 'opinion' I may have on a contentious issue with the words 'it depends....'. So..

Do we need a new flag? It depends. If I look at the site NZflag, arguments espoused by those that take the affirmative position in this debate, I could sum it up as follows -

1) The current flag isn't flown much because it doesn't resonate enough with Kiwis.
2) The current flag isn't unique enough.
3) The current flag doesn't have much 'brand' impact.
4) There is not enough emotional connection to our flag
5) Current flag is poorly designed.
6) Other symbols than the Union Jack can represent and honour our past too.
7) Current flag isn't instantly recognisable and symbolic.
8) A new flag reflects our changing times - our independence and self-determination.

The arguments in opposition are -

1) Why bother? It's just a flag. There no need to change something that does not tangibly effect our daily lives.
2) The current flag has a lot of meaning and symbolism, and reflects our heritage and historical roots.
3) Many have fought, and died under this flag and changing it would be a form of dishonouring their sacrifice.
4) There are no alternatives that we can all agree on anyway.

I'm sure there are other arguments pro and con on this topic. So going back to my view...

I think we need a new flag. However, I would only support a new flag if our political reality changes. So long as Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth is our Head of State as represented in New Zealand by her Governor General, there is every reason to keep our current flag. It accurately reflects our legal reality. I agree whole heartedly with those that counter that it does NOT reflect the actual reality of our situation in NZ - but this for me is not an argument for a change of flag. Rather, this is an argument for a republic. You can not on one hand claim that we need a change in identity as can be reflected in a flag and have in effect an independence, and claim self-determination whilst on the other hand defend the right for the continued existence of a monarchic system with the Queen as our head. Either we are independent, or we're not. Either we're Her Majesty's subjects, or we're not. And if we're not, are we not a republic?

The Aussies seem to have got this one right. The discussion there is not about their flag - it's about whether or not to be a republic. Why is the 'R' word so dirty in NZ?
The Maori claim a special relationship with the Queen - that began with the signing of the Treaty. Their fear is that a republican NZ, would not be so deferential to a treaty signed with the Queen of England, and Maori rights claims would suffer adversely as a result. I contend this is not ipso facto.

I will not be supporting the change of NZ's beautiful flag, unless we become a republic. Which we should. Therefore, we should change the flag too.

Letter to an Indian Philosophy professor

2009-11-24T04:03:00.002+01:00

Dear Professor,

I can’t tell you how fantastic it was to bump into you again on Sunday after so many years. Often in life, as one passes through, one meets people that leave an indelible impression upon you that lasts with you for many years. Most of the time, we are unable to know this whilst we are still in the person’s presence, and only come to this realisation in hindsight. I remember with great fondness the classes I took with you during my time at university, in particular your kindness and character towards your students. I took a lot of understanding from that and have tried over my years since to replicate such character in my own life. In this respect, your influence has been strong, so it truly was a pleasure to see you again over the weekend.

Over the years, I have tried to encourage the learning and understanding of words such as ‘religion’, ‘culture’, ‘tradition’ and ‘values’. I have worked with refugee families, immigrants, and youth from many different countries and backgrounds. In my own ethnic community, which is broadly speaking the ‘Indian community’ (what does this even mean these days?), I feel there is a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding about Indian history, religions, and philosophy. Some where along the way, we lost the essence and meaning of what it means when we say ‘Indian culture’ or ‘Indian tradition’ and ‘Indian values’. Nowhere is this more evident than in the younger generation....but they are not the culprits, their lack of awareness is in fact the indirect manifestation of their parents lack of knowledge and effort to comprehend.

Gandhi once intimated that his goal was not an Indian republic and independence from the British in law, but rather his goal was an India where Indians can be free to live as Indians in all its beauty and ugliness. To gain independence and yet continue to live like the British do, or how the British have set up, would be no independence at all. Gandhi’s India is becoming a nation no different in nature to any western nation, except we have brown skin. India’s contribution to the world cannot be just cheap intelligent labour with good work ethic – then India is no more than the world’s machine. India needs to contribute to the world’s soul. The beauty and enrichment of Indian philosophical water, is fast being muddied and stagnated by modern religious groups’ deliberate misappropriation of its character for political power, and an apathetic population manipulated and anesthetised into submission. In this spirit, I feel the challenge, Professor, that we have, is not one of provision of information to the masses and the continued presentation of already learnt knowledge – rather, the challenge is to make the teachings, learnings and combined wisdom of centuries of philosophy, meaningful and relevant to the lives and futures of the current generation. This is more a project of communication and ‘packaging’ , than just a promulgation of ‘content’. It has become not enough to just state the truth – one has to state it in a way that resonates. My example, is you. Your character, delivery and attitude to students was not the reason I took a look at Indian Philosophy, however it *was the reason I persisted with it and continued to look deeper and further within it, and contemplated its relevance and meaning in my life, *after I left the course. The packaging (you) is as important as the content (Indian philosophy). Isn’t this the ultimate aim of Indian philosophy – to enrich the soul and fuel its capacity and willingness to contemplate, to examine, to argue, to think, and to understand it’s journey....? Surely it can’t be to define, to know, to restrict, to curtail, to instruct and to shackle one’s capacity to examine outside the given paradigm of the day?

Chaim Potok, the Jewish writer, once wrote in his fictional work ‘The Chosen’, that ‘where there is silence between men, the individual becomes an oasis for himself’ We’re becoming a people of oasis chasers, sold oasis water, while being assured by those who cast us in to the dessert, that the oasis is all we need.

Thank you for inspiring me to continue to think and contemplate.

Kind regards.

Matt Taibbi talks about AIG and the bailouts...

2009-03-22T05:42:00.000+01:00

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/

Bankers are Turkeys

2008-12-09T00:05:00.003+01:00

I read this book over on the plane ride from Denmark to NZ last year and found it a fascinating read; certainly an entertaining one. If you are a after serious yet entertaining read, check out The Black Swan, by Nassim Taleb.

I stumbled across this interview by Charlie Rose today, and decided to post it on my blog...my highlight "...Bankers are turkeys...." The entire turkey discussing starts 1 minute into the video.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9713#

Why New Zealand is better.....

2008-11-04T05:39:00.002+01:00

There's many things I like to deride New Zealand about, and much of it is valid. However, in its treatment and respect of foreigners and immigrants, New Zealand, while there's much to improve, is SO far ahead of European countries and most other nations that I imagine this post will surprise my international friends. In my experience in The Netherlands and in Denmark, all letters and correspondence from officials and ministries sent out to me was all in either Dutch or Danish (respectively). Of course, the oft trolled out excuse was, 'well we are in Holland/Danmark'.
I have just received my election enrolment pack, where I get my election card to take with me to the polling booth on saturday to vote in the NZ general election. In the pack is an explanation of voting procedures and locations. These are translated into the following languages - English, Maori, Cook Island Maori, Samoan, Tongan, Korean, Chinese traditional, Chinese simplified, Tokelau, Somali, Farsi, Arabic, Vietnamese, Thai, Gujarati, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Punjabi and Niuean.
...as standard. You might think NZ has an abundance of multilingual persons. No. Some of these immigrants only number in the thousands. I look forward to the time when other countries let go of their blind and deaf nationalism and do the logical and intelligent thing.

Ayn Rand shrugged

2008-10-25T14:32:00.002+02:00

Former USA Fed chairman Alan Greenspan repents after following the financial market turmoil....

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such as they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders"

Can we all just finally move on from unfettered free market economics???

Bankers and market morals...(comedy?)

2008-10-23T00:50:00.001+02:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-oIMJMGd1Q&eurl

Why shit happens...

2008-10-23T00:26:00.001+02:00

Why we are idiots.....

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/14-reasons-main-street-loses/story.aspx?guid={F63EC448-D9C1-4138-AC18-97BF0FE68EE3}&print=true&dist=printMidSection

The end of Friedman?

2008-10-21T12:24:00.003+02:00

Does the financial crisis finally spell the end of Milton Friedman's economics ?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21029.htm

Mad men

2008-10-21T12:07:00.001+02:00

Unusual frankness and honesty from a member of the corporate class.....the truth in his words should resonate.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/18/banking-useconomy

Still a long way to go....

2008-03-03T18:14:00.005+01:00

"Indian freed after 35 years' jail" Said a recent BBC headline.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7275351.stm

"The minister said that Mr Singh had not received a single visitor or seen the open sky and like other condemned prisoners, was locked in an overcrowded death cell for more than 23 hours a day in conditions which the minister described as "hell on earth." "

The prisoner is said to be suffering from mental illness. His wife, and children, will meet him at the border when he is released.

When I was younger, I used to read - of the middle ages, of the Spanish Inquisition, of slavery, of the cruelty and disregard for human life of such eras and I used to exclaim with much relief to myself 'thank God I don't live in that sort of world in that sort of time'. This article churns my insides and makes me sick with sadness and exposes the naivety of my youthful 'awareness'.

As a world, we still have a long long way to go.

Death of William F. Buckley, Jr

2008-02-28T12:05:00.002+01:00

Recently, one of the leading conservative voices in America died. Or at least so said many of the world's press. Which got me searching for more information on this guy as I did not know much about him. In doing so, I stumbled across this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

..in which he debates with Noam Chomsky. Though the debate is in 1969, it's amazing how relevant the discussion is in 2008.

The Lynching in Baghdad

2007-01-08T05:10:00.000+01:00

So Saddam gets a taste of 'wild west' Texan justice. Or was it barbarian justice? Or perhaps even Saddam-esque justice? Iraqi justice? Whatever it was, it wasn't justice as we know it.

The former dictator of Iraq was in the midst of a series of trials for crimes he committed against humanity. The first crime he was to be tried for was the murder of 144 villagers in the town of Dujail who were allegedly involved in a plot to assassinate him in 1982. Then he was to be tried for the gassing of Kurds in 1988 during the Kurdish revolt. Thirdly, to be tried for the violent and murderous campaign to end the Shiite revolt in 1991 after the First Bush War.

However, none of that came to pass. He was found guilty in the first trial, and any chance that survivors of the subsequent outrages on humanity had for justice to be done were lost, in a hasty political judgement and need to punish, be done with and silenced.

Saddam came to power in a bloody coup by killing members of the Communist party, invaded and started a decade long war with Iran that costs millions of lives, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people (kurds/shiites), invaded Kuwait in 1990 killing more people, and after all that (and more), he gets hanged for killing 144 people in 1982 in a village??? Thats something like trying Tojo for the bombing of Pearl Harbour, or Hitler for the invasion of Austria.....and ignoring the rest of the crimes.

On one hand, one might say well whats the point? We know he is guilty, the sentence is not going to be different, so why not save the expense and time of more and more months of trials, and just be over with it so that Iraq can move on?
On the other hand, there are so many unanswered questions arising from this state sanctioned murder of Saddam that leaves Iraqis and outside observers unsatisfied and a feeling that justice was not really done here. There is a residual feeling in one's gut that there's something not quite right about it all, and there were too many parallels with how justice was dealt in the Saddam era with how justice was dealt now.....weren't this government supposed to be different?

Firstly, some parallels. The outcome of the trial pre-judged. Politically appointed judges, replaced constantly during the trial to satisfy the ruling government's will and need. No proper due process, nor cross examination of witnesses. Denial of proper legal defense. Rush to judgement, and judgement towards the maximum of penalties - death. The quick denial of an appeal. The quick meting out of the sentence. The taunting of the prisoner before and during the hanging. The undignified manner of the execution, the denial of human rights to the prisoner.

So why execute him now and not wait for the other trials? Surely the trials could have brought some healing and feeling of justice to the survivors and relatives of victims of those crimes? The reasons may never really be known, but it could be to protect members of the current government as well as the Americans. Dujail was Saddams doing.... There are no obvious American fingerprints to be found in this incident. The same cannot be said of the coup (the CIA provided lists of names), of the war with Iran (USA sold weapons, chemical weapons, naval support etc), of the aftermath of the invasion of Kuwait (USA encouraged uprising), of the provision of nerve gas to be used against the Iranian soldiers and used against the Kurds (Maps of Iranian trenches and positions seen from American satellites handed over), etc etc. This could have turned into a PR nightmare for both the current Iraqi government and USA.

Firstly, the reasons for the war are proven falsehoods...fibs...no WMDs...then a trial in which American involvement in crimes against humanity meted out by Saddam using the very same weaponry that was the reason for the current occupation and Second Bush War could be exposed to the public? That was going to be unacceptable. Dujail had to be the first trial, and Saddam had to be silenced ASAP afterwards. It was George Bush the First who urged Iraq’s Shiites and Kurds to rebel after Saddam was removed from Kuwait in 1991, and then failed to use US air power to protect the Shiites from massacre when they answered this call. USA was involved in all of Saddam’s major crimes, one way or another, so no trial that delved into the details of those crimes could be allowed.

So in the end, Saddam got killed for a crime that was a drop in the ocean compared to the crimes he was internationally infamous for (crimes that became the new rallying reason for the pro-war camp after the embarrassing lack of WMDs anywhere in the country). Most other dictators who have committed crimes against humanity have been sent to Den Haag to be tried at the ICC. Why wasn't Saddam? The Americans do not subscribe to the ICC, this was America's war, this is an American supported Iraqi government, and most certainly this was an American influenced trial and judgement.

The Iraqis have lost one dictator, and had him replaced with a foreign dictatorial power.

On War.

2006-11-20T18:47:00.000+01:00

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," he shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

---Gustave M. Gilbert, Nuremberg Diary, New York: Farrar, Straus and Co, 1947, pp. 278-9. (Interview with Goering)

Weapons, peace and the world...musings

2006-09-25T03:47:00.000+02:00

Question: Why are the largest producers and exporters of Arms and munitions in the world also the five permanent members of the UN with veto rights?

Is there not a certain hiprocracy, and perhaps disingenuity, about such an enterprise...on one hand promoting peace and internationalism and human rights (some of principles on which the UN was founded and as veto countries these countries have arguably a greater responsibility to uphold these principles), on the other hand being the beneficiary of war and continued human rights violations? How can we expect any significant arms trading treaty to be honoured and upheld, when the most powerful countries in the world stand to lose the most as a result. Its simply not in their interests.

But perhaps this is the reason why they have veto rights and others dont. They have the most to gain and lose in any turn of world events/populace. Peace would be a financial loss...a significant one. War ensures economic growth....ensures votes.

Why is there such a media concentration on 'weapons of mass destruction' when small arms kill more people every day than nuclear weapons ever have. The only country to have actually used such a weapon is also the largest arms trader in the world by a huge amount. The French arent much better. Chirac and his Subjects, so lauded by many for refusing to let his country support the Iraq war, are responsible for a large quantity of the arms floating around in African civil wars now. I guess if it wasnt the French, the English, the Chinese, the Americans etc. would have been there.

This world, we are currently in, is the rainbow that arms dealers have been looking for since the fall of the USSR. They had to diversify back then....find new battlegrounds...like Africa, Asia, Latin America, etc. They found some pots of gold along the way already....the vast unguarded (or guarded by corrupt/poor military men) stockpiles of weapons in former USSR states.
If thought of in this context , it may be in these countries interests NOT to catch Bin Laden and co. The longer he is out there, the longer such illegal wars like Iraq can go on in his name....the anti-terror wars that make gun-runner very happy...as their merchandise is very curious for all.

Modernity, Science, Positivism, Objectivism.

2006-08-18T10:31:00.000+02:00

A fellow blogger posted this the other day on his site.....

http://plainofpillars.blogspot.com/2006/07/science-is-not-objective.html

Its a good read, points are well made. The attempt by social scientists to objectify their 'mind gaze' to match the objectifying capacities of the natural science colleagues, in order to strive for greater legitimacy and stature in their results. To make their science more 'harder' and 'sure', eliminating the 'human' out of it and propelling the goodness of mathematics.

The world we live in...update 2006

2006-06-18T22:12:00.000+02:00

After centuries of subjugation of races, other cultures and other beliefs, in the name of civilisation, science, religion and power, Earth 2006 is best described as -

1)Christian (the missionaries infused the americas, africa, and asia with their God and now those continents are strongly in its grasp. Furthermore, the whole modernist project is profoundly Christian in nature. These days, the influence is also stealthy, in the form of many western NGOs, and of naive people 'doing good' around the world for the sake of emancipating themselves of moral duty)

2)Western (Eurocentric). Families are thought of as 'mother and father plus kids' units, and the rest are considered 'extended' family, furthermore 'family' only includes blood relatives and those married to them. Western thought is considered 'modern' and other forms of thought are labelled 'cultural' or, a greater patronising insult- 'traditional'. Western lifestyle is considered as superior - they are developed countries with 'developed' societies...the others are 'developing'...learning to live with things the priveleged and enlightened west have known and had for years. Aid and charity flow from the west to the 'others'. English is the 'world' language. USA, France, UK sit on the UN security council with veto rights and a Eurocentric Russia and a non-democratic China are the representatives of the 'other' countries.

3)Capitalist. Its all about 'efficient' (only in an economic sense) allocation of scarce resources. Even Life itself is couched in these terms - 'Maximise my life', 'live to the fullest' , 'Life is short, make the most of it while you can' etc. All about maximising a resource limited environment. Then there more - you must sell yourself...be productive, you must define who you are...have a CV, get a 'job', earn a wage, so that you can do 'what you really want to do'. Countries are ranked as 'first world' or 'third world' by economic standards. To be a non-capitalist country is considered to somehow be a gross violation of the rights of citizens, and to be a pariah of the 'global order'.

4)Masculine. The radical feminists are right. Even the economic system is masculine - competition??? what? whats wrong with cooperation? God is male (the judeo-christian-islamic god that is), and he had a son not a daughter. And all the prophets were male. Oh and 99% of the religious texts were written by males too. I wonder if these things really are coincidences. International relations continues to be stained by the distructive thinking of 'Realism' another 'my penis is larger than yours, so dont try picking up in my backyard' theory of inter-country relationships. In not even going to even start about neo-conservatism.

I'm sure I can write an essay on each of those categories, so the brief examples I gave are by no means exhaustive.

All other constructions of the world are suppressed, ignored, ridiculed, assimilated......eliminated. Witness the poor state of affairs of most indigineous peoples around the globe....the former slaves of the white man (and they were nearly always men), still struggling...perhaps they really were inferior after all? The native work ethic is not as 'good' as the protestant work ethic. I could try to pour out decades of post-colonialist thought into this small paragraph, but i wont. I will just encourage you to read into it. The project of trying to imagine another reality than the one we see at present (that is, not one where both 'normal' and 'different' options are still 'framed' within the same structure (Christian, Eurocentric, Capitalist, Masculine), so really even the 'alternatives' are not genuinely different). Oxfam argues for a 'different world' but their world is still profoundly eurocentric, christian (doing good, from us to them) and capitalist (albeit left of centre) and masculine. Gramsci had a point. Certain concepts of the world around us have assumed such a hegemonic position in our minds, that to argue against them would be akin to argue against homemade apple pie. This is the key of all propoganda and social construction.

Ofcourse there are people that seek to be different, to live a different reality. However they are labelled as outcasts, to live at the peripheries of the society...they are the tree huggers, the troublemakers, the protestors, the luddites, the wishy washy liberal utopians, out of touch with 'reality'. And for those that make it to any level of notoriety, the labels of activist, dissident, radical or terrorist await from the 'machinery of mainstream'.

So what then to do? Far be it for me to suggest that I hold the 'philosophers stones' here. But being aware of our own shortcomings, and refusing to close your eyes and always wanting to learn and listen, and to consider the possibility and legitimacy of another reality than the one we see at present is perhaps a step in the right direction.

On Language

2006-06-16T12:54:00.000+02:00

Ive just read another pathetic article about 'world affairs' by someone claiming the title 'expert'.

If language only served to 'say' something, words would be rarer, silence more frequent. Words are not used only to transmit a message, to inform about a fact, to create a feeling, to express a thought. They are also used to prevent communication, to put people off track, to put up a noisy, chattering screen between human beings and truth. In our society, where lies are considered as one of the fine arts of power, and falsification one of the natural instruments of profit, talking in order to say nothing has developed in just about every field.

One might believe that, in a company, the person called the 'director of communications' would be responsible for transmitting everyday news from the CEO to the storekeeper and from the representative to the client - an engineer if you will, for ensuring transparency, a magician of contacts, responsible for circulating the right words. WRONG. The Dir. of Communications is the new name of 'chief of publicity'. As can be seen everyday, publicity has nothing to do with 'truth' or 'transparency'.

Another title seemingly important, which expresses something that which it is not, is the 'director of Human Resources'. It is difficult to imagine a designation so amazingly rich in graces, virtues , gifts of spirit and heart. This 'director' is supposed to draw generously on the treasure of the human species, on the inexhaustible source of 'all that is human'. She who is responsible for human resources should be at the pinacle of spiritual power. However, the description of this rising princess of humanity turns out to be the tired old officer, once modestly known as the 'head of personnel', a sort of general inspector, superior foreman, a good bloke or careful watchdog, according to her character or the moment, caught in the squichy rotten area where slugs live -between the trunk of management and the bark of the waged workers.

This corruption of language has taken new highs these days. Not to mention the corruption of meaning - nota bene Bush's anal rupturing of the meaning of the word 'Freedom'. hmmm perhaps next post I will talk about the popular topic of terrorism, or something about 'agency' as i mentioned in the last post.

The 'anti' globalist image.

2006-06-11T19:39:00.000+02:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/544786.stm

Frequently, when we see reportage of 'world' meetings (WTO meetings, G8 meetings, etc), we hear and see on TV also of reports of 'antiglobalist' protesters, surrounded by heavily armed riot police and images of shouting, agressive behaviour, people dressed in 'messy' fashion typically with balaclavas or scarves, caricatured effigies of world leaders, burning 'things' (flags, effigies, etc), breaking windows, and other largely unpleasant looking images of the goings on. It all seems a bit outrageous and certainly not as dignified nor 'presentable' as the well dressed formal leaders meeting in these meetings. These 'violent' protestors aka troublemakers, need to be controlled and kept away from the goings on and we the 'public' need to be protested from their violent actions. How can they be against globalisation? idiots. ....well if only this image of them were true.

While I've not doubt that amongst the gathered groups of citizens from around the globe that there exist some elements of anarchic bent who feel so alienated from the world around them that causing distruction to all they see carries with it little of the accompanying guilt or shame that the 'ordinary' person may feel, and that some of these people may well be 'anti' many of the modern global trends to such an extent that they resort to violent response when given a chance, the vast majority of gathered people are actually there in peace. I would also call into question the labelling of such groups as being 'anti-globalisation' ....rather they are best described as 'alternative' globalisation supporters. But what is 'globalisation' anyway? The definition is rather important ,as without one, to label someone 'anti' it is unworkable. So what do the mainstream media define as 'globalisation'? In academic circles its accepted that its a very difficult thing to define as a 'noun', and that its best described rather as an adjective....a word that describes a series of unconnected events that have led to the current world we live in, and further develop our world. Something to do with time, and space. Im ardently resisting the academics urge to cite sources here. But if the globalisation is defined by merging markets, free trade, floated currencies, spreading of private enterprises, retreat of the state, etc etc, then perhaps they are 'anti'.

But actually there are no 'pro-globalisers' and 'anti-globalisers'. Its not possible to be either really. Many different groups of people with numerous agendas populate the arena and to lump them into two groups is misleading. I hope for an alternative world, and I dont like the WTO and neo-liberal agenda, but Im far from supporting violent protest either. Whenever did arguing for change by proposing different ideas become such an unacceptable practice? And why are 'we',the passive(?) viewers and consumers of mainstream media reportage, so willing to accept the view presented without questioning? Is it that those clamouring for an alternative world just have an image problem to be rectified? Someone once said, in order to see change in the world you live in, you must be the change yourself. Which brings me onto another topic, personal agency, which is a topic for the next post i suspect.

The 'Third' parties

2006-06-09T10:29:00.000+02:00

In every multi-party democractic country, there are always 'third' parties that offer all sorts of policy and government alternatives to the main two political parties (typically a centre left and center right party). They run the gamut from left wing, to centrist, to right wing. But many of them actually have the best policies...policies that actually WOULD make a difference and perhaps would reinvigorate interest and dynamism in the politics of a country, and help to reduce voter apathy and indifference. I wonder if all those people who could not be bothered voting 'because nothing changes anyway' might be better off voting for a third party instead?

But human beings like 'certainty' and despite our natural curiousity, in the end, when put under pressure and when high stakes are involved, most people go with 'what they know'...vote for one of 'big' parties. Budding politicians hungry for power have always known this, and therefore in major parties you will see people who can fit just about anywhere on the political map but 'leaning more' to the left or right to legitimise their membership. There are only a few who are principled enough to go with a 'third' party that fits with their political philosophy, and fight it out in the competition of ideas, accepting the difficulty of the endeavour ahead of them.

Voters are easily fooled and media image these days plays a larger role in 'Northern' countries than it did before. Put a passionate, good debater and orator, with hints of humour and a huffpuff smorgasbord of morality (has children, is married, goes to church, dresses conservatively, etc) and you have a shoe-in for your next president or prime minister - as long as he (and its typically a 'he') is with a major party that is. Notice that I make no mention of the person's experience, intelligence, agenda, interests, friends he keeps, previous jobs, philosophies, education,
and general competency for the job.

So here in this post, Ive tried to list a few of those 'third' parties that I think are worth a look at the next time you vote...wherever you happen to be. If you are reading this and know of third parties to add to this list, LET ME KNOW, as I'd like this list to grow. Right now it seems Ive got a lot of 'Green parties' listed. By the way, though these are 'lefty' parties, doesnt mean I necessarily support them. For example, I'd rather vote for the Greens in the UK than the Lib Dems, but they are far too small a party to be considered here. Only parties that have made it into the national legislature allowed here....

http://www.greens.org.nz
http://www.libdems.org.uk/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/
http://www.gp.org/
http://www.groenlinks.nl/
http://www.greens.org.au/
http://www.democrats.org.au/
http://www.sv.no/
http://www.rv.no/
http://www.ndp.ca/
http://sozialisten.de/sozialisten/aktuell/index.htm

Eco Footprint

2006-06-07T14:21:00.000+02:00

Being a student of development studies, this site was of interest....

http://www.ecofoot.org/

Im not sure as to how accurate it really is and whether it actually has anything useful to offer, but nonetheless it does have some value and does touch on some important everyday things people 'could' change in their lives to make a difference in the world.

So my marks are....
CATEGORY (GLOBAL HECTARES)
FOOD (1.5)
MOBILITY (0.1)
SHELTER (0.6)
GOODS/SERVICES (0.6)
TOTAL FOOTPRINT (2.8)

Apparently if everyone lived like me, we'd need 1.6 planets hahaha. opps. Still, Im better than the average..(4.8 total footprint). Seems my meat eating habits cost me dearly!

Sites to bookmark

2006-06-06T00:18:00.000+02:00

The internet being what it is, has a wealth of interesting and useful sites to whet the appetite of any procrastinating student with a liberal bent. So I've put a few up here for those curious and openminded. Some stuff is whacky, other stuff is intellectual. Both are thought provoking.

http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/
http://www.freeinfosociety.com
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.lonelantern.org/
http://www.alternet.org/

...more coming!!

And a new blog is born

2006-05-30T15:18:00.000+02:00

This started off as a class project, way back when, then thanks to my general laziness, indifference, apathy, and tendency to procrastinate, it got mothballed and died a cyber death a long time ago. Ofcourse back then, it wasnt called this new hip name 'blogging'. It was referred to 'merely' as maintaing your own personal website to put up general thoughts and information about yourself with the hope of sharing it with the world and to perhaps networking with others around you. Does everything have to have a name+description? Anyway, this is a second attempt at it, though I still suffer from the aforementioned despositions from time to time, so it will be funny to see how this goes.

Midnight Alchemy. 1. (n.), A blog of little fame, and even less ambition. 2. (v.) The act of putting raw thoughts together in one place at night, with the hope of some golden ideas emerging from within it.

midnight.alchemist@gmail.com