Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Turn'd wild in nature, broke their stalls, flung out
Somewhat predictably, the USD700 billion corporate raid on public accounts is insufficient to prop up US capitalism.
Yet, the DomPost declares that our "Prime-Minister-in-waiting" remains "upbeat". Well, thank Christ for that. Actually, if I was polling 52% this close to an election, on the back of not much effort, and with a shadow Cabinet full of scary 90s neoliberals and that horrid Collins woman, I'd be pretty fucking upbeat too. No matter how hard Michael Cullen (personally responsible for the current worldwide downturn, in its entirety, suggests the New Zealand Herald), "rains on my parade."
FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
It will be interesting to see how the financial meltdown plays out during the Canadian federal election, Oct 14th. Live drunken blogging right here if anyone's interested.
Meanwhile, a bad week for our resident comments man. And I'm not just talking about his share portfolio. First his beloved Storm are given a sound thrashing in the Grand Final, then a certain Southland Mayor claims to have banged his favourite MP!
Yet, the DomPost declares that our "Prime-Minister-in-waiting" remains "upbeat". Well, thank Christ for that. Actually, if I was polling 52% this close to an election, on the back of not much effort, and with a shadow Cabinet full of scary 90s neoliberals and that horrid Collins woman, I'd be pretty fucking upbeat too. No matter how hard Michael Cullen (personally responsible for the current worldwide downturn, in its entirety, suggests the New Zealand Herald), "rains on my parade."
FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
It will be interesting to see how the financial meltdown plays out during the Canadian federal election, Oct 14th. Live drunken blogging right here if anyone's interested.
Meanwhile, a bad week for our resident comments man. And I'm not just talking about his share portfolio. First his beloved Storm are given a sound thrashing in the Grand Final, then a certain Southland Mayor claims to have banged his favourite MP!
Labels: capitalism, herald, john key, media, nrl grand final, politics
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Political hurricanes
Cuba is getting hammered by hurricane Ike. This couldn’t be worse. The damn thing hit Santiago de Cuba (major city in the South East) and then travelled all along the length of the island to only come out just to the west of Havana.
A quick lesson on hurricanes: When eye is to the west of you….you’re in trouble. When it is to the east of you, it’s not that bad. Havana is in trouble. 2 million evacuated, the power is off, as is the gas and the running water. But at least they’re prepared.
And that’s the thing about hurricanes in Cuba, they are often incredibly prepared. Cuba has somehow defied Mother Nature, and typically the storms are not deadly events. The problem is the clean up afterwards. That takes time, resources and money to get it done, and there we have problems.
The U.S. has offered aid to Cuba during this terrible hurricane season. Thomas Shannon, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs expresses "his profoundest concern at the destruction caused by Hurricane Gustav," and affirms that the United States is prepared to offer immediate and initial "humanitarian aid" to the people of Cuba in aid supplies via an appropriate international aid organization."
Sounds pretty fair. But that suggestion of humanitarian aid is where the Cubans say “no thanks.” They have seen what humanitarian aid looks like from the United States in other countries, and time and time again it is an open door to get military personnel on the ground in a post-disaster region and to flood the local economy with U.S. foodstuffs that undermine local growing capacity.
Shannon also asked the Cuban government to allow a humanitarian assessment group to visit the island to inspect the affected areas and make a suitable evaluation of the damage.
Ooops. This is a bit of an insult to the Cubans, who again are experts at surviving and recovering from hurricanes. The official response from Havana went something like this:
“Cuba does not need the assistance of a humanitarian assessment group to evaluate the damage and needs, because it has sufficient specialists who have virtually completed that task.
Moreover, the Foreign Ministry note says that if the U.S. government really has the will to cooperate with the Cuban people in the face of the tragedy of the hurricane, it would ask it to allow the sale of essential materials to Cuba, and to suspend the restrictions that are preventing U.S. companies from offering private commercial credits to our country in order to purchase foodstuffs in the United States.”
Good capitalists those Cubans are wanting to buy food and medicine at fair prices and even asking for credit to do so. Who wouldn’t win in that situation? The Cubans purchase U.S. goods, some U.S. businesses do well, more material resources get to Cuba, and there are no mucky politics about the politics of humanitarian intervention.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is less about doing good business and more about hegemony these days. And even though Senator Obama asked for a suspension – for no less than 90 days – of the restrictions on travel and the sending of remittances and aid to their families by Cubans resident in the United States, the last vestiges of the Bush administration remain deaf.
Obama’s fighting gravity on this one, just as he is on most issues. The popular phrase after the U.S. – Mexico war in the 19th century was, “we take nothing by conquest…thank God.” Today, it’s the only way American interests do business.
A quick lesson on hurricanes: When eye is to the west of you….you’re in trouble. When it is to the east of you, it’s not that bad. Havana is in trouble. 2 million evacuated, the power is off, as is the gas and the running water. But at least they’re prepared.
And that’s the thing about hurricanes in Cuba, they are often incredibly prepared. Cuba has somehow defied Mother Nature, and typically the storms are not deadly events. The problem is the clean up afterwards. That takes time, resources and money to get it done, and there we have problems.
The U.S. has offered aid to Cuba during this terrible hurricane season. Thomas Shannon, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs expresses "his profoundest concern at the destruction caused by Hurricane Gustav," and affirms that the United States is prepared to offer immediate and initial "humanitarian aid" to the people of Cuba in aid supplies via an appropriate international aid organization."
Sounds pretty fair. But that suggestion of humanitarian aid is where the Cubans say “no thanks.” They have seen what humanitarian aid looks like from the United States in other countries, and time and time again it is an open door to get military personnel on the ground in a post-disaster region and to flood the local economy with U.S. foodstuffs that undermine local growing capacity.
Shannon also asked the Cuban government to allow a humanitarian assessment group to visit the island to inspect the affected areas and make a suitable evaluation of the damage.
Ooops. This is a bit of an insult to the Cubans, who again are experts at surviving and recovering from hurricanes. The official response from Havana went something like this:
“Cuba does not need the assistance of a humanitarian assessment group to evaluate the damage and needs, because it has sufficient specialists who have virtually completed that task.
Moreover, the Foreign Ministry note says that if the U.S. government really has the will to cooperate with the Cuban people in the face of the tragedy of the hurricane, it would ask it to allow the sale of essential materials to Cuba, and to suspend the restrictions that are preventing U.S. companies from offering private commercial credits to our country in order to purchase foodstuffs in the United States.”
Good capitalists those Cubans are wanting to buy food and medicine at fair prices and even asking for credit to do so. Who wouldn’t win in that situation? The Cubans purchase U.S. goods, some U.S. businesses do well, more material resources get to Cuba, and there are no mucky politics about the politics of humanitarian intervention.
Unfortunately, the U.S. is less about doing good business and more about hegemony these days. And even though Senator Obama asked for a suspension – for no less than 90 days – of the restrictions on travel and the sending of remittances and aid to their families by Cubans resident in the United States, the last vestiges of the Bush administration remain deaf.
Obama’s fighting gravity on this one, just as he is on most issues. The popular phrase after the U.S. – Mexico war in the 19th century was, “we take nothing by conquest…thank God.” Today, it’s the only way American interests do business.
Labels: aid, capitalism, Cuba, hegemony, Hurricane
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
The corporate state and the subversion of democracy
A Truthdig article that transcribes a speech about exactly what the title says. Well worth a read. Nothing new but well said.
Labels: capitalism, democracy, human rights, United States
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Boycott Beijing...and then Vancouver!
It’s getting ugly in Tibet. From the point of view of the exile community, and those who have been on the business-end of Chinese police clubs, it has been ugly for a while.
The Olympics have been boycotted many times. In 1976 in Montréal many African nations boycotted the games over the New Zealand rugby team playing in apartheid South Africa. The 1980 Moscow games were boycotted because the U.S.S.R. went pulling into Afghanistan. And then, the 2nd world boycotted the Los Angeles games in 1984, which saw many countries, such as Canada, claim a record amount of medals.
For the Beijing games, there is certainly enough at stake to call a boycott. There are abuses in Tibet, environmental devastation through out China, and of course China’s non-partisan attitude to purchasing energy from the Sudan. Human and environmental rights are being sacrificed on the altar of progress.
The media has been pushing the point of a boycott. The official response from governments and athletes? “No no don’t boycott, rather the games can be a forum to share and exchange views.” How often do you sit down to share and exchange views during the track and field sessions? Or fencing for that matter? Like seriously, during the triathlon, what’s the goal, ride up alongside the Chinese athlete and discuss the free Tibet movement?
The U.S. and Canada are going to offer some seminars and courses on how to be good ambassadors during the games. Ambassadors, little more than mailmen at the best of times, are often trained to parrot their governments’ agenda rather than build dialogue. For Canada, the policy is clear, “There is only one official government in China.” End of dialogue.
Boycotting Beijing would be about saying “no” to a sponsor, that being the Chinese state, who humiliates and abuses another people. The investment that Beijing has put into the games has been huge, and refusing the Olympics, leaving the stands and fields empty, would be an outstanding message against how China is behaving.
But for the past twenty years Olympic athletes have dropped ball in standing up against sponsors who humiliate. McDonald’s and Coca-Cola were the official food sponsors of the Atlanta games after all. Private corporations are the key sponsors to the Olympics, offering support for the games in exchange for advertising. Already their influence has seen a drastic change in the culture of the Olympics and the acceptance of hyper-consumerism which has time and time again slaughtered human and environmental rights on the altar of progress. And no one, bothered even for a minute to strike a boycott against the influence of corporate sponsors.
“Want to catch the Olympic spirit? Then chew down a McDisaster, wash it back with a Coke, and for god’s sake don’t leave your television for a second…the last thing you would want to do is actually get off your ass and exercise.”
The athletes themselves, upon winning the gold, are no longer true heroes of the sport; they are walking billboards for shoes, shampoo and frighteningly neon power drinks. They don’t criticize their sponsors, they just follow suit, because they don’t want to jeopardize potentially strong economic relations.
In China the message is already clear that athletes and their governments will not criticize their sponsors either, because they don’t want to jeopardize potentially strong economic relations.
The Olympics are a twisted mess of corporatism and nauseating nationalist myth and rhetoric, and to un-mess them, there would have to be a strong, unified movement, starting with the athletes themselves, saying that the right to compete in sport will not rely on unjust sponsorship…no matter if it comes from Beijing, Coke or Shell Oil.
In order to get this movement going it would have to start in Beijing, carry on to Vancouver, and then London…until repressive governments and aggressive corporate sponsors are laid to wayside.
The Olympics have been boycotted many times. In 1976 in Montréal many African nations boycotted the games over the New Zealand rugby team playing in apartheid South Africa. The 1980 Moscow games were boycotted because the U.S.S.R. went pulling into Afghanistan. And then, the 2nd world boycotted the Los Angeles games in 1984, which saw many countries, such as Canada, claim a record amount of medals.
For the Beijing games, there is certainly enough at stake to call a boycott. There are abuses in Tibet, environmental devastation through out China, and of course China’s non-partisan attitude to purchasing energy from the Sudan. Human and environmental rights are being sacrificed on the altar of progress.
The media has been pushing the point of a boycott. The official response from governments and athletes? “No no don’t boycott, rather the games can be a forum to share and exchange views.” How often do you sit down to share and exchange views during the track and field sessions? Or fencing for that matter? Like seriously, during the triathlon, what’s the goal, ride up alongside the Chinese athlete and discuss the free Tibet movement?
The U.S. and Canada are going to offer some seminars and courses on how to be good ambassadors during the games. Ambassadors, little more than mailmen at the best of times, are often trained to parrot their governments’ agenda rather than build dialogue. For Canada, the policy is clear, “There is only one official government in China.” End of dialogue.
Boycotting Beijing would be about saying “no” to a sponsor, that being the Chinese state, who humiliates and abuses another people. The investment that Beijing has put into the games has been huge, and refusing the Olympics, leaving the stands and fields empty, would be an outstanding message against how China is behaving.
But for the past twenty years Olympic athletes have dropped ball in standing up against sponsors who humiliate. McDonald’s and Coca-Cola were the official food sponsors of the Atlanta games after all. Private corporations are the key sponsors to the Olympics, offering support for the games in exchange for advertising. Already their influence has seen a drastic change in the culture of the Olympics and the acceptance of hyper-consumerism which has time and time again slaughtered human and environmental rights on the altar of progress. And no one, bothered even for a minute to strike a boycott against the influence of corporate sponsors.
“Want to catch the Olympic spirit? Then chew down a McDisaster, wash it back with a Coke, and for god’s sake don’t leave your television for a second…the last thing you would want to do is actually get off your ass and exercise.”
The athletes themselves, upon winning the gold, are no longer true heroes of the sport; they are walking billboards for shoes, shampoo and frighteningly neon power drinks. They don’t criticize their sponsors, they just follow suit, because they don’t want to jeopardize potentially strong economic relations.
In China the message is already clear that athletes and their governments will not criticize their sponsors either, because they don’t want to jeopardize potentially strong economic relations.
The Olympics are a twisted mess of corporatism and nauseating nationalist myth and rhetoric, and to un-mess them, there would have to be a strong, unified movement, starting with the athletes themselves, saying that the right to compete in sport will not rely on unjust sponsorship…no matter if it comes from Beijing, Coke or Shell Oil.
In order to get this movement going it would have to start in Beijing, carry on to Vancouver, and then London…until repressive governments and aggressive corporate sponsors are laid to wayside.
Labels: capitalism, China, Olympics, Tibet
