Saturday, 25 October 2008

Why Muslims are POWERLESS and Jews are POWERFUL

Read here and here


Related Article: Read here article "How long more must we endure this lying racist in Parliament?" by Haris Ibrahim in People's Parliament :

"... PKR' s Kulim-Bandar Baharu MP,Zulkifli Nordin ( re: report by Malaysiakini ) appears to be trying to create the spectre that Islam is under siege and then going to great lengths to set himself up as the defender of Islam from the enemies that he has conjured up in his own mischievous, miserable mind.....With this liar, though, who can say?..." Read here for more

Read HERE series of articles on Education-related issues by our very own Dr. Azly Rahman


WHY MUSLIMS ARE SO POWERLESS
(Read here for more on Persian Journal)

According to Dr. Farrukh Saleeme (read article below or here), there are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet:
  • One BILLION in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas.

  • Every fifth human being is a Muslim;

  • For every single(1) Hindu there are two(2) Muslims,

  • For every single (1) Buddhist there are two(2)Muslims and

  • For every single (1) Jew there are one hundred(100) Muslims.
Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?

Here is why:

CAPACITY TO PRODUCE KNOWLEDGE
  1. There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). All of them put together have around only 500 universities. (That is) one university for every three million Muslims.

    The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407.

    In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities. '

    Intriguingly, NOT ONE university from Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.

  2. As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent.

    A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent.There is NO Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent.

    Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while LESS than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.

    Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two (2)per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.

  3. Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims.

    The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.

    In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs.

    In the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million.

    Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five (5) per cent of its GDP.

CONCLUSION: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge.

CAPACITY TO DIFFUSE KNOWLEDGE

Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.
  1. In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360.

    In the UK, the number of book titles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.
CONCLUSION: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.


CAPACITY TO APPLY KNOWLEDGE

Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application.
  1. Pakistan's exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent. The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 per cent; Kuwait, Morocco, and Algeria are all at 0.3 per cent.

  2. Singapore is at 58 per cent.
CONCLUSION: The Muslim world is failing to apply knowledge.

  • Why are Muslims powerless? Because we aren't producing knowledge.

  • Why are Muslims powerless? Because we aren't diffusing knowledge.

  • Why are Muslims powerless? Because we aren't applying knowledge.

    And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.
ANNUAL GDP of MUSLIM and NON-MUSLIM COUNTRIES
  1. The COMBINED annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is UNDER $2 TRILLION.

  2. America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 TRILLION; China $8 TRILLION, Japan $3.8 TRILLION and Germany $2.4TRILLION (purchasing power parity basis).

  3. Oil rich Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 Billion;

  4. Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1TRILLION,

  5. Catholic Poland $489 billion and

  6. Buddhist Thailand $545 billion

    (Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining).
So, why are Muslims so powerless?

Answer: "Lack of education".


WHY JEWS ARE POWERFUL


by

Dr Farrukh Saleem

Read here for more

There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas , five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 in Africa . For every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims.

Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together.

Ever wondered why?

  1. Jesus of Nazareth (Nabi Isa) was Jewish.

  2. Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time and TIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew.

  3. Sigmund Freud -- id, ego, superego -- the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew.

  4. So were economists Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

    Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual output has ENRICHED the whole humanity:

  5. Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle.

  6. Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine.

  7. Alert Sabin developed the improved live polio vaccine.

  8. Gertrude Elion gave us a leukaemia fighting drug.

  9. Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B.

  10. Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis (a sexually transmitted disease).

  11. Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.

  12. Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission.

  13. Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology (disorders of the endocrine system; diabetes, hyperthyroidism).

  14. Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy (psychotherapy to treat mental disorders, depression and phobias).

  15. Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill.

  16. George Wald won a Nobel for furthering our understanding of the human eye.

  17. Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology (study of embryos and their development).

  18. Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.

    Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 15-dozen Nobel Prizes while only three (3) Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billion Muslims -other than Peace Prizes.


    Why are Jews so powerful?

  19. Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip.

  20. Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor.

  21. Peter Schultz, optical fibre cable;

  22. Charles Adler, traffic lights;

  23. Benno Strauss, Stainless steel;

  24. Isador Kisee, sound movies;

  25. Emile Berliner, telephone microphone and

  26. Charles Ginsburg, videotape recorder.

Famous financiers in the BUSINESS world who belong to Jewish faith include:

  • Ralph Lauren (Polo),

  • Levis Strauss (Levi's Jeans),

  • Howard Schultz (Starbuck's),

  • Sergey Brin (Google),

  • Michael Dell (Dell Computers),

  • Larry Ellison (Oracle), Donna Karan (DKNY),

  • Irv Robbins (Baskins & Robbins) and

  • Bill Rosenberg (Dunkin Donuts).

  • Richard Levin, President of Yale University, is a Jew.

  • So are Henry Kissinger (American secretary of state), Joseph Lieberman, Barry Goldwater

  • Alan Greenspan (US FED chairman under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush),

  • Maxim Litvinov (USSR foreign Minister),

  • David Marshal (Singapore's first chief minister),

  • Issac Isaacs (governor-general of Australia),

  • Benjamin Disraeli (British statesman and author),

  • Yevgeny Primakov (Russian PM),

  • Jorge Sampaio (president of Portugal),

  • John Deutsch (CIA director),

  • Herb Gray (Canadian deputy PM),

  • Pierre Mendes (French PM),

  • Michael Howard (British home secretary) and

  • Robert Rubin (American secretary of treasury).

    In the MEDIA, famous Jews include:

  • Wolf Blitzer ( CNN ),

  • Barbara Walters (ABC News),

  • Eugene Meyer ( Washington Post ),

  • Henry Grunwald (editor-in-chief Time),

  • Katherine Graham (publisher of The Washington Post ),

  • Joseph Lelyyeld (Executive editor, The New York Times), and

  • Max Frankel (New York Times).

    In Sports:
  • At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by wining seven gold medals. Lenny Krayzelburg is a three-time Olympic gold medalist. Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker are all Jewish.

    In the Entertainment Industry

    Did you know that :

    -Harrison Ford,
    -George Burns,
    -Tony Curtis,
    -Charles Bronson,
    -Sandra Bullock,
    -Billy Crystal,
    -Paul Newman,
    -Peter Sellers,
    -Dustin Hoffman,
    -Michael Douglas,
    -Ben Kingsley,
    -Kirk Douglas,
    -Cary Grant,
    -William Shatner,
    -Jerry Lewis and
    -Peter Falk

    are all Jewish !

    As a matter of fact, Hollywood itself was founded by a Jew. Among directors and producers:

    -Steven Spielberg,
    -Mel Brooks,
    -Oliver Stone,
    -Aaron Spelling (Beverly Hills 90210),
    -Neil Simon (The Odd Couple),
    -Andrew Vaina (Rambo 1/2/3),
    -Michael Man (Starsky and Hutch),
    -Milos Forman (One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest),
    -Douglas Fairbanks (The thief of Baghdad) and
    -Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters) are all Jewish.

    To be certain, Washington is the capital that matters and in Washington the lobby that matters is The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. Washington knows that if PM Ehud Olmert were to discover that the earth is flat, AIPAC will make the 109th Congress pass a resolution congratulating Olmert on his discovery.

    William James Sidis, with an IQ of 250-300, is the brightest human who ever existed. Guess what faith did he belong to?

    So, why are Jews so powerful?

    Answer: Education.

Thursday, 23 October 2008

PAS Sabah, Chill Out! Go Read the 20-Point Agreement(Sabah)

Read here article by "Ranger" in Seventh Rangers(Mechanised)Blog

These PAS fellas should chill out and know about the (20) Twenty-Point Agreement

by

"Ranger"

" A report from Malaysiakini: Two PAS Sabah leaders have taken an issue with the wide-ranging speech by Bernard Giluk Dompok at United Pasokmomogun KadazanDusunMurut’s 12th triennial congress in Kota Kinabalu last week, alleging that these were “not sensitive to the Islamic ummah (faithful) in the nation in general and in Sabah in particular”.

Utusan Borneo quoted Sabah PAS deputy commissioner Hamzah Abdullah as describing portions of the speech by Dompok as “simply too much, irresponsible and carrying elements of agitation against Islam which is the official religion of Malaysia and Sabah” Read here in full in Malaysiakini.

These PAS fellas should also pay attention to the 20-point agreement (Sabah) which clearly spells out this:
Point 1: Religion

While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be NO State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should NOT apply to North Borneo.
I really cannot fathom, why they want to create a problem, when all Dompok wants to do is resolve problems.
I will say one thing about Dompok, is that he stands firm.

Dompok said:

“These concerns were also in the memorandum that was sent to the prime minister (in January 2006) by nine (of the 10 non-Muslim) ministers. I was a signatory to this memorandum. Sadly, those who signed it were later asked to withdraw it.

I did not withdraw my signature because I felt that there was nothing improper in the memorandum. Indeed, the contents were very much consonant with the effort by the government to strive for a Malaysia that recognises the (special) position of Islam within the federation and the rights of others to practise the religion of their choice”.
He signed that memorandum due to the many cases of body snatching in Malaysia.

Here is a news report from ABC, Malaysian opposition calls for end to 'body-snatching' Bernard Dompok is not belittling anyone's religion, he is merely stating facts that there are problems with conversion issues which urgently need to be looked into.

There are alot of Kadazans who use 'bin' and 'binti' , yet they are not Muslims, these are the issues Bernard wants resolved.

So you PAS fellas out there, chill. There are many problems affecting minorities in Malaysia,visit the link. ..."

The Twenty-Point Agreement (Sabah)
(read here for more)
..
The 20-point agreement, or the 20-point memorandum, is an agreement made between the state of Sabah (then North Borneo) with what would be the federal government of Malaysia prior to the formation of Malaysia in September 16, 1963.The agreement was written for the main purpose of safeguarding the interests, rights, and the autonomy of the people of Sabah upon entering the federation of Malaysia.

THE AGREEMENT

Point 1: Religion
While there was no objection to Islam being the national religion of Malaysia there should be no State religion in North Borneo, and the provisions relating to Islam in the present Constitution of Malaya should not apply to North Borneo

Point 2: Language
a. Malay should be the national language of the Federation

b. English should continue to be used for a period of 10 years after Malaysia Day

c. English should be an official language of North Borneo for all purposes, State or Federal, without limitation of time.
Point 3: Constitution
Whilst accepting that the present Constitution of the Federation of Malaya should form the basis of the Constitution of Malaysia, the Constitution of Malaysia should be a completely new document drafted and agreed in the light of a free association of states and should not be a series of amendments to a Constitution drafted and agreed by different states in totally different circumstances. A new Constitution for North Borneo (Sabah) was of course essential.

Point 4: Head of Federation
The Head of State in North Borneo should not be eligible for election as Head of the Federation

Point 5: Name of Federation
“Malaysia” but not “Melayu Raya”

Point 6: Immigration
Control over immigration into any part of Malaysia from outside should rest with the Central Government but entry into North Borneo should also require the approval of the State Government.

The Federal Government should not be able to veto the entry of persons into North Borneo for State Government purposes except on strictly security grounds. North Borneo should have unfettered control over the movements of persons other than those in Federal Government employ from other parts of Malaysia into North Borneo.

Point 7: Right of Secession
There should be no right to secede from the Federation

Point 8: Borneanisation
Borneanisation of the public service should proceed as quickly as possible.

Point 9: British Officers
Every effort should be made to encourage British Officers to remain in the public service until their places can be taken by suitably qualified people from North Borneo

Point 10: Citizenship
The recommendation in paragraph 148(k) of the Report of the Cobbold Commission should govern the citizenship rights in the Federation of North Borneo subject to the following amendments:
a) sub-paragraph (i) should not contain the proviso as to five years residence

b) in order to tie up with our law, sub-paragraph (ii)(a) should read “7 out of 10 years” instead of “8 out of 10 years”

c) sub-paragraph (iii) should not contain any restriction tied to the citizenship of parents – a person born in North Borneo after Malaysia must be federal citizen.

Point 11: Tariffs and Finance
North Borneo should retain control of its own finance, development and tariff, and should have the right to work up its own taxation and to raise loans on its own credit.

Point 12: Special position of indigenous races
In principle, the indigenous races of North Borneo should enjoy special rights analogous to those enjoyed by Malays in Malaya, but the present Malays’ formula in this regard is not necessarily applicable in North Borneo

Point 13: State Government
a) the Prime Minister should be elected by unofficial members of Legislative Council
b) There should be a proper Ministerial system in North Borneo

Point 14: Transitional period
This should be seven years and during such period legislative power must be left with the State of North Borneo by the Constitution and not be merely delegated to the State Government by the Federal Government

Point 15: Education
The existing educational system of North Borneo should be maintained and for this reason it should be under state control

Point 16: Constitutional safeguards
No amendment modification or withdrawal of any special safeguard granted to North Borneo should be made by the Central Government without the positive concurrence of the Government of the State of North Borneo

The power of amending the Constitution of the State of North Borneo should belong exclusively to the people in the state. (Note: The United Party, The Democratic Party and the Pasok Momogun Party considered that a three-fourth majority would be required in order to effect any amendment to the Federal and State Constitutions whereas the UNKO and USNO considered a two-thirds majority would be sufficient)

Point 17: Representation in Federal Parliament
This should take account not only of the population of North Borneo but also of its seize and potentialities and in any case should not be less than that of Singapore

Point 18: Name of Head of State
Yang di-Pertua Negara

Point 19: Name of State
Sabah

Point 20: Land, Forests, Local Government, etc.
The provisions in the Constitution of the Federation in respect of the powers of the National Land Council should not apply in North Borneo. Likewise, the National Council for Local Government should not apply in North Borneo.

Let's Sing to Celebrate INDIA's First Space Flight to the Moon

Put on your speakers !

India's first unmanned moon mission blasted into space yesterday, joining the Asian space race with Japan and China and signalling India's intent to be a global power.The mission, launched from the Sriharikota space centre north of Chennai, was broadcast live on television to the sound of the Star Wars film soundtrack. Read here for more

Celebrating INDIA's First Space Flight to the Moon

Malaysians should know the words to the songs .

SING ALONG to any of the video-clips


WITHOUT Musical Accompaniment




WITH Musical Accompaniment





Wednesday, 22 October 2008

UMNO Leaders Elected Based on Financial Greed of UMNO Supporters



What It Takes to be an UMNO Leader
at Grassroot and National Levels





According to a report by Star, UMNO supreme council member Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim said Umno must admit it has a problem with money politics and if left to fester, the party might as well hand posts to the highest bidder.

He said,
“It would be just better for Umno to have a tender system so that anyone who contributes the highest amount can be a leader.”
Rais, who has so far obtained only six nominations, also lamented that the party was now “in the clutches of corporate personnel and businessmen,” judging from its culture of money politics.

Rais Yatim said he had been asked to pay for votes in the upcoming contest for top posts, and warned that money politics would destroy the party.

Rais, who is Foreign Minister said "the majority" of Umno members were more interested in making money out of the election than in voting for the right person.

"The majority of Umno people want to look for money and not for good leaders," said Rais, a member of Umno's Supreme Council who is vying for the vice-presidency.

"We have been approached under the cloak of assistance and cloak of contribution. (But) I'm not a player so you don't see my marks going up very high. If you want to be a good player, you have to say yes (to vote-buying)," he told reporters.

Rais, who has been with Umno for over 33 years, said the problem of money politics within the ruling party should be eradicated or it "will surely kill the party."

"If Umno cannot curb this practice, Umno's future is done for because this has been (talked about) for the past two decades and it has not been curbed," he said.

In July, Umno asked the country's anti-corruption agency to help it battle vote-buying ahead of the heated battle for top leadership positions in the party.

On whether he would lodge a police report on his allegations of money politics, Rais said he could not as he did not have enough evidence of such wrongdoing.

COMMENTARY

Read here on Tumpang Sekoleh Blog

Even at "cawangan level" money changed hands in thousands. UMNO members who can effort to depart with such an amount, no matter whether he is a good or bad leader he will be "ketua cawangan" in the end.

This money culture cultivated by UMNO will never end.

Remember how money played an important part that denied Mahathir from being a "perwakilan" for his Bahagian?

For that matter,the candidate that obtains the highest number of nominations doesnt mean he will be guaranteed of victory, coz, during the AGM millions of RM will be floating around in vote buying.

So Mukhriz, beware, though you might obtained the highest number of nominations for Ketua Pemuda, the so called underdog SIL (son-in-law) might edge you for the post, by the power of the RINGGIT.

Lets money politics destroy UMNO for good..........

The 2008 Financial and Banking Crisis: Was Karl Marx Right After All?

Read here article by Philip Collins on Times Online-UK

Read here related article in malaysiakini , "Credit crunch - welfare for the rich" by Mike Lim Mah Hui



As financial markets crash, the reputation of Karl Marx soars.

So has Karl Marx's time come at last?

by

Philip Collins

The world financial system is melting down. The credit markets have ceased trading. The State has taken a controlling stake in some of the banks. Governments are guaranteeing bank deposits. People are contemplating putting their money in tins or buying gold if they can afford it. The capitalists are losing their jobs and the workers are losing their property.

Could it be that Karl Marx's hour has come at last?

The 40,000 pilgrims who have made their way this year to Trier, the Prussian town where Marx was born in 1818, clearly think so.

So do the unrepentant Marxist professors who have taken to the airwaves to declare that they knew this would happen all along. Finally, you can hear them think, the world is having the good grace to live down to their opinion of it.

Marx's Das Kapital

And perhaps so do the readers who have recently bought Marx's great text of economic analysis, Das Kapital.

Booksellers in Berlin have been quoted as saying that it has been flying off the shelves.

Even if it has, Das Kapital will probably fly back on to them quick enough. This is a book that will be read long after Milton and Shakespeare have been forgotten - only not until then.

It isn't exactly an easy read. Generally, for most people, books with equations are best avoided. The introduction is comprehensible to the layman and, in its last few pages, it ends on a high. In the middle, it gets a bit sticky. Das Kapital is a reminder of Philip Larkin's definition of the English novel: a beginning, a muddle and an end.

Marx's Arguments on Capitalism

But Marx does seem to have been on to something. His basic point is that there is some good news and some bad news. He gave you the bad news first: capitalism is dreadful. The workers are exploited and the capitalists get rich at their expense. So far, so Lehman Brothers.

The good news was that the bad news was bound to come to an end. Capitalism wasn't just nasty, it was doomed. It would collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. A bit like Lehman Brothers.

Marx's anger wasn't directed principally at individual capitalists. After all, his great German collaborator and friend, Friedrich Engels, was a Manchester mill owner.

If it hadn't been for Engels, Marx would never have finished the book. In fact, if it hadn't been for Engels, Marx would never have finished his evening meal. Marx took his distaste for capital to the extent that he never had any. Whether or not the irony was deliberate, he wrote his text condemning capitalism while living off its charity.

The exploitation was bigger than any one person. It was endemic in a society in which class oppressed class. The bourgeoisie, those who owned the means of production, lorded it over the workers. The proletariat, whose only commodity was their labour, were forced to sell themselves like chattels. Thus were they alienated from their true nature.

Everything else - art, culture, religion - were just so many diversions laid on by the producers to keep the minds of the workers off their revolutionary destiny. To put it in our terms: it was the economy, stupid.

And the economy powered history with a capital H. Every era gives way to something better, in an inevitable march to communism. The primitive communism of tribal societies yields to slavery which is, in turn, replaced by feudalism.

The feudal merchants become capitalists, exploit the workers and inspire the proletariat to revolution. The interim management of the workers then produces the eternal administration of the socialist Utopia. Once the process gets going, it's unstoppable.

But this is where the comparison ends. It doesn't really sound a lot like the credit crunch. It is hard to think of investment bankers as the benighted proletariat labouring under the burden of false consciousness. If they are exploited at all, then the bonuses probably soften the blow. Many layers of management, most of it very highly paid, has inserted itself in the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

And there's not much sign of revolution from the working class. Maybe if the Government tweaks the flexible-working arrangements it might start.

Marx's 'The Communist Manifesto'

It's when he gets into predicting the future that Marx really starts to go wrong. As a prophet, he is strictly in the tealeaf reading category.

Very conveniently, he makes it easy for us. Marx sets out, in The Communist Manifesto, the ten steps to communism.

This book, remember, wasn't just a how-to guide. It wasn't the ten habits of highly revolutionary people. It was a supposedly scientific account of what would happen. So it's perfectly reasonable to score Marx out of ten. He doesn't, in truth, do all that well.

Marx said that there would be a heavily progressive system of income tax and you could say we have that. He said that the state should take control of the supply of credit. The £37 billion bail-out of banks is not quite what Marx envisaged but we can stretch a point.

Marx demanded free public education for all children and an end to child labour in factories, a practice that capitalists decided they could, after all, do without. The demand for state control of factories has not come to pass but Marx coupled that, rather illogically, with cultivating wastelands according to a common plan. John Prescott often talked a lot about using brownfield rather than greenfield sites for development and that has to be worth half a point.

But some of the big predictions still look on the far horizon. A British people obsessed with the housing market have never paid the slightest attention to the slogan that Marx borrowed from Proudhon - all property is theft. All estate agency is theft, perhaps.

The rights of inheritance, far from being abolished, have been strengthened, mostly because the British hang on so tenaciously to their property that they don't let go even when they are dead. We have yet to confiscate all the property of emigrants and rebels (although the freezing of assets of Icelandic banks and terrorists is at least making a start).

And, notwithstanding the BBC, Network Rail and the re-regulation of the buses, we haven't really seen the centralisation of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. Neither is there much sign of an army of agricultural workers in a nation in which agriculture now account for less than 1 per cent of GDP.

Finally, the state has not taken charge of the distribution of people between the town and the country. Should anyone be odd enough to want to live in the English countryside, they are allowed to.

Marx's score is a generous three and a half out of ten. The internet is awash with lunatics who believe that most countries are already practising communism without realising it. But, in fact, if the end is coming, we are only just over a third of the way there.

Marx should have the last word. “From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.” Not Karl but Groucho.


OTHER COMMENTATOR'S VIEWPOINTS


Was the Left vindicated?

From Martin Jacques, Visiting professor at Renmin University, Beijing

This crisis shows that capitalism is not only a dynamic system, but one that is inherently prone to crisis. In that sense, Marx was, and is, right. During each period of economic growth and prosperity, from Lawson to Brown, for example, this is forgotten, amid boasts that boom and bust have been banished for ever. This crisis has once more confounded such boasts. But it is not only Marx who has been validated by this crisis, but Keynes, too. For 30 years we've been told that the market always knows best and that the Government is at best a necessary evil. In this crisis we see that the market can result in huge distortions with calamitious results; and that only the Government is big enough and legitimate enough - as the representative of all the people - to intervene and sort the mess out. It marks the end of the neo-liberal era and the return of social democracy.
From Professor Eric Hobsbawm, Marxist historian

The interest in Marx seems a vindication, as his analysis of capitalism put its finger on globalisation and periodic crises and instabilities. Over the past few decades people thought the market would sort everything out, which seemed to me a statement of theology rather than reality.

It's good that people are taking this kind of analysis more seriously than they have for a long time because it breaks with the conventional analysis that has dominated most governments and a lot of ideologies over the years. It's fun to discover that what one has been saying for a long time, and others have been pooh-poohing, is being taken seriously.

But that isn't the important thing; that is to recognise that a phase of this particular world system has passed and we must think of another one. It will take a long time for it to settle down, but there is no way we're going back to where we were in the 1980s and 1990s, and that's a good thing.

From Frank Furedi, Professor of sociology, Kent University, founder of the British Revolutionary Communist Party in the 1970s (disbanded in 1998)

Marx's fundamental insight into the transient character of society's arrangements has been pretty well demonstrated by recent events and the shifting contours of European history.

In many respects what he saw was the co-existence of powerful destructive forces with powerful constructive forces within the capitalist system. But one must remember that he's a 19th-century thinker who, along with other important thinkers - Adam Smith among them - provided important signposts on understanding our society. They're of limited use in the capacity to find your own way in the world, and younger generations must rethink problems for themselves.

The danger is that people such as Marx provide answers to the questions that we're all asking, but we shouldn't begin with the answers: we must begin with the right questions.

From Mick Hume, The Times's libertarian Marxist columnist

Marx was right to identify and analyse the tendency towards crises within capitalism, but he did not predict the system's “inevitable” collapse.

Today too many people who have never read or understood Marx are trying to turn him into an anti-capitalist Nostradamus who supposedly predicted it all, a soothsayer rather than revolutionary social scientist. Marx always emphasised that the resolution of a crisis would ultimately depend on political factors: that man makes his own history, although not in circumstances of his own choosing.

It is still the case that there is no alternative, no political contestation about the future of society. Instead, whether from rightwing Republicans in the US or Labour here, we just have state-run managerial politics aiming to preserve as much of the status quo as possible. The rest of us are reduced to passive spectators rather than active political agents.

Marx would not be laughing in his grave or dancing on anybody else's as some suggest. If anything I think he'd a be a bit depressed about missed opportunities. And anybody who takes pleasure in human misery is an idiot.

From John McDonnell,MP for Hayes and Harlington

Das Kapital and Wages, Prices and Profit should be issued to all government ministers as the definitive guides to the causes of capitalism in crisis; they will give them an understanding of the inherent exploitative nature and instability of an economic system that is putting thousands of people on the dole queue each month and making many homeless.

I'd suggest that they then read Robert Owen's work on co-operatives, Antonio Gramsci's prison writings on winning the battle of ideas, Ernest Mandel's Late Capitalism and Ralph Miliband's Socialism for a Sceptical Age.

From Claire Fox, Director of the Institute of Ideas

I'm worried about this gleeful pseudo- Marxist critique of the system; there's a vulgarisation of Marxism going on. It isn't some kind of religion in which you have divine retribution, with bankers now on the receiving end.

People seem to be refusing to acknowledge that this means a period of enforced austerity for ordinary people. Owning your house is not a sign of psychological flaw; it could be deemed aspirational.

Marx's most profound statement was about the role of human agency in change. Society can't change unless you have a clear idea of politics and ideas, and that requires people to see themselves as history-makers, to be actively participating, not to be in a period of political disengagement. So the new interest confirms a passivity in a way, and the idea of dinner-party Schadenfreude is really sick.

From Alexei Sayle

Mortgage holders of the world, unite

What would Marx have made of the credit crunch if he were still living?

Karl Marx was an inveterate fiddler with his words and a compulsive misser of deadlines, so there are many inconsistencies and a few downright contradictions in the holy texts of Marxism.

However, it's not too speculative to say that until recently Karl would have been feeling a bit down: just as if Jesus had ever met the Rev Ian Paisley or any number of popes he would have given up on the whole “son of God” message and become a Pilates teacher, so Marx would have been appalled by the murderers, sociopaths and kleptomaniacs who oppressed half the world in the name of his philosophy.

That these idiots then let even their half-assed version of Marxism collapse, seemingly leaving capitalism unopposed and stronger than ever, would have made him really cheesed off.

Plus, given what we know about his personal circumstances - how all his life he and his family were pursued by moneylenders and landlords - it's certain that Marx would still have been bad with money. My guess is that despite spending nearly 150 years waiting for capitalism to inevitably collapse, in March this year he would have allowed Steve, his “financial adviser” at the Westphalia and East Prussia Building Society, to persuade him to purchase a newly done-up flat in Central Manchester. “Buy-to-let, Karl, mate,” Steve would have said. “You can't go wrong.”

However, these past few weeks of financial turmoil across the world would have perked old Marx right up: after all, being broke was nothing new to him - and finally, after so many years in the wilderness, his thoughts, his hopes, his prediction that capitalism was unsustainable in the long term, would be considered anew.

From out of the dusty corners and fetid holes where they have been hiding for so many long decades of pain, his true disciples are emerging blinking into the light.

At last they are being asked to write small pieces in newspapers and appear on late-night political TV shows hosted by men with strange hair, and with one voice these true disciples of Karl Marx are saying: “I told you so! I bloody told you so! I've been going on about this stuff for years but you didn't listen, did you? Instead you just stopped inviting me to your dinner parties and didn't answer my increasingly desperate text messages. Now you're sorry, aren't you? But it's too late. Ha ha ha ha ha.”

Monday, 20 October 2008

MCA's New Leaders: Will a reformed MCA Continue to be UMNO's Lap-Dog?

Read here article "MCA opts for reformist team " by Carolyn Ong






MCA Youth Chief

Excerpts:

The 2000-plus MCA delegates picked as president, Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat, who has a reputation for being outspoken. He won with a credible 512-vote majority over Mr Chua Jui Meng, a former health minister, who also came with reformist credentials.

The newly-elected president Ong Tee Keat has strong reformist credentials.

Despite the stigma of a sex scandal, Malaysia's former health minister Chua Soi Lek made a surprising comeback when he won the deputy president's post in the Malaysian Chinese Association. He has no government post, he is not an MP, and he has the baggage of a sex scandal. He resigned early this year (as Health Minister) after a DVD of him having sex with a woman stunned the nation. Dr. Chua Soi Lek did not contest the March election, and was written off politically. (MCA grassroots) see him as having been a good minister, and an effective negotiator with Umno who can defend their interests. He managed a narrow 114-vote majority in party polls on Saturday over Housing and Local Government Minister Ong Ka Chuan, the brother of outgoing president Ong Ka Ting.

Party insiders point out that the new leadership lineup is largely made up of fresh faces seen as reformist, an indication that the grassroots are well aware of the realities.

To the outside observer, however, it seemed the MCA's choice was out of touch with the ground. In the March general election, voters abandoned the MCA, rejecting a leadership seen as subservient to Umno.

Some of outgoing president Ong Ka Ting's critics have also hailed Dr Chua Soi Lek's victory as a rejection of dynastic politics as his brother Mr Ong Ka Chuan was voted out. There had been discontent in the party about the dominance of the Ong brothers (Ka Ting and Ka Chuan).

The new MCA lineup is also seen as a break with the past, and setting new directions for the party. All four vice-presidents are new.

Former Women's chief Dr Ng Yen Yen made it into the ranks, the first woman to do so. It also includes Health Minister Liow Tiong Lai, seen as a young professional.

Independent-minded Malacca grassroots leader Wong Nai Chee was elected into the central committee, while the well-regarded Dr Wee Ka Siong is the new Youth chief.

They are seen as leaders with little affiliation to the divisive teams of the past, and have spoken up strongly for the Chinese community's interests.

It now remains to be seen how the new president will manage his new team to remake MCA into a party with a multiracial outlook.

COMMENTARY

Chua Jui Meng: If Only He Had Won the MCA Presidency!

Read here article "Chua Jui Meng, MCA's Loss, Whose Gain?" on Din Merican's Blog

Excerpts

by Din Merican

".... It was indeed my distinct honour to be in the company of Dato’ Chua Jui Meng, Datin Chua and his close friends at dinner in Kuala Lumpur last night.

Although he did not win the MCA presidency, Jui Meng polled 4O per cent of the votes. It is indeed an achievement considering the fact that he no longer holds any party office since 2005.

Ong Tee Keat talks tough,(but) it is NOT likely that the new MCA President will “rock the Barisan national boat” and challenge the dominance of UMNO in the BN coalition.

So Jui Meng’s appeal, “March 8 was our wake up call; let MCA arise to a new dawn on October 18″, will fall on deaf ears.

As I engaged myself in intense conversation with him, I could not help but notice that Jui Meng was able to articulate his views clearly on major issues affecting both the MCA and our country.

His vision and ideas are reflected in his 2008 MCA Presidential Candidate manifesto titled “Rebuild The Party/Return to Relevance/Realise Vision 2020.” (click here to read) Bloggers and readers of this blog should visit
http://www.chuajuimeng.com/ for the full manifesto.

I propose to highlight some key elements of the Jui Meng manifesto, hopefully to stimulate some discussion for the benefit of all of us who are concerned about our current national malaise and the future of our plural, culturally diverse, and resource rich country. A lawyer by profession, Jui Meng opens his mainfesto with the following statement:

“The results of the General Elections this year should serve as a wake up call to our Party.

MCA has been labelled irrelevant and out of touch with the aspirations of not only the Malaysian Chinese community but the nation as a whole.

...I now predict that unless MCA reforms and transforms within the next 3 years we will face an even worse defeat at the next General Election”.

I take Jui Meng’s call for reform to mean that if MCA adopts the UMNO culture of money politics, patronage, and cronyism, as it is inclined to do now, the oldest Chinese party of Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun Tan Siew Sin would be badly beaten in the 13th General Elections and rejected by Malaysian Chinese.

It is obvious to me that his call was listened and accepted by about 40 per cent of the delegates, the rest being happy to accept the status quo which the new President, Dato Ong Tee Keat, represents.

If Jui Meng had won, he would have embarked on the path of reform centered on 3 ideas:

a) Rebuild the MCA;

b) Return to Relevance; and

c) Realise Vision 2020 and Bangsa Malaysia.

There is a need for MCA to overcome its Post May 13, 1969 Syndrome.

It involves a transformation of the MCA mindset of a subordinate to UMNO. This syndrome has prevented the MCA from playing a more active role, as in a partnership of equals I presume, in formulating and deciding key policies that impact on the nation and the Chinese community.

Jui Meng adds that the MCA must NOT be afraid to “offend UMNO and lose our positions and privileges if we speak out against policies that are obviously detrimental to the unity and development of our nation”.

In his Return to Relevance part of the manifesto, he states that the party leadership “must also reach out and reconnect MCA with the community”. The details of how Jui Meng proposes to do it are in the manifesto and need not concern us here.

His "Realise Vision 2020 segment" is perhaps the most daring and controversial articulation of his Vision for a United Malaysia.

The fact that he prepared to challenge the status quo and risk his chances for the presidency, I think, speaks volumes of the character and integrity of Jui Meng.

The MCA must fight and help realise Vision 2020 for ALL Malaysians, a vision that seeks to unite all Malaysians and to create a confident united nation with strong moral and ethical values living in a community that is democratic, liberal and tolerant, socially equitable and progressive with a resilient, robust and competitive economy.

His boldest statements in his manifesto relate to Article 8 (i) and (ii), Article 11(i) and (ii) and Article 12 (i) and Article 121 of the Federal Constitution.

On the NEP, Jui Meng said that it should be replaced by an affirmative action policy which is focused on poverty eradication and be based on needs.

I told him that I was taken up by some of his ideas which relate to national unity and social justice and would read his manifesto in full and promised to be in touch.

I asked Jui Meng, “what’s up next for you, Dato?”.

His spontaneous response was “Din, Datin and I are going to take a short break. But please remember, politics is in my blood and my business of bringing about change in the way we run the country will continue.”

He left me wondering what he might do next?

It is a sad fact that in a country where mediocrity is the culture and incompetence is indeed tolerated, we lose good men. They are not listened to, are often regarded with suspicion or even demonised as national security risks and traitors to the nation.

As such, they not only face rejection but also persecution and brutal treatment under the Internal Security Act. Yet only few good men with the dynamism, integrity, and courage to attract committed followers and supporters are all we need to transform our nation.

To this group of men, I would include Dato Chua Jui Meng. If Jui Meng is MCA’s loss, whose gain will it be, I wonder.

—Din Merican

The Financial Death of the US Empire

by

Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a Washington-based political writer and policy analyst and Robert A. Taft Fellow with the American Conservative Defense Alliance. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan and as a senior policy analyst in the 1980 Reagan for President campaign. He has been widely published in leading newspapers and periodicals and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has written and edited several books, including Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press), The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea (Palgrave/Macmillan, coauthor), Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World (Cato), Perpetuating Poverty: The World Bank, the IMF, and the Developing World (Cato, coeditor), and Military Manpower and Human Resources (National Defense University). His latest book is Foreign Follies (Xulon Press).

Read related article (below) by Chris Floyd: The God That Failed

Excerpts: Read here for more

The American empire is kaput.

Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama realizes that fact yet, but the myth of the omnipotent unipower, the essential nation, the country which declares that what it says goes, has been exposed to all.

The financial crash has wrecked the economic basis of America's imperial pretentions.
  • The US stock market has dropped 2500 points in 9 days. Trillions of dollars in wealth disappeared as the Dow lost six years worth of growth.

  • The Bush administration and Congress have tossed ever increasing amounts of money at FAILING firms, hoping to appease the economic gods.

  • But the markets refuse to be appeased, and financial contagion has circled the globe.
Even BEFORE the economic crisis spiraled out of control, the US government was effectively broke.
  1. The national debt currently stands at $9.8 trillion, up $4 trillion (about 72 percent) since George W. Bush took office.

  2. With the pre-bail-out federal deficit in 2009 expected to hit a half trillion dollars, earlier this year Congress upped the debt ceiling to $10.6 trillion.

  3. But truly frightening are the many liabilities yet to come due. The federal government makes loans and loan guarantees for most any purpose known to man or woman – education, energy research, housing, agricultural land, airlines, veterans, and more.

  4. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is billions of dollars short of the reserves necessary to cover expected bank losses. Washington is on the hook for generous pensions for its own workers as well as billions of dollars in guarantees of pensions for private workers whose companies fail.

  5. Then there's Medicare and Social Security, which together have an unfunded liability – that is, promised benefits exceeding expected revenues – of more than $100 trillion. In 2003 the Republican Congress and Republican president created the Medicare drug benefit without bothering to figure out how to pay for it, adding trillions of dollars more to the system's unfunded liabilities.
No one knows where the money is going to come from to pay all of these bills, but that hasn't stopped Congress from continuing to expand benefits. Now the government's liabilities are going up again, as Congress and the administration spend wildly in an attempt to revitalize the economy.

Indeed, the administration and Congress apparently are prepared to bankrupt America to save American business.

So far this year they have spent:
  1. $850 billion for the Wall Street bailout plus the financial "sweeteners" needed to buy enough votes for passage;
  2. $300 billion to bail out the housing industry largely through the Federal Housing Administration; $200 billion in Federal Reserve loans to commercial banks;

  3. $200 billion (and probably more) to bail out and essentially nationalize the political piggy banks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

  4. $144 billion or more to buy mortgage-backed securities through Fannie and Freddie (yes, the same entities being bailed out by Uncle Sam because of their past purchases of bad debt);

  5. $87 billion to repay JPMorgan Chase for financing Lehman Brothers trades;

  6. $85 billion for a loan to bail out and effectively nationalize insurer American International Group;

  7. $50 billion to guarantee money market funds;

  8. $37.8 billion in a second loan to AIG,

  9. $29 billion to finance the buyout of Bear Stearns;

  10. $25 billion in loans to the auto industry, which continues to sink as demand for cars falls;

  11. $10 billion in direct Treasury Department purchases of mortgage-backed securities;

  12. $4 billion in mortgage community grants.
That's $2 trillion, which is REAL MONEY even in Washington.

And the bailouts aren't over. Just two business days AFTER Congress approved the $700 billion buy of bad securities and any other assets desired by the Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve announced that it may purchase unsecured short-term corporate debt. If so, the Fed will be directly lending to the firms in the biggest financial trouble with no security; we all know how that is likely to end.

Moreover, the Treasury Department says it wants to "directly strengthen the balance sheet of individual institutions" by acting like a common investor and buying an equity stake in companies.

Treasury also is considering taking a formal ownership position in US banks, giving them cash directly. The Fed then cut interest rates, even though its ongoing policy of cheap, easy money is one of the primary causes of the boom that just went bust.

As Congress and the president continue to pile debt upon debt, America's financial problems will cascade. In May the Congressional Budget Office warned:
"Budget deficits that grow faster than the economy ultimately become unsustainable. As the government attempts to finance its interest payments by issuing more debt, the rise in deficits accelerates.

That, in turn, leads to a vicious circle in which the government issues ever-larger amounts of debt in order to pay ever-higher interest charges. In the end, the costs of servicing the debt outstrip the economic resources available for financing those expenditures.

At some point, then, policy has to change: Taxes must be raised, spending must be reduced, or both."
With the post-bailout 2009 budget deficit now expected to run around one trillion dollars, Uncle Sam may soon have to worry about who is going to buy all of this debt.

  • Will the Chinese continue purchasing securities from a financially irresponsible entity that keeps adding obligations with no obvious means of paying?
  • Will Americans want to take on the increasingly risky paper?

  • Will they be able to afford to do so?
Earlier this year – before the tsunami of federal bailouts covering anyone even walking near Wall Street – Moody's Investors Services announced that it was considering downgrading federal bonds, citing the government's failure to fund Social Security and Medicare.

"These two programs are the largest threats to the long-term financial health of the United States and to the governments' AAA rating," Moody's Vice President Steven Hess explained.

Tom Lemmon, also of Moody's, warned that "the underlying credit rating of the US government faces the risk of downgrading in the next ten years if solutions are not found to our growing Medicare and Social Security unfunded obligations." Lowering the investment rating for US debt would hike federal expenditures even more.

As credit dries up and the US economy stalls, how can Washington continue to engage in social engineering the world over?

The Iraq war continues. Nearly $600 billion so far has been wasted on Bush's folly, and the total cost will exceed $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and maybe $3 trillion or even more, if Joseph Stiglitz's and Linda Bilmes's numbers come true.

The Cost of Maintaining the US Military Worldwide

Then there are Washington's other military activities.

America accounts for roughly half of the globe's military outlays. The US maintains nearly 800 military bases and other facilities around the world.

In 2009 Uncle Sam will be spending roughly $515 billion on "NORMAL" military operations – more, in real terms, that at any time since World War II. That means Americans now are spending more per year to patrol the globe than they spent to fight the Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War.

But that's NOT including Iraq and Afghanistan, which together cost roughly $12 billion a month.

Toss in those costs and include some money for unexpected contingencies, and we're talking $700 billion. That's the amount of the Wall Street bailout, but an expense that will continue year after year.

It's one thing to act like the global dominatrix when the country is living on easy street, enjoying record economic growth and government revenue. But as the economy is crashing and Uncle Sam will soon have to visit the equivalent of global loan sharks to finance its operations, the time for the pretention of international hegemony is over.

Why are over-burdened US taxpayers expected to defend the Europeans, who have a larger collective economy and population, from nonexistent threats?

Yes, the government in Moscow has an ugly edge, but Vladimir Putin is not the reincarnation of Joseph Stalin and there will be no Red Army dash through Germany and France and on to the Atlantic. And if that was a possibility, then why shouldn't the Europeans sacrifice a little more of their abundant wealth to defend against it?

In fact, with the financial crisis hitting Europe as well, military spending there is likely to drop. Observed Mark Stoker of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London,
"I can't see defense is going to escape any kind of austerity measures.

It would be very difficult for any government to justify cutting health and education in favor of, say, building two aircraft carriers and buying a load of planes to stick on them."
Surely the US SHOULDN'T be subsidizing Europe if those nations spend even less on their own defense. What they spend for the military obviously is their decision to make, but they should bear the full consequences of whatever decision they do make.

Even worse, why should Washington take on the role of protecting former pieces of the Soviet Union and even the Russian empire? We should wish the Baltic States, Georgia, and Ukraine well. But they never counted as a security interest to America.

Just how much US money and blood should be spent to guarantee Georgia's right to supress secessionists and settle a century-old feud to its satisfaction? If Europe believes this to be an important goal, wonderful. Let the Europeans spend the money and take the risks necessary to make it happen.

It is equally nonsensical for America to continue subsidizing the defense of Japan, which has the second or third largest economy in the world, depending on the measure used. Yet it spends less than one percent of its GDP on defense, a quarter of America's burden. The ongoing economic crisis is a good time to tell Tokyo: you're a big country now, so defend yourself and your region.

The same goes for South Korea. It possesses one of the largest economies in the world and has 40 times the GDP of its decrepit northern antagonist. A majority of younger South Koreans say they fear America more than North Korea. Why are nearly 26,000 US troops still on station there? Bring them home and demobilize them, while the Republic of Korea takes over responsibility for its own defense. South Korea has matured. It should act like it and take on "adult" international responsibilities.

US Folly in Attempting Nation-Building

Finally, it's time for Washington to give up on nation-building. Social engineering is difficult enough at home. It's well-nigh impossible for outsiders, especially naïve and ignorant – even if well-intentioned – Americans, to transcend history, tradition, geography, religion, ethnicity, and culture to remake other societies.
  • Iraq has been a catastrophe.

  • We've been trying to fix Haiti for more than a century.

  • Arresting warlords in Somalia was one of Washington's dumbest ideas.

  • Neither Bosnia nor Kosovo are real countries, despite years of American attention.And, to be perfectly blunt, who cares if they become real countries?

  • (Yes),we should be concerned about the mistreatment of people everywhere. But Washington has demonstrated NO competence in setting foreign nations right, and ivory tower humanitarians have no right to risk the lives of our brave servicemen and women in the name of a glorious crusade for democracy in Mesopotamia, the Balkans, Caribbean, Africa, or anywhere else.

    War truly must be a LAST resort, which means NO resort at all unless American society truly is at risk in some fundamental way.

    No wars of choice or convenience, no matter how easy and cheap they appear likely to be.

    The Myth of American Omnipotence

    The American economy will eventually recover from its current trauma. But the myth of US omnipotence likely is shattered forever.

    Over the last six years the US has tossed away its moral superiority, diplomatic indispensability, and military infallibility.

    Now it has lost its economic security. Washington is broke, having made a succession of financial promises the country can ill afford to cover.

    There was never a good time for empire. But if there ever was a good time, it has passed. Instead of attempting to micro-manage global affairs, America should again become a normal country, strong enough to protect itself, but no longer claiming responsibility for maintaining global security, stability, and prosperity. Doing so isn't possible, at least at an affordable price.

    Empire isn't worth the risk to American society or the lives of American military personnel. It certainly isn't worth the cost, especially at a time of economic crisis.

    Let us make John Quincy Adams' apt dictum the lodestar of our new foreign policy:
    America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

    RELATED ARTICLE


    The God That Failed- The 30-Year Lie of the Market Cult

    By

    Chris Floyd

    Excerpts: Read here

    Perhaps the most striking fact revealed by the global financial crash -- or rather, by the reaction to it -- is the staggering, astonishing, gargantuan amount of money that the governments of the world have at their command.

    In just a matter of days, we have seen literally trillions of dollars offered to the financial services sector by national treasuries and central banks across the globe.
    • Britain alone has put $1 trillion at the disposal of the bankers, traders, lenders and speculators;

    • Washington is shoveling into the financial furnaces of Wall Street and the banks.

    • These radical efforts are being replicated on a slightly smaller scale in France, Germany, Italy, Russia and many other countries.
    The effectiveness of this unprecedented transfer of wealth from ordinary citizens to the top tiers of the business world remains to be seen. It will certainly insulate the very rich from the consequences of their own greed and folly and fraud.

    Milton Friedman's Market Economy

    Beginning with Margaret Thatcher's election in 1979, government after government -- and party after party -- fell to the onslaught of an extremist faith:
    The narrow, blinkered fundamentalism of the "Chicago School." Epitomized by its patron saint, Milton Friedman (watch video clip of Milton Friedman) , the rigid doctrine held that an unregulated market would always "correct" itself, because its workings are based on entirely rational and quantifiable principles.
    This was of course an absurdly reductive and savagely ignorant view of history, money and human nature; but because it flattered the rich and powerful, offering an "intellectual" justification for rapacious greed and ever-widening economic and social inequality, it was adopted as holy writ by the elite and promulgated as public policy.

    This radical cult took its strongest hold in the United States and Britain, and was then imposed on many weaker nations through the IMF-led "Washington Consensus" with devastating and deadly results. (As in Yeltsin's Russia, for example, where life expectancy dropped precipitously and millions of people died premature deaths from poverty, illness, and despair.)

    According to the (market) cult:
    1. Not only were markets to be freed from the constraints placed on them after the world-shattering effects of the Great Depression, but all public spending was to be slashed ruthlessly to the bone. (Although exceptions were always made for the Pentagon war machine.)
    2. Every dollar spent by a public entity on public services and amenities was a dollar taken away from the private wheeler-dealers who could more usefully employ it in increasing the wealth of the elite -- who would then allow some of their vast profits to "trickle down" to the lower orders.
    This was the cult that captured the governments of the United States and Britain (among others), as well as the Republican and Democratic parties, and the Conservative and Labour parties as well.

    And for almost thirty years, its ruthless doctrines have been put into practice. Regulation and oversight of financial markets were systematically stripped away or rendered toothless.
    • Essential public services were sold off, for chump change, to corporate interests.

    • Public spending on anything other than making war, threatening war and profiting from war was pared back or eliminated.

    • Such public spending that did remain was forever under threat and derided, like the remnants of some pagan faith surviving in isolated backwaters.
    Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments:
    We have NO money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life.
    We can't do those kinds of things any more.
    Of course, when talking amongst themselves, or with the believers in the think tanks, boardrooms -- and editorial offices -- the cultists would speak more plainly: we don't do those things anymore because we shouldn't do them, we don't want to do them, they are wrong, they are evil, they are outside the faith.

    But for the hoi polloi, the line was usually something like this: Budgets are tight, we must balance them (for a "balanced budget" is a core doctrine of the cult), we just can't afford all these luxuries.

    But now, as the emptiness and falsity of the Chicago cargo cult stands nakedly revealed, even to some of its most faithful and fanatical adherents, we can see that this 30-year mantra by our governments has been a deliberate and outright lie.

    The money was there -- billions and billions and billions of dollars of it, trillions of dollars of it.

    We can see it before our very eyes today -- being whisked away from our public treasuries and showered upon the banks and the brokerages.

    Let's say it again: The money was there all along.
    1. Money to build and generously equip thousands and thousands of new schools, with well-paid, exquisitely trained teachers, small teacher-pupil ratios, a full range of enriching and inspiring programs.

    2. Money to revitalize the nation's crumbling inner cities, making them safe and vibrant places for businesses and families and communities to grow.

    3. Money to provide decent, affordable and accessible health care to every citizen, to provide dignity and comfort to the elderly, and protection and humane treatment for the mentally ill.

    4. Money to provide affordable higher education to everyone who wanted it and could qualify for it.

    5. Money to help establish and sustain local businesses and family farms, centered in and on the local community, driven by the needs and knowledge of the people in the area, and not by the dictates of distant corporations.

    6. Money to strengthen crumbling infrastructure, to repair bridges, shore up levies, maintain roads and electric grids and sewage systems.

    7. Money for affordable, workable public transport systems, for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy, for sustainable, sensible development, for environmental restoration.

    8. Money to support free inquiry in science, technology, health and other areas -- research unfettered from the war machine and the drive for corporate profit, and instead devoted to the betterment of human life.

    9. Money to support culture, learning, continuing education, libraries, theater, music and the endless manifestations of the human quest to gain more meaning, more understanding, more enlightenment, a deeper, spiritually richer life.
    The money for all of this -- and much, much more -- was there, all along. When they said we couldn't have these things, they were lying -- or else allowing themselves to be profitably duped by the high priests of the market cult.

    When they wanted a trillion dollars -- or three trillion dollars -- to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, they found it.

    Now, when they want trillions of dollars to save the speculators, fraudsters and profiteers of greed in the global market, they suddenly have it.

    This is one of the main facts that ordinary citizens around the world should take away from this crisis:
    The money to maintain, secure and improve the lives of their families and communities was always there -- but their governments, and their political parties, made a deliberate, unforced choice NOT to use it for the COMMON good.
    Instead, they subjugated the well-being of the world to the dictates of an extremist cult.

    A cult of greed and privilege, that preached iron discipline to the poor and the middle-class, but released the rich and powerful from all restrictions, and all responsibility for their actions.

    Let these thoughts guide you as you weigh the promises and actions of politicians and candidates, and as you assess the "expert analysis" on economic and domestic policy offered by the corporate media and the corporate-bankrolled think tanks and academics.

    You certainly will hear, when (and if) the markets are finally stabilized (at whatever gigantic cost in human suffering) -- the adherents of the market cult emerge once more and call for "deregulation" and "untying the hands of business" and all the other ritual incantations of their false and savage fundamentalist faith.

    So remember well the lessons of this new October crash:

    The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there.

    But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.

    The Powell Doctrine: How Barack Obama Meets the Standards of an Exceptional President of the United States

    Put on your speakers

    Note: Putting General Colin Powell's comments into Malaysian context: It is extremely doubtful that Malaysian political leaders, especially UMNO leaders, can pass even 5% of the standards set by General Powell for leadership and character to lead a small country like Malaysia. UMNO leaders, because of their own deficiencies, have no basis to criticise American politicians or American politics.
    -
    Malaysian Unplug




    General Colin Powell:Profile



    Colin Luther Powell (born April 5, 1937) is a retired General in the United States Army. He was the 65th United States Secretary of State (2001–2005), serving under President George W. Bush. As a General in the United States Army, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993), holding the latter position during the Gulf War. He was the first and, so far, the only Jamaican American to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff or in the Cabinet. Read here for more

    Excerpts of Colin Powell's interview with Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press. Read here for more

    GEN. POWELL (speaking to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press):

    Yes, but let me lead into it this way. I know both of these individuals very well now.

    I’ve known John for 25 years as your setup said. And I’ve gotten to know Mr. Obama quite well over the past two years. Both of them are distinguished Americans who are patriotic, who are dedicated to the welfare of our country.

    Either one of them, I think, would be a good president.

    I have said to Mr. McCain that I admire all he has done. I have some concerns about the direction that the party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that’s a choice the party makes.

    And I’ve said to Mr. Obama, “You have to pass a test of do you have enough experience, and do you bring the judgment to the table that would give us confidence that you would be a good president.”

    And I’ve watched him over the past two years, frankly, and I’ve had this conversation with him. I have especially watched over the last six of seven weeks as both of them have really taken a final exam with respect to this economic crisis that we are in and coming out of the conventions.

    And I must say that I’ve gotten a good measure of both.

    In the case of Mr. McCain, I found that he was a little unsure as to deal with the economic problems that we were having and almost every day there was a different approach to the problem. And that concerned me, sensing that he didn’t have a complete grasp of the economic problems that we had.

    And I was also concerned at the selection of Governor Palin. She’s a very distinguished woman, and she’s to be admired; but at the same time, now that we have had a chance to watch her for some seven weeks, I don’t believe she’s ready to be president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president. And so that raised some question in my mind as to the judgment that Senator McCain made.

    On the Obama side, I watched Mr. Obama and I watched him during this seven-week period. And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

    I also believe that on the Republican side over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower. Mr. Obama, at the same time, has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people. He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines. He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

    And I’ve also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about.

    This Bill Ayers situation that’s been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he’s a washed-out terrorist.

    Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted.

    What they’re trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that’s inappropriate.

    Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that’s good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It’s not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me.

    And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration.

    I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.

    But the really right answer is, what if he is?

    Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

    I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith.

    And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life.

    Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

    So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president.

    But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time?

    And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure.

    He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

    And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.

    I really have been going back and forth between somebody I have the highest respect and regard for, John McCain, and somebody I was getting to know, Barack Obama. And it was only in the last couple of months that I settled on this. And I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.

    It isn’t easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that. But I strongly believe that at this point in America’s history, we need a president that will not just continue, even with a new face and with some changes and with some maverick aspects, who will not just continue, basically, the policies that we have been following in recent years.

    I think we need a transformational figure. I need–think we need a president who is a generational change.

    And that’s why I’m supporting Barack Obama. Not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Senator John McCain.