Everyone will be relieved to have news that a ceasefire has been agreed for Monday, when Lebanese and UN forces should start moving into Hezbollah-dominated areas of southern Lebanon.
However, the attitude of the Hezbollah leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, is worrying.
According to the story on Reuters, he has said that "Hizbollah would abide by the U.N. resolution and cooperate with the U.N. and Lebanese troops, but would carry on confronting any Israeli soldiers on Lebanese soil....As long as there is Israeli military movement, Israeli field aggression and Israeli soldiers occupying our land ... it is our natural right to confront them, fight them and defend our land, our homes, and ourselves," Nasrallah said.
In other words, Nasrallah still does not recognise that confronting any foreign forces is not the job of the Hezbollah but of the Lebanese army.
And he also wants the Israelis to move out *before* will order a stop to the violence from his side: "his fighters would abide by it once Israeli forces also adhered to it".
Sadly, this game of who should stop first and who should move out first is unlikely to produce peace.
I continue to fear that violence will continue, though as I said in my last post on the subject, I very much hope that I am wrong.
Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, August 12, 2006
I was also wrong about "India: 1"
Apparently, I was too hasty in awarding a goal to India in my recent "India vs. Switzerland" bureaucracy match.
I am told that India's Central Cabinet is now busy blunting the edge of the Right to Information Act (also commonly called the "Right to Know" Act).
The Cabinet has done this by approving an Amendment to the Act, designed to prevent the right to access "file notings" - that is, the notes and comments made on the files by bureaucrats.
The Cabinet is proposing to place the Amendment before the next session of the Indian Parliament.
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has created an on-line petition against the Amendment, which can be viewed and signed at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/save_rti/
I urge you to sign it. Sphere: Related Content
I am told that India's Central Cabinet is now busy blunting the edge of the Right to Information Act (also commonly called the "Right to Know" Act).
The Cabinet has done this by approving an Amendment to the Act, designed to prevent the right to access "file notings" - that is, the notes and comments made on the files by bureaucrats.
The Cabinet is proposing to place the Amendment before the next session of the Indian Parliament.
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) has created an on-line petition against the Amendment, which can be viewed and signed at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/save_rti/
I urge you to sign it. Sphere: Related Content
Call for liberalisation of Indian primary and secondary education repeated by Mr Narayana Murthy of Infosys
Software icon Mr Narayana Murthy has repeated his call for the liberalisation of Indian primary and secondary education. He said this in the context of arguing that economic liberalisation has not touched the poor and makes no sense unless it addresses their basic needs
For the story, see
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2006/aug/12murthy.htm
He is reported to have said: "One of the strangest things that I have not understood (and) which I have asked many ministers in the Centre including the Prime Minister - I have received no answer - why we delicensed our industrial sector in 1991. But even today our primary and secondary education is not delicensed".
My reflections:
Why liberalise only primary and secondary education? Why not tertiary education as well?
Why not start Public Interest Litigation on the issue?
Or why not ask under the Right to Information Act the following questions:
- Has the government ever considered removing bureaucratic controls on schools?
- If so, what were the arguments for and against?
- Would the Courts please direct the Government to liberalise education immediately? Sphere: Related Content
For the story, see
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2006/aug/12murthy.htm
He is reported to have said: "One of the strangest things that I have not understood (and) which I have asked many ministers in the Centre including the Prime Minister - I have received no answer - why we delicensed our industrial sector in 1991. But even today our primary and secondary education is not delicensed".
My reflections:
Why liberalise only primary and secondary education? Why not tertiary education as well?
Why not start Public Interest Litigation on the issue?
Or why not ask under the Right to Information Act the following questions:
- Has the government ever considered removing bureaucratic controls on schools?
- If so, what were the arguments for and against?
- Would the Courts please direct the Government to liberalise education immediately? Sphere: Related Content
What are the chances that UN resolution 1701 will end the Israel-Lebanese-Hezbollah conflict?
The UN Security Council's unanimous adoption of Resolution 1701 yesterday calls for a "cessation of hostilities" in the war between Israel and the Hezbollah militia that has killed some one thousand Lebanese and a hundred and twenty three Israelis, and displaced more than 1 million people, in addition to the destruction of Lebanon's only international airport, as well as all its major roads, bridges and power stations, effectively cutting Lebanon off from the rest of the world.
The resolution imposes an arms embargo on the delivery of weapons or military equipment to "any entity or individual" in Lebanon excluding the Lebanese army and UN troops. However, the timing for the end of hostilities has not yet been agreed by Lebanon (making Lebanon as guilty as Israel for delaying the end to the fighting).
Resolution 1701 also authorises the deployment of 15,000 foreign troops authorised to "take all necessary action" needed to keep the peace - and this must give us hope, though it is doubtful whether foreign troops will be as dedicated at keeping the peace in a country which is not their own, as will either the Israelis or the Hezbollah in pursuing their respective aims.
Though the UN troops will apparently be joined by 15,000 Lebanese troops which Lebanon plans to send to its south, it is unlikely that these 30k together will be able to match a not-yet-disarmed Hezbollah, if that party is determined to disrupt the peace.
Which is the nub of the matter. The whole crisis was unleashed by Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and, as far as I can see, Hezbollah has not said anything at all in relation to the current negotiations at the UN.
In theory, the text of the resolution is absolutely clear about the disarming of Hezbollah; in Clause OP8, the text "Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:
• full respect for the Blue Line by both parties,
• security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area,
• full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state."
However, in the absence of Hezbollah accepting this clear and absolute requirement for disarming, I therefore doubt if peace will actually result at all from this UN resolution and the actions that follow from it - or, if peace does result, I doubt that such a peace will last long.
On the other hand, if Hezbollah does agree to be disarmed, Lebanon will have a proper government (and not merely a lame government) after a very long time - and therefore real prospects for peace - which is after all the purpose for which the Olmert government was originally, but only a short while ago, elected by the Israelis. A purpose tragically interrupted by very deliberate Hezbollah actions. Sphere: Related Content
The resolution imposes an arms embargo on the delivery of weapons or military equipment to "any entity or individual" in Lebanon excluding the Lebanese army and UN troops. However, the timing for the end of hostilities has not yet been agreed by Lebanon (making Lebanon as guilty as Israel for delaying the end to the fighting).
Resolution 1701 also authorises the deployment of 15,000 foreign troops authorised to "take all necessary action" needed to keep the peace - and this must give us hope, though it is doubtful whether foreign troops will be as dedicated at keeping the peace in a country which is not their own, as will either the Israelis or the Hezbollah in pursuing their respective aims.
Though the UN troops will apparently be joined by 15,000 Lebanese troops which Lebanon plans to send to its south, it is unlikely that these 30k together will be able to match a not-yet-disarmed Hezbollah, if that party is determined to disrupt the peace.
Which is the nub of the matter. The whole crisis was unleashed by Hezbollah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and, as far as I can see, Hezbollah has not said anything at all in relation to the current negotiations at the UN.
In theory, the text of the resolution is absolutely clear about the disarming of Hezbollah; in Clause OP8, the text "Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long-term solution based on the following principles and elements:
• full respect for the Blue Line by both parties,
• security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area,
• full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state."
However, in the absence of Hezbollah accepting this clear and absolute requirement for disarming, I therefore doubt if peace will actually result at all from this UN resolution and the actions that follow from it - or, if peace does result, I doubt that such a peace will last long.
On the other hand, if Hezbollah does agree to be disarmed, Lebanon will have a proper government (and not merely a lame government) after a very long time - and therefore real prospects for peace - which is after all the purpose for which the Olmert government was originally, but only a short while ago, elected by the Israelis. A purpose tragically interrupted by very deliberate Hezbollah actions. Sphere: Related Content
Friday, August 11, 2006
Comedy and Spirituality
Charisma and spirituality often go together (usually to the detriment of the kind of spirituality on offer)
But, in my experience, comedy and spirituality come together extremely rarely.
However, they come together seamlessly and triumphantly in the book, "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About God (but were afraid to ask)" by Eric Metaxas.
I gather that the book has been so successful that a sequel is scheduled for May 2007.
BTW, Eric seems to be quite charismatic too. In more senses than one. Do visit his website: http://www.ericmetaxas.com
And buy the book, yes buy the book - its a splittingly funny read - and, who knows, in the middle of the laughter, there may come a ray of light - even, perhaps, some charisma.... Sphere: Related Content
But, in my experience, comedy and spirituality come together extremely rarely.
However, they come together seamlessly and triumphantly in the book, "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About God (but were afraid to ask)" by Eric Metaxas.
I gather that the book has been so successful that a sequel is scheduled for May 2007.
BTW, Eric seems to be quite charismatic too. In more senses than one. Do visit his website: http://www.ericmetaxas.com
And buy the book, yes buy the book - its a splittingly funny read - and, who knows, in the middle of the laughter, there may come a ray of light - even, perhaps, some charisma.... Sphere: Related Content
My colleague Noel Purcell, the Group General Manager for Stakeholder Communications at Westpac Banking Corporation (which is now ranked number one in Australia and the UK for corporate responsibility) presented a paper titled "The Good the Bad and the Ugly of Corporate Responsibility" at the 7th National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development, held in Brisbane, Australia, on 15-16 May 2006.
He has kindly given me permission to publish his paper, so here it is:
"What more appropriate time to be debating the good, the bad and the ugly of corporate responsibility. With public trust in corporations at an all time low and
cynicism at an all time high, it’s common to hear people say that the interests of corporations can never be reconciled with the public interest. And it is not uncommon to hear that the whole notion of corporate responsibility is just disingenuous blather. In fact, with so many interpretations, corporate social
responsibility as a term is almost without common meaning. And as an inadequately defined and understood concept it tends to be divisive. So let’s move on from the confusing and divisive language and get back to the real question. The question that has been asked ever since the father of capitalism Adam Smith wrote his Inquiry into the Origins and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776:
Is it possible for corporations to maximize profit and at the same time serve the public interest by contributing to human, social and environmental capital?
Is it desirable?
Is it foolish to try?
Or to put it another way, will the unfettered pursuit of corporate profit, without adequate attention to the public welfare, ultimately set crippling and unnecessary limits on capitalism, making it less creative, less dynamic, and less sustainable, as Peter Drucker has argued?
What is not always understood is that Smith in fact described a system based on ‘enlightened self interest’, and not one based on personal advantage at the ultimate expense of the common good.
In his earlier work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759, Smith had underpinned his ‘capitalist’ system with the virtues of justice, fairness and honesty. Smith saw neither selfishness nor greed as virtues and regarded the spheres of human conduct - economic, social, moral, and political - as interwoven and mutually dependent.
So how did we end up in a world where corporate behaviours are so widely seen to be at odds with that envisaged by the father of capitalism?
Much of the answer can be traced back to the nineteenth century and the influence of Social Darwinism - a philosophy whose essence is that human societies work best when the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ is exercised with the minimum constraint.
Following this philosophy, a ‘laissez faire’ libertarian form of capitalism soon dominated, built on the belief that the market works best if unfettered by regulation or externally imposed obligations.
Called ‘brute capitalism’ by Steve Young, the Executive Director of the Caux Round Table, its popularity dipped somewhat with the socially unpleasant consequences of
depression and war.
But it made a resounding recovery in the last few decades. The problem with brute capitalism, however, is that in the end narrow self-interest and personal advantage inevitably get elevated to the status of core values. And as a result public trust in corporations goes out the window.
I think the following tongue in cheek story, built on the recent Enron scandal, provides a vivid example of how the public sees ‘brute capitalism’. It goes like this:
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank.
You then execute a debt-equity swap with an associated public offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights for six cows are then transferred through an intermediary to a Cayman Island company, secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report then declares that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more, which of course triggers the multi-million dollar executive performance
bonuses.
Yes this is an exaggeration, although some of the revelations of greed and deceit in recent corporate scandals do beggar belief. Exaggeration it might be, but public markets do appear increasingly less capitalist, at least in the sense that owners
are no longer proprietors.
Owners today operate more as ‘detached punters’, many with their interests delegated to their superannuation, investment and insurance funds. But when the funds themselves have little expectation of really being able to directly influence the operation of companies, the prevailing behaviour is to play the market - moving in and out quickly, with less and less focus on longterm holdings and long-term value.
Not surprisingly, this has impacted senior management behaviour and how they’re seen. For example, as a result of corporate scandals and alleged excesses, they’re increasingly being accused of viewing themselves as the object and beneficiaries of the bets, rather than seen as the proprietors of lasting enterprises.
One certainly should start worrying when the Economist magazine itself features an article titled ‘Pigs, pay and power’, claiming that executive pay lay at the heart of
capitalism’s troubles.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
A moral form of capitalism is possible, where the interests of the firm are reconciled with the public interest.
Good companies are out there today demonstrating that they can embody and express concern for the public welfare without sacrificing profitability.
Doing the right thing by society, which may be little more than doing no harm, and doing the right thing by the firm can be mutually re-enforcing goals.
At its core, moral capitalism simply means not trampling on the interests of others in the pursuit of corporate interests. It involves corporations being concerned with the principles of right and wrong and conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles. Or to use corporate-speak, widening the concept of corporate value in ways that align the strategic needs of the owners of
the capital with those of the relevant stakeholders on which the ongoing viability of the business depends.
The way forward involves corporations accepting accountability for the externalities of their business activities that impact the public and stakeholder interests.
And to recognise that in doing so, they will take risk out of their business, enhance their ‘social licence to operate’ and reputational capital, and thereby add to shareholder value.
In other words, businesses must find a point of equilibrium in blending self-interest with principles and values that accord with the public good. A point that ensures the primary and legal obligation of the business to operate profitably is not compromised, but enhanced.
This means practicing ‘enlightened self-interest’, or as Adam Smith would have put it, ‘self-interest considered upon the whole’.
What is clear is that if we want our capitalist system to be a more sustainable one, and a more efficient one, and certainly one which is more uniformly admired, then corporations must marry their own self-interests to a sympathetic regard
for the well-being of others.
Encouragingly there is a growing view in equity and investment markets that this is the right strategy.
So in summary, there is no question that companies can do good and do well at the same time.
The message is that the pursuit of excellence in business does not require companies to forget their moral sense.
In fact if we are to sustain the prosperity of our companies and our society, business leaders are going to have to move beyond the walls of their institutions and truly learn to create community."
End Sphere: Related Content
He has kindly given me permission to publish his paper, so here it is:
"What more appropriate time to be debating the good, the bad and the ugly of corporate responsibility. With public trust in corporations at an all time low and
cynicism at an all time high, it’s common to hear people say that the interests of corporations can never be reconciled with the public interest. And it is not uncommon to hear that the whole notion of corporate responsibility is just disingenuous blather. In fact, with so many interpretations, corporate social
responsibility as a term is almost without common meaning. And as an inadequately defined and understood concept it tends to be divisive. So let’s move on from the confusing and divisive language and get back to the real question. The question that has been asked ever since the father of capitalism Adam Smith wrote his Inquiry into the Origins and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776:
Is it possible for corporations to maximize profit and at the same time serve the public interest by contributing to human, social and environmental capital?
Is it desirable?
Is it foolish to try?
Or to put it another way, will the unfettered pursuit of corporate profit, without adequate attention to the public welfare, ultimately set crippling and unnecessary limits on capitalism, making it less creative, less dynamic, and less sustainable, as Peter Drucker has argued?
What is not always understood is that Smith in fact described a system based on ‘enlightened self interest’, and not one based on personal advantage at the ultimate expense of the common good.
In his earlier work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments in 1759, Smith had underpinned his ‘capitalist’ system with the virtues of justice, fairness and honesty. Smith saw neither selfishness nor greed as virtues and regarded the spheres of human conduct - economic, social, moral, and political - as interwoven and mutually dependent.
So how did we end up in a world where corporate behaviours are so widely seen to be at odds with that envisaged by the father of capitalism?
Much of the answer can be traced back to the nineteenth century and the influence of Social Darwinism - a philosophy whose essence is that human societies work best when the principle of ‘survival of the fittest’ is exercised with the minimum constraint.
Following this philosophy, a ‘laissez faire’ libertarian form of capitalism soon dominated, built on the belief that the market works best if unfettered by regulation or externally imposed obligations.
Called ‘brute capitalism’ by Steve Young, the Executive Director of the Caux Round Table, its popularity dipped somewhat with the socially unpleasant consequences of
depression and war.
But it made a resounding recovery in the last few decades. The problem with brute capitalism, however, is that in the end narrow self-interest and personal advantage inevitably get elevated to the status of core values. And as a result public trust in corporations goes out the window.
I think the following tongue in cheek story, built on the recent Enron scandal, provides a vivid example of how the public sees ‘brute capitalism’. It goes like this:
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank.
You then execute a debt-equity swap with an associated public offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights for six cows are then transferred through an intermediary to a Cayman Island company, secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report then declares that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more, which of course triggers the multi-million dollar executive performance
bonuses.
Yes this is an exaggeration, although some of the revelations of greed and deceit in recent corporate scandals do beggar belief. Exaggeration it might be, but public markets do appear increasingly less capitalist, at least in the sense that owners
are no longer proprietors.
Owners today operate more as ‘detached punters’, many with their interests delegated to their superannuation, investment and insurance funds. But when the funds themselves have little expectation of really being able to directly influence the operation of companies, the prevailing behaviour is to play the market - moving in and out quickly, with less and less focus on longterm holdings and long-term value.
Not surprisingly, this has impacted senior management behaviour and how they’re seen. For example, as a result of corporate scandals and alleged excesses, they’re increasingly being accused of viewing themselves as the object and beneficiaries of the bets, rather than seen as the proprietors of lasting enterprises.
One certainly should start worrying when the Economist magazine itself features an article titled ‘Pigs, pay and power’, claiming that executive pay lay at the heart of
capitalism’s troubles.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
A moral form of capitalism is possible, where the interests of the firm are reconciled with the public interest.
Good companies are out there today demonstrating that they can embody and express concern for the public welfare without sacrificing profitability.
Doing the right thing by society, which may be little more than doing no harm, and doing the right thing by the firm can be mutually re-enforcing goals.
At its core, moral capitalism simply means not trampling on the interests of others in the pursuit of corporate interests. It involves corporations being concerned with the principles of right and wrong and conforming to standards of behaviour and character based on those principles. Or to use corporate-speak, widening the concept of corporate value in ways that align the strategic needs of the owners of
the capital with those of the relevant stakeholders on which the ongoing viability of the business depends.
The way forward involves corporations accepting accountability for the externalities of their business activities that impact the public and stakeholder interests.
And to recognise that in doing so, they will take risk out of their business, enhance their ‘social licence to operate’ and reputational capital, and thereby add to shareholder value.
In other words, businesses must find a point of equilibrium in blending self-interest with principles and values that accord with the public good. A point that ensures the primary and legal obligation of the business to operate profitably is not compromised, but enhanced.
This means practicing ‘enlightened self-interest’, or as Adam Smith would have put it, ‘self-interest considered upon the whole’.
What is clear is that if we want our capitalist system to be a more sustainable one, and a more efficient one, and certainly one which is more uniformly admired, then corporations must marry their own self-interests to a sympathetic regard
for the well-being of others.
Encouragingly there is a growing view in equity and investment markets that this is the right strategy.
So in summary, there is no question that companies can do good and do well at the same time.
The message is that the pursuit of excellence in business does not require companies to forget their moral sense.
In fact if we are to sustain the prosperity of our companies and our society, business leaders are going to have to move beyond the walls of their institutions and truly learn to create community."
End Sphere: Related Content
China now only a year behind Japan in robotics?
China has now also created a robot, "Mis Rong Cheng", with voice-recognition and human-interaction capabilities, only a year or so after Japan did so (see my articles and Blog entries on the subject of robotics.
The Chinese robot too looks like a woman, is 168-cm tall, weighs 60-kg, and is programmed to speak and respond to between 500 to 1,000 commands in Mandarin, as well as in Sichuanese because the intention is to send her to the Sichuan Science Museum in Chengdu to act as a receptionist and tour guide.
I must say that the Chinese robot (which I have seen only in photos and video sequences) does not look quite as human, let alone as attractive, as the Japanese - which, by the way, remains the most advanced robot in the world. That's Honda's "Asimo", who can walk at a speed of one mile per hour and climb up and down stairs as well.
However, "Asimo" does cost roughly one million U.S. dollars, whereas Chinese "Miss Rong Cheng" cost only 37,500 U.S. dollars.
Japan, watch out!
The score in robotics seems to me, at present, to be:
India: 0
USA: 1
Europe: 2
China: 3
Korea: 3
Japan: 5.
The story on the Chinese robot is at: http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyId=ae0675d066e796842059950247ac1c9bc0fdf0de Sphere: Related Content
The Chinese robot too looks like a woman, is 168-cm tall, weighs 60-kg, and is programmed to speak and respond to between 500 to 1,000 commands in Mandarin, as well as in Sichuanese because the intention is to send her to the Sichuan Science Museum in Chengdu to act as a receptionist and tour guide.
I must say that the Chinese robot (which I have seen only in photos and video sequences) does not look quite as human, let alone as attractive, as the Japanese - which, by the way, remains the most advanced robot in the world. That's Honda's "Asimo", who can walk at a speed of one mile per hour and climb up and down stairs as well.
However, "Asimo" does cost roughly one million U.S. dollars, whereas Chinese "Miss Rong Cheng" cost only 37,500 U.S. dollars.
Japan, watch out!
The score in robotics seems to me, at present, to be:
India: 0
USA: 1
Europe: 2
China: 3
Korea: 3
Japan: 5.
The story on the Chinese robot is at: http://today.reuters.com/tv/videoChannel.aspx?storyId=ae0675d066e796842059950247ac1c9bc0fdf0de Sphere: Related Content
I was wrong: you can fight Swiss bureaucrats
In a post yesterday, titled: "India 1: Switzerland 0 - or, Fighting corruption is possible, but how do you fight Swiss bureaucrats?", I argued that India was now better than Switzerland in terms of being able to take on bureaucrats.
A Swiss colleague tells me that I am wrong, that it is quite possible to fight Swiss bureaucrats. Apparently, all that one needs to do is to write a "letter of recourse" to the Department. If that fails, one can write a similar letter to the next level up and so on. In 3 or 4 such letters, you are at the level of the Supreme Court of Switzerland.
I am advising the Swiss lady to write her "letter of recourse".
Watch this space. Sphere: Related Content
A Swiss colleague tells me that I am wrong, that it is quite possible to fight Swiss bureaucrats. Apparently, all that one needs to do is to write a "letter of recourse" to the Department. If that fails, one can write a similar letter to the next level up and so on. In 3 or 4 such letters, you are at the level of the Supreme Court of Switzerland.
I am advising the Swiss lady to write her "letter of recourse".
Watch this space. Sphere: Related Content
Signs of the Times
In a piece titled SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman refer to two recent books:
1. Vital Signs 2006-2007, published by the Washington, D.C.-based WorldWatch Institute, which contends that "the health of the global economy and the stability of nations will be shaped by our ability to address the huge imbalances in natural resource systems"; and
2. The Least Developed Countries Report 2006, issued by the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which argues that while there
have been relatively higher rates of economic growth in the Least
Developed Countries (LDCs, a UN-designated group of the world's poorest
50 countries), it is "not translating into poverty reduction and
improved human well-being."
In the article, Mokhiber and Weissman quote fascinating factoids from the books such as the following:
1. Global oil consumption in 2004 was 3.7 billion tons, about eight
times more than in 1950. Coal consumption was two-and-a-half times more
than 1950, and natural gas more than 15 times greater.
2. 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded on Earth. Atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide reached 379.6 parts per million for 2005.
3. Thanks largely to Hurricane Katrina, weather-related disasters caused
more than $200 billion in damage, nearly double the previous record.
Three of the 10 strongest hurricanes ever recorded occurred in 2005.
4. Global production of photovoltaic cells -- which generate
electricity from sunlight -- increased 45 percent in 2005, with current
levels six times the amount produced in 2000.
Mokhiber and Weissman conclude: "Overall, however, there's no way to look at the data in these two books and conclude anything but that the current way of doing things is not working".
The full story is at: http://www.corporatepredators.org Sphere: Related Content
1. Vital Signs 2006-2007, published by the Washington, D.C.-based WorldWatch Institute, which contends that "the health of the global economy and the stability of nations will be shaped by our ability to address the huge imbalances in natural resource systems"; and
2. The Least Developed Countries Report 2006, issued by the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which argues that while there
have been relatively higher rates of economic growth in the Least
Developed Countries (LDCs, a UN-designated group of the world's poorest
50 countries), it is "not translating into poverty reduction and
improved human well-being."
In the article, Mokhiber and Weissman quote fascinating factoids from the books such as the following:
1. Global oil consumption in 2004 was 3.7 billion tons, about eight
times more than in 1950. Coal consumption was two-and-a-half times more
than 1950, and natural gas more than 15 times greater.
2. 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded on Earth. Atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide reached 379.6 parts per million for 2005.
3. Thanks largely to Hurricane Katrina, weather-related disasters caused
more than $200 billion in damage, nearly double the previous record.
Three of the 10 strongest hurricanes ever recorded occurred in 2005.
4. Global production of photovoltaic cells -- which generate
electricity from sunlight -- increased 45 percent in 2005, with current
levels six times the amount produced in 2000.
Mokhiber and Weissman conclude: "Overall, however, there's no way to look at the data in these two books and conclude anything but that the current way of doing things is not working".
The full story is at: http://www.corporatepredators.org Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Ayn Rand idiocy
As a book on Ayn Rand is about to be published in India, my attention has been drawn to the following quote by her:
"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries."
This is typical of the sort of nonsense that she was so good at: elegant style giving superficial plausibility to content that seems persuasive at first sight but does not hold up to scrutiny.
If Rand's statement were true, then no tradition of dissenting writing could ever have existed, from John Bunyan through Alexander Solzhenitzyn to dissenters in contemporary China such as Yu Jie.
It is also a fact that economic freedom can exist without political freedom - Communist China has been and is one outstanding example, Russia is another. In history, the longest-lasting example was probably India, where the intellectual and political bondage of the caste system guaranteed a free market to people of my caste (vaishyas or banias) with the result that millions of people were oppressed politically and economically for centuries (millennia?)
However, the liberating truth is that free minds usually precede and are the necessary condition for free markets as well as free polities.
"Free minds" do not of course come free - they are the result of tough intellectual labour combined with the willingness to pay the price of taking unfashionable, unpopular and disliked positions in public. Sphere: Related Content
"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries."
This is typical of the sort of nonsense that she was so good at: elegant style giving superficial plausibility to content that seems persuasive at first sight but does not hold up to scrutiny.
If Rand's statement were true, then no tradition of dissenting writing could ever have existed, from John Bunyan through Alexander Solzhenitzyn to dissenters in contemporary China such as Yu Jie.
It is also a fact that economic freedom can exist without political freedom - Communist China has been and is one outstanding example, Russia is another. In history, the longest-lasting example was probably India, where the intellectual and political bondage of the caste system guaranteed a free market to people of my caste (vaishyas or banias) with the result that millions of people were oppressed politically and economically for centuries (millennia?)
However, the liberating truth is that free minds usually precede and are the necessary condition for free markets as well as free polities.
"Free minds" do not of course come free - they are the result of tough intellectual labour combined with the willingness to pay the price of taking unfashionable, unpopular and disliked positions in public. Sphere: Related Content
The future of Sikhism
The future of Sikhism would appear to be bleak - at least in India - where Punjab (the home area for Sikhs) has the lower ration of women to men in the country - only 798 girls for every thousand boys under the age of six.
BTW the average ration in India is 927:1000 -- still well below the worldwide average of 1 050 female babies.
The worldwide average is of course depressed by the widespread abortion of female foetuses and female infanticide all over the world (perhaps some medical authority can inform me of what the "natural" ratio of females to males should be among humans?)
A recent story on this subject is at: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=280347&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/ Sphere: Related Content
BTW the average ration in India is 927:1000 -- still well below the worldwide average of 1 050 female babies.
The worldwide average is of course depressed by the widespread abortion of female foetuses and female infanticide all over the world (perhaps some medical authority can inform me of what the "natural" ratio of females to males should be among humans?)
A recent story on this subject is at: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=280347&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/ Sphere: Related Content
India 1: Switzerland 0 - or, Fighting corruption is possible, but how do you fight Swiss bureaucrats?
Moments after posting my previous blog on how to fight corruption in India, I hear a very interesting case in relation to Swiss bureaucracy.
Before I retail the story, I should mention that Switzerland is one of the cleanest and least corrupt countries in the world.
So what I am about to relate has nothing to do with corruption, only to do with irresponsible bureaucracy.
Here is the story.
An Indian friend of mine is married to a Swiss lady. They often have relatives and friends as their guests (as I do).
One relative applied to come for 3 months. Unusually, he was given a visa for only 2 weeks. (This has never happened to me, so I don't know why the visa was given for a shorter period than applied for. I don't even know if it is legal to give a visa for a shorter period than applied for).
At the end of the fortnight, this guest returned to India.
A year later, he applied to visit them again. This time, the visa was entirely denied, on the grounds that his documents were false!
The Swiss lady rang the consulate concerned, but was told that the decision was final and that there was nothing she could do.
Do note that the only documents concerned are: an Indian passport, a letter of invitation from a Swiss resident, and bank documents from the Swiss resident providing that he/she can support the invitee for the duration of the stay.
So the bureaucrats were either impugning the Indian passport or the letter of invitation from a Swiss national or the documents from a Swiss bank!
I don't know if the Indian relative can take the Swiss officials to court in India for maligning him. If he can, is it worth his while and his money to go to court?
I don't know if the Indian government can take the Swiss government to an international court for implying that its passport is not valid (if that is what was being implied, since I can't imagine that the Swiss Consulate would argue that the Swiss letter of invitation or Swiss bank documents were false - specially as the Swiss lady rang them and spoke to them in Swiss German!)
I don't know if the Swiss lady can take the officials to court for being incompetent (if the relatives documents were false, they should not have let the Indian relative into Switzerland the first time - so they were clearly incompetent in that case. And if his documents were not false the last time around, the officials are clearly being incompetent in denying the visa now).
Switzerland is not corrupt. No bribe would move the officials concerned.
But it is clearly possible for a clean but unaccountable bureaucracy to be even more oppressive than a corrupt Indian system: even if it were worth the Swiss lady's time and money to take the bureaucrats to court, she cannot do so (as far as I know).
My conclusion: the Indian system is now better than the Swiss system. Sphere: Related Content
Before I retail the story, I should mention that Switzerland is one of the cleanest and least corrupt countries in the world.
So what I am about to relate has nothing to do with corruption, only to do with irresponsible bureaucracy.
Here is the story.
An Indian friend of mine is married to a Swiss lady. They often have relatives and friends as their guests (as I do).
One relative applied to come for 3 months. Unusually, he was given a visa for only 2 weeks. (This has never happened to me, so I don't know why the visa was given for a shorter period than applied for. I don't even know if it is legal to give a visa for a shorter period than applied for).
At the end of the fortnight, this guest returned to India.
A year later, he applied to visit them again. This time, the visa was entirely denied, on the grounds that his documents were false!
The Swiss lady rang the consulate concerned, but was told that the decision was final and that there was nothing she could do.
Do note that the only documents concerned are: an Indian passport, a letter of invitation from a Swiss resident, and bank documents from the Swiss resident providing that he/she can support the invitee for the duration of the stay.
So the bureaucrats were either impugning the Indian passport or the letter of invitation from a Swiss national or the documents from a Swiss bank!
I don't know if the Indian relative can take the Swiss officials to court in India for maligning him. If he can, is it worth his while and his money to go to court?
I don't know if the Indian government can take the Swiss government to an international court for implying that its passport is not valid (if that is what was being implied, since I can't imagine that the Swiss Consulate would argue that the Swiss letter of invitation or Swiss bank documents were false - specially as the Swiss lady rang them and spoke to them in Swiss German!)
I don't know if the Swiss lady can take the officials to court for being incompetent (if the relatives documents were false, they should not have let the Indian relative into Switzerland the first time - so they were clearly incompetent in that case. And if his documents were not false the last time around, the officials are clearly being incompetent in denying the visa now).
Switzerland is not corrupt. No bribe would move the officials concerned.
But it is clearly possible for a clean but unaccountable bureaucracy to be even more oppressive than a corrupt Indian system: even if it were worth the Swiss lady's time and money to take the bureaucrats to court, she cannot do so (as far as I know).
My conclusion: the Indian system is now better than the Swiss system. Sphere: Related Content
how to fight corruption
We all know the theory. At bottom it is a matter of a change in values and culture.
But such a change can be helped or hindered by legislation and by agencies dedicated to such change.
In India, corruption is dropping dramatically because of the "Right to Know" legislation, combined with the actions of NGOs committed to helping the poor fight the traditional millennia-old oppression of the poor (usually the depressed and "untouchable", but nowadays also those who are merely economically disadvantaged).
A readable account appears at: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1161162006
Of course, the law alone does not help. It is quite easy to imagine corrupt NGOs. Fortunately, the market operates with NGOs. If one NGO were to become corrupt, the people would soon cotton on to the fact that other NGOs are not and go to those. Theoretically, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that all NGOs would become bribe-seekers. But then the poor would be able to take help from any individual, because it is not NGOs alone who can enable the poor to utilise the law.
So what is needed to break the bondage of corruption in any particular case is: the law plus one individual or organisation.
Now that there is a "Right to Know" law, the only thing keeping corruption in place is the lack of NGOs and motivated individuals.
It will be fascinating to see how long it takes to eradicate corruption completely from India. Which will be a useful indicator of how many motivated NGOs and individuals there are in India. Sphere: Related Content
But such a change can be helped or hindered by legislation and by agencies dedicated to such change.
In India, corruption is dropping dramatically because of the "Right to Know" legislation, combined with the actions of NGOs committed to helping the poor fight the traditional millennia-old oppression of the poor (usually the depressed and "untouchable", but nowadays also those who are merely economically disadvantaged).
A readable account appears at: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1161162006
Of course, the law alone does not help. It is quite easy to imagine corrupt NGOs. Fortunately, the market operates with NGOs. If one NGO were to become corrupt, the people would soon cotton on to the fact that other NGOs are not and go to those. Theoretically, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that all NGOs would become bribe-seekers. But then the poor would be able to take help from any individual, because it is not NGOs alone who can enable the poor to utilise the law.
So what is needed to break the bondage of corruption in any particular case is: the law plus one individual or organisation.
Now that there is a "Right to Know" law, the only thing keeping corruption in place is the lack of NGOs and motivated individuals.
It will be fascinating to see how long it takes to eradicate corruption completely from India. Which will be a useful indicator of how many motivated NGOs and individuals there are in India. Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Global Financial Integrity Program
You may be interested to hear that this new program, Global Financial Integrity (GFI), has been established within the Center for International Policy in Washington, D.C., USA.
Here is the basic information, from the announcement sent out by Raymond W. Baker, author of the book, Capitalism’s Achilles Heel: Dirty Money and How to Renew the Free-Market System (published by John Wiley & Sons, 2005):
"The purpose of GFI is to promote substantially heightened accountability and legality in international financial flows. This is a necessary step in the fight against global crime, terrorism, poverty, and failed states and in the achievement of global prosperity and security.
Using research-based advocacy, GFI will focus on several areas:
1) Changing U.S. law to bar all types of illicit money derived abroad from legally entering the United States. At the present time, the United States bars only a few categories of illicit money arriving from beyond its borders, namely the proceeds of drugs, corruption, crimes of violence, bank fraud, and certain treaty violations. Not barred are the proceeds of racketeering, handling stolen property, counterfeiting, contraband, alien smuggling, trafficking in women, slave trading, environmental crimes, and more. GFI will advocate closing these loopholes.
2) Examining all illicit cross-border financial flows. Capitalism’s Achilles Heel presents an estimate of $1 trillion annually in illicit money moving across borders, half of which—$500 billion a year—shifts illegally out of developing and transitional economies into western accounts. GFI will press the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to produce their own estimates, encompassing all financial flows, legal and illegal, into and out of poorer countries.
3) Eliminating other elements of the global dirty-money system. Since the 1960s, an entire integrated global financial structure has been created to shift illicit funds across borders. This structure includes some 70 tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, several million disguised corporations, anonymous trust accounts, fake charitable foundations, and sophisticated money-laundering techniques. GFI will tackle, in particular, the secrecy elements of this structure, urging greater financial transparency.
4) Curtailing abusive transfer pricing. By far the greater portion of illicit international financial flows stems from falsified pricing in international exports and imports, done for the purposes of evading taxes and relocating profits across borders. This process has become normalized in global trade. GFI will draw attention to the scope of this problem and work with the World Trade Organization and other institutions toward achieving accuracy and transparency in the pricing of global trade.
5) Advocating enhanced corporate social responsibility. GFI will work with other NGOs, international organizations, the United Nations, and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development to put the issues of global financial integrity on the agenda of corporate social responsibility programs.
6) Strengthening the global financial system. In the fight against terrorism, drugs, racketeering, poverty, and failed states, the global financial system must do a better job of ensuring integrity in all aspects of its operations. GFI will work on constituency building with other NGOs and organizations toward these ends.
Illegal cross-border financial flows are the biggest loophole in the global free-market system and the most damaging economic condition hurting the poor in developing and transitional economies. GFI will engage governments, institutions, and partners in efforts to address these pivotal concerns." Sphere: Related Content
Here is the basic information, from the announcement sent out by Raymond W. Baker, author of the book, Capitalism’s Achilles Heel: Dirty Money and How to Renew the Free-Market System (published by John Wiley & Sons, 2005):
"The purpose of GFI is to promote substantially heightened accountability and legality in international financial flows. This is a necessary step in the fight against global crime, terrorism, poverty, and failed states and in the achievement of global prosperity and security.
Using research-based advocacy, GFI will focus on several areas:
1) Changing U.S. law to bar all types of illicit money derived abroad from legally entering the United States. At the present time, the United States bars only a few categories of illicit money arriving from beyond its borders, namely the proceeds of drugs, corruption, crimes of violence, bank fraud, and certain treaty violations. Not barred are the proceeds of racketeering, handling stolen property, counterfeiting, contraband, alien smuggling, trafficking in women, slave trading, environmental crimes, and more. GFI will advocate closing these loopholes.
2) Examining all illicit cross-border financial flows. Capitalism’s Achilles Heel presents an estimate of $1 trillion annually in illicit money moving across borders, half of which—$500 billion a year—shifts illegally out of developing and transitional economies into western accounts. GFI will press the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to produce their own estimates, encompassing all financial flows, legal and illegal, into and out of poorer countries.
3) Eliminating other elements of the global dirty-money system. Since the 1960s, an entire integrated global financial structure has been created to shift illicit funds across borders. This structure includes some 70 tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, several million disguised corporations, anonymous trust accounts, fake charitable foundations, and sophisticated money-laundering techniques. GFI will tackle, in particular, the secrecy elements of this structure, urging greater financial transparency.
4) Curtailing abusive transfer pricing. By far the greater portion of illicit international financial flows stems from falsified pricing in international exports and imports, done for the purposes of evading taxes and relocating profits across borders. This process has become normalized in global trade. GFI will draw attention to the scope of this problem and work with the World Trade Organization and other institutions toward achieving accuracy and transparency in the pricing of global trade.
5) Advocating enhanced corporate social responsibility. GFI will work with other NGOs, international organizations, the United Nations, and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development to put the issues of global financial integrity on the agenda of corporate social responsibility programs.
6) Strengthening the global financial system. In the fight against terrorism, drugs, racketeering, poverty, and failed states, the global financial system must do a better job of ensuring integrity in all aspects of its operations. GFI will work on constituency building with other NGOs and organizations toward these ends.
Illegal cross-border financial flows are the biggest loophole in the global free-market system and the most damaging economic condition hurting the poor in developing and transitional economies. GFI will engage governments, institutions, and partners in efforts to address these pivotal concerns." Sphere: Related Content
Leaving Church
A review of Barbara Brown Taylor's latest book, Leaving Church, is published at http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/003/20.41.html
The reviewer, fellow Episcopalian priest, Garret Keizer, draws in George Herbert, John Bunyan, Mitford and others in considering BBT's book.
Keizer mentions that Francine du Plessix Gray, in her biography of Simone Weil, retails several mystical experiences that altered Weil's life. For example, she witnessed a religious procession in a Portuguese fishing village and concluded that "Christianity is preeminently the religion of slaves". Keizer goes on to raise what is, in his view, "the most difficult question related to Leaving Church: Is middle-class Christianity even possible?.... In his Confessions of an Original Sinner (1990), the historian John Lukacs writes: "One cannot be deeply bourgeois and deeply Christian at the same time." Taylor's memoir has led me to think on that statement, perhaps harder than I ever have before. Are many of us predestined, sooner or later, to be "leaving church"? And if so, is that because our enjoyment of "the good life" is too far removed from "a religion of slaves," or because North American Christianity itself no longer professes such a religion, having become instead a trade show of pathologies and fussy preferences, which any sane person with a will to survive must eventually flee?"
I have long hoped that many if not most North American Christians will flee "North American Christianity" and instead become followers of Jesus the Lord.
According to the latest sociological research, if even 2% do so, it will not only change "North American Christianity" but will also thereby have some chance of saving North America from the plagues that are already beginning to beset it. Sphere: Related Content
The reviewer, fellow Episcopalian priest, Garret Keizer, draws in George Herbert, John Bunyan, Mitford and others in considering BBT's book.
Keizer mentions that Francine du Plessix Gray, in her biography of Simone Weil, retails several mystical experiences that altered Weil's life. For example, she witnessed a religious procession in a Portuguese fishing village and concluded that "Christianity is preeminently the religion of slaves". Keizer goes on to raise what is, in his view, "the most difficult question related to Leaving Church: Is middle-class Christianity even possible?.... In his Confessions of an Original Sinner (1990), the historian John Lukacs writes: "One cannot be deeply bourgeois and deeply Christian at the same time." Taylor's memoir has led me to think on that statement, perhaps harder than I ever have before. Are many of us predestined, sooner or later, to be "leaving church"? And if so, is that because our enjoyment of "the good life" is too far removed from "a religion of slaves," or because North American Christianity itself no longer professes such a religion, having become instead a trade show of pathologies and fussy preferences, which any sane person with a will to survive must eventually flee?"
I have long hoped that many if not most North American Christians will flee "North American Christianity" and instead become followers of Jesus the Lord.
According to the latest sociological research, if even 2% do so, it will not only change "North American Christianity" but will also thereby have some chance of saving North America from the plagues that are already beginning to beset it. Sphere: Related Content
Is an unholy alliance of regulators and telecos holding the world to ransom?
Given the amount of competition in every sector, it appears unlikely that any cartel can have survived.
But OPLAN believes that there is a worldwide cartel of telecoms companies which is effectively preventing technological progress - and that such tech progress would be of immense benefit to customers.
See www.oplan.org Sphere: Related Content
But OPLAN believes that there is a worldwide cartel of telecoms companies which is effectively preventing technological progress - and that such tech progress would be of immense benefit to customers.
See www.oplan.org Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The Minimum-Wage Debate in the USA (and Tax Rebates for the Rich)
Last Friday, the House passed legislation to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per but allied it with a permanently reduction of the estate tax: "In essence, House leadership decided it was fine to help an estimated 14.9 million workers making less than $7.25 per hour increase their average annual income by $1,200 to $4,400, as long as 8,200 wealthy people receive an average estate tax reduction of $1.4 million (in 2011). Minimum wage workers earning as low as $10,700 per year are given a raise, but only if a few individuals with estates worth more than $3.5 million benefit as well."
One or two of those figures don't feel intuitively right, but as I am going to leave for an important matter in 5 minutes, I don't have time to check that out.
However, as Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill this week, you might wish to check out the story at: http://www.sojo.net
search for "Minimum wage double-cross in Congress" Sphere: Related Content
One or two of those figures don't feel intuitively right, but as I am going to leave for an important matter in 5 minutes, I don't have time to check that out.
However, as Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill this week, you might wish to check out the story at: http://www.sojo.net
search for "Minimum wage double-cross in Congress" Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The struggle within the political and military wings of Hamas
For an independent assessment of the struggle between the political and military wings of the Palestinian faction, Hamas, see the story released today, titled "Intelligence Brief: The Struggle within Hamas", on http://www.pinr.com
Sphere: Related Content
On David Pawson
Before any comments from me about Pawson make sense, I have to provide a bit of biography.
I become an atheist at the age of eight (when my father died), and realised the stupidity of being an atheist when I was 14 (it is very simple to see that if there is no God and if the universe is the result of accident, then neither the universe nor any individual life can have any final meaning. So any possibility of meaning is necessarily connected with the possibility that God exists (which led me therefore to search for Him but eventually led to His finding me - but that is another story, for another time).
After having given up atheism, I was never very inclined to take the Theory of evolution seriously, though I have dug around the subject quite a bit and can find no shred of evidence for evolution from one species to another (though there is plenty of evidence for species adapting to their surroundings - so the theory is an excellent explanation for adaptation, but that is rather different from what the Theory claims).
I mention all this only because the final nail in the coffin of the Theory of evolution was a talk by David Pawson. He isn't a scientist, though plenty of scientists don't accept the Theory either (see: www.dissentfromdarwin.org). What he was doing was discussing in quite a lot of detail the first chapters of the Book of Genesis (the first book in the Bible). What he said made eminent sense - though you don't have to believe that if you are to disbelieve the Theory.
So why am I writing about all that today? Becauase I had hardly heard of David Pawson since then, till I ran into a book by him at a bookshop and purchased it, on the strength of my warm memory of his talk from some 40 years ago.
Well, I have just finished reading the book and it is warm, funny, unpretentious, and challenging. For example, when he complained to God about some people starting damaging rumours about him, God told him that what these people were saying was not as bad as the truth about him. That is the incident from which comes the title of his book, Not As Bad As The Truth (Hodder, UK, just published, paperback, ISBN: 0.340.86427-3; price: £8.99)
Though it is difficult to agree with everything that anyone writes, this is Pawson's autobiography, and it is difficult to disagree with anyone's experience!
BTW, when Pawson complained, God did not only answer in the way I mention above (which caused Pawson as well as his wife, to burst out laughing) but God also told Pawson that, though He knows the whole truth about Pawson, He still loves Pawson.
A truth that we all need to hear, if only we are willing to accept it and be transformed by it. Sphere: Related Content
I become an atheist at the age of eight (when my father died), and realised the stupidity of being an atheist when I was 14 (it is very simple to see that if there is no God and if the universe is the result of accident, then neither the universe nor any individual life can have any final meaning. So any possibility of meaning is necessarily connected with the possibility that God exists (which led me therefore to search for Him but eventually led to His finding me - but that is another story, for another time).
After having given up atheism, I was never very inclined to take the Theory of evolution seriously, though I have dug around the subject quite a bit and can find no shred of evidence for evolution from one species to another (though there is plenty of evidence for species adapting to their surroundings - so the theory is an excellent explanation for adaptation, but that is rather different from what the Theory claims).
I mention all this only because the final nail in the coffin of the Theory of evolution was a talk by David Pawson. He isn't a scientist, though plenty of scientists don't accept the Theory either (see: www.dissentfromdarwin.org). What he was doing was discussing in quite a lot of detail the first chapters of the Book of Genesis (the first book in the Bible). What he said made eminent sense - though you don't have to believe that if you are to disbelieve the Theory.
So why am I writing about all that today? Becauase I had hardly heard of David Pawson since then, till I ran into a book by him at a bookshop and purchased it, on the strength of my warm memory of his talk from some 40 years ago.
Well, I have just finished reading the book and it is warm, funny, unpretentious, and challenging. For example, when he complained to God about some people starting damaging rumours about him, God told him that what these people were saying was not as bad as the truth about him. That is the incident from which comes the title of his book, Not As Bad As The Truth (Hodder, UK, just published, paperback, ISBN: 0.340.86427-3; price: £8.99)
Though it is difficult to agree with everything that anyone writes, this is Pawson's autobiography, and it is difficult to disagree with anyone's experience!
BTW, when Pawson complained, God did not only answer in the way I mention above (which caused Pawson as well as his wife, to burst out laughing) but God also told Pawson that, though He knows the whole truth about Pawson, He still loves Pawson.
A truth that we all need to hear, if only we are willing to accept it and be transformed by it. Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, July 30, 2006
The breakdown of the WTO talks, agricultural subsidies and the role of India
The WTO talks are supposed to have failed principally because of disagreement between the US and developing countries (led by India, Brazil and China) regarding agriculture.
So I have been sleuthing a little around this matter and I see news today that India's Associated Chambers of Commerce (ASSOCHAM) is going to submit a paper to India's Minister for Commerce and Industry. Titled "Agricultural Subsidies: India Vs OECD Countries", the paper argues that India is at present subsidising its agriculture sector by a meagre 1.3 per cent of its GDP, as against 42 per cent by countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
More important, the respective share of the subsidy used to be 5% for India and 38% for the OECD, so the OECD is increasing its subsidy by this measure while India is decreasing it.
In 1947, when India became an independent country, the number of people in India involved in the agriculture sector was roughly 270 million. Now, the number of people involved in agriculture is something like 690 million.
Unlike farmers in the West who tend to be rich or at least reasonably well to do, India has only a few rich farmers and the vast majority of farmers are poor or even at subsistence level.
So it is not surprising that India needs to ensure that any WTO deal is going to benefit (or at least not harm) the majority of its farming population.
Indians may disagree about the best ways to achieve benefits for our agriculture sector, but every Indian is and ought to be concerned about the welfare of what is the largest sector of the Indian economy when measured by the number of people involved (that is 69% of our population). Sphere: Related Content
So I have been sleuthing a little around this matter and I see news today that India's Associated Chambers of Commerce (ASSOCHAM) is going to submit a paper to India's Minister for Commerce and Industry. Titled "Agricultural Subsidies: India Vs OECD Countries", the paper argues that India is at present subsidising its agriculture sector by a meagre 1.3 per cent of its GDP, as against 42 per cent by countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
More important, the respective share of the subsidy used to be 5% for India and 38% for the OECD, so the OECD is increasing its subsidy by this measure while India is decreasing it.
In 1947, when India became an independent country, the number of people in India involved in the agriculture sector was roughly 270 million. Now, the number of people involved in agriculture is something like 690 million.
Unlike farmers in the West who tend to be rich or at least reasonably well to do, India has only a few rich farmers and the vast majority of farmers are poor or even at subsistence level.
So it is not surprising that India needs to ensure that any WTO deal is going to benefit (or at least not harm) the majority of its farming population.
Indians may disagree about the best ways to achieve benefits for our agriculture sector, but every Indian is and ought to be concerned about the welfare of what is the largest sector of the Indian economy when measured by the number of people involved (that is 69% of our population). Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)