The Jasmine Revolution: A Breath of Fresh Air

A country of millions, ready to see a chance and tired of the same old, with rising food and fuel prices, unchallenged unemployment with largest groups of jobless youth, and with the drain of an economy living off the output of the biggest liberal democracy. Drinking coke, using Facebook and Twitter, watching the latest Hollywood film, and yet frustrated that they lack something watching their economy continue to grind to a halt. I majority of people, gathering with one word in mind, 'change', but this time I am not talking about the election of an American president, but the rise of a people's movement to make liberalism at the heart of where Egypt and others go from here. This is what change is all about, where those who hold a country hostage at the foot of a barrel discover the continued relentlessness of their people, and the want and expectation of more. I hope no one is at a shock that this movement has spread, it might be however easy to doubt a democracy movement in countries like Libya, and Tunisia with long histories with dictatorships. But even with so many quick to point to this as a Berlin wall revolution, where do nations like Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya go from here, if democracy is to ensue. Is this a different type of revolution, one not seen before?

The huge demonstrations in Egypt have been compared with the Berlin Wall but the big difference between that and this is that no one saw this coming [not even Wael Ghonim the Google exec who helped organize the initial protects in Egypt]. Whilst comparing this to the Berlin Wall mounts comfort that this revolt in Egypt and elsewhere in the Middle East is a move to freedom from oppression, and a better Middle East, nations like the United States and Israel need to remember, that this isn't necessarily about them, no matter how quick CNN and BBC are so quick to pitch it so. It is understandable that Israel feels as those its security is in turmoil with Egypt, but talk of concern about what is going on could backfire and bring about an Egypt that is not quick to look at their favor, specially if countries like Israel favor the old over the new. The United States and other nations need to realize, that this revolution is not a tempory state within nations, that hopes of continued stability can lead one to ignore, but instead this represents a real expression of how people feel, and what they want to see done. Thomas Friedman has written a nice editorial in the New York Times which talks about the need for America to wake up and smell the missing oil supply, and do something about it, but implying a link between that and events going on in Egypt, or Libya, specks to the same point: This isn't necessarily about America, this is about nations in the Middle East left alone by the rest of the world with false stability, and people in these nations want a voice. Don't be so self concerned you forget what is actually going on here beyond your own borders America, this is a moment of change in the Middle East, not another excuse to become self concerned. Do not simply make this all about you because your missing a real story here if you do.

The easy part is now over for Egypt, the people on the streets was half the work, which is something that the people in Egypt need to remember [not to suggest that It might be strange however, to talk of a constant revolution at a time of extreme change in Egypt, but in reality that is exactly what all new democracies demand]. Democracy is not something you acquire, and suddenly all your problems are solved. Instead the stench of authoritarian rule often feed limitations, and the slow weak pace of governance take new forms, with the army preaching change with the people but still wearing the same mask as the last regime just gone. As soon as forces of friction rather then momentum surround a countries future, we face the prospect of a new Iran from Egypt, and Tunisia and Libya. I know this is not a heart warming thought, and one to which I'm sure people in these countries even recent, but that is exactly the point: if the people don't represent and create their future nations as a whole, as a democracy, it doesn't matter what they think. There should be time to recover, you cannot attract tourists to your country, fight rising prices, and poverty, and have a revolution constantly playing out on the streets, but the true blessing of democracy is that the streets become cleared, yet the voices remain. People find a voice in the people who represent them, and on the leaders concerned with not just maintaining the security of their current economy, this is now the challenge that rests before Egypt, and Tunisia and any other Middle Eastern nation that moved from dictatorship to democracy. From this comes a revolution seen only in a minor sense in the middle east before, this isn't just about democracy, or liberty, this is about people in their own countries having a voice, that is the real wake up call and where the real story is. The suppressed remain suppressed no more, what comes next, is a constant revolution, not necessarily of extremism, but of the people. Don't be so quick to fear it, those in the rest of the world, you should instead watch the Middle East have its own chance to learn what democracy is all about, before you compare this with the Berlin Wall or with the seeds of more Irans. The cat is not out of the bag just yet.

To Facebook or To Google? The Internet Domination

With my last post, I kinda left you all hanging, cause I didn't really explain 'what' I had in mind when I said this year was going to be different, even tho I said this year is going to be different. This is what I had in mind, Facebook. What better may to start and demonstrate enthusiasm for 2011 with news that 500 million dollars has been invested by Goldman Sachs and Co. into what was in early 2005 the extension of a doom-room project. Facebook, is now an Internet giant, with over 550 million users, [valued at $50 billion] and having grown through the recession [lets face it, Facebook is a bit like beer, it makes for good depression relief] and weathered it without a scratch, it would seem Facebook has done more growing than anyone anticipated [except for some very intelligent investors and particulars, like Microsoft] who are riding this boat that doesn't seem to want to take a break [expected to hit a billion users 2012]. That's right, Facebook isn't going away despite a recent group on Facebook suggesting that is it shutting down next month [pst, as if, Goldman has stopped selling shares of the company because they are going like hot cakes] but in any case, I wanted to talk a little bit about Facebook, and its growing enemy Google, who is really dominating the Internet?

Facebook, apparently. According a traffic tally for 2010, Facebook is now the most viewed website on the Internet, trumping the search engine Google. But when it comes to Internet companies, or any company for that matter, traffic is one thing, profit is another. Facebook recently had it leaked by someone [Facebook doesn't have to report its revenue or profit, except to its small amount of investors, only companies registered on the exchange with shares that anyone can own have to do that] of apparently $500 million in revenue, which isn't bad, but still doesn't beat Google, which has its revenue in the billions. Part of this comes down to the quantity of ads that Google owns, where all this revenue gets made, any of these ads can easily be put up on a site [if you take a look to your right, you might have noticed that Amazon, and Google are paying the bills, not that I suspect I am going to make much [I'm not about to buy a condo in the Caribbean]. I have read estimates that suggest that over 60 to 70 percent of all Internet ads are Google. And when you take into mind all the websites we all regularly go to that Google owns, like Youtube, and others like Double Click and Admob, not to mention Google's own pet projects like Gmail and Google maps and its search engine, when you consider all the ads that come with it, this adds up [ching, ching]. Profits are an important thing that makes Google ahead [money talks, you know, enough said, its nice to know someone is going to get a condo in the Caribbean]. And with all Google is doing it certainly isn't just a search engine anymore, but isn't Facebook just a social network?

"Dear Facebook, Just wait, one day they'll abandon you as well. Sincerely, Myspace" is another page I've noticed on Facebook not just for its message, but also for its popularity, with over 200 thousand fans. Which raises an important question for all those who keep talking about Facebook like they are the next big thing, we have ditched a social network before, why not again? I remember good old Bebo, which I had for a while [till viruses took it over] and I remember Myspace too, until I realized it was just all about the music [kinda like that awkwardness, when you attempt to pick up a girl by dissing a band, to find out its her favourite]. Some other social networks didn't get off the ground [or at least not in the way the wanted] like Friendster that got so full of 'fakesters' that everyone got over it [not to mention it being incredibly slow just when it was getting off the ground] or Orkut [Google's pet] which got dominated by Brazilians and some Indians, and no American wanted to touch. But really, there are reasons why Facebook will survive, even though everyone says they would 'drop their Facebook tommorow' we all know that you love your friends, and your pictures [every time someone de-activates their Facebook, you all know you go 'hey, where are my pictures?'] so admit it, you're not going anywhere in a hurry [unless you have a reason]. This is where it all comes down to the logic that Facebook has been beating into investors and anyone else who will listen for a while, Facebook isn't just cool, its a utility to be used, that people cannot stop using [my dad has a Facebook, and he is old as, so yeah I think we can rule out Facebook being just cool. Who cares, besides, who really knows who is joining, you only get to see your selected friends]. Facebook also cares about your privacy [come on, they know they don't have 9 lives when it comes to our data and potentially doing stuff we don't like with it].

Growth is a key reason for why Facebook isn't going down the toilet in a new 'Internet bust' and as long as Facebook can maintain those it has, it will grow and even take over the role that other social networks play, even in those parts of the world that currently have their own social networks. The more people are on Facebook, the more it will take hold, cause people will always have a friend who isn't to motivate to take up a profile [and come on, Goldman Sachs must know something to want to invest so much, right?]. But whether Facebook can make enough revenue to keep investors happy, remains to be seen. I mean, Facebook clearly has ads, but clicked on any recently? Its easy to be on Facebook and not notice they are even there [its what makes Facebook so great, and why everyone thought they were serious when a rumour went around that they were going to start charging for the service, remember that?]. Growth is however the backbone behind who will dominate [and continue to dominate the Internet] because both Facebook and Google have their waves: Facebook it's popularity and members, and Google its venture companies and successful sites it continues to buy [and ching ching]. As long as we don't see the two combined [Faceboogled? try saying that one ten times really fast] it really comes down to who's wave is bigger, the companies owned by Google or the people joining and marketing with Facebook [face-pooed-on, face-pooed-on, face-pooed-on]. Because Facebook might just be a social network, but when your the next big thing, that's all you need to be.

The Phoenix of 2011 or just more 'Dirty Words'?

Since this is my first blog post for 2011, I thought i was begin this year with a bang. So whilst so many other bloggers, and columnists are trying to sum up last year, I want to instead focus your attention where it should rest, on trying to sum in the next. To tell you the truth i found it difficult to find columns on the 'new year' not only because im sure there are alot of new people out enjoying it, but also because everyone else whom was writting columns or blogs seemed to be trying to just sum up the year just gone in as small a space as possible [is 2011 really just an interlude until the world ends? cause it seems like 2010 was]. But in any case, i did find an editiorial from the New York Times called A New Year. I wish the editiorial was authored, so i could give the writter some credit. She spends alot of the article talking about the year to come, suggesting a squabble between forces of the prospects for a new year, where we take into the new year our hopes and continued perspective that the world can be a better place, over taking into tommorow the notion that our burdens are here to stay, and what the editiorial refers to as 'sliding scale between utopia and dystopia' which i really liked, because it brings a notion of both prospect and dread into the new year, the big question is which however will dominate, not which we hold dear [which is where i think the editiorial failed, and id like to pick up].

So firstly, what do i mean with the 'dirty word' that i talk about with relation to 2011, [no I don't mean the 'f' word] i mean the 'r' word. Thats right, recession, the word i know all your blog readers are dieing to hear about [HEADLINE: 'and today, the economy has herpes'] but really people, can i just stop you for a moment and lets have a tiny chat about 'recession, recession' in the middle of my column. I have been digging through some old economist articles and found one called The Recession Index - Words that Can Harm You all the way back in [what might as well be the Jarassic Period of] 2002. The article talks about the r-word index, where you count the number of newspaper articles that use the word 'recession' and with comparison of everyones favourite word with previous years, you get an image of how perceptions of the economy sit. I decided to do my own experiment along these times and test out what is the world was thinking about right about now when it comes to the word recession? [HEADLINE: 'and today, the economy has climaxed and now is beginning to shrink bringing with it sticky unemployment'.] If you type in 'the recession is beginning' into the search engine you get 18,700,00 results, and if you type in 'the recession is over' you get 32,800,000 results. With this in mind, and considering some of the groups that have begin to collect numbers on Facebook another 'recession meter' like "using the recession as an excuse for just about anything, no matter how irralavant" which has just over 14,000 people, you get a further picture, but in the end who really wants to start a group on facebook called 'I want to have babys with the recession' so maybe that is a bad example, I wonder however where this blog will sit with relation to the recession meter, hot or cold? Prehaps starting my first post about the new year talking about the word recession isn't a good way to leave my readers with what inspired the title, but never fear, I'm getting there.

It would seem that this optimism is held towards 2011 because we have spent enough time procrastinating about the current year [and lets face it, enough time focusing on the world recession]. And we can talk about how 'this indicates that' all day long, but in the end i have to use the words of a certain gentleman in the white house, but i think now is simply for so many a time for a change. Money is on the flow, and now most of the O.E.C.D [its mean like all these developed nations, Wikipedia it] economies are no long in recession, which is something to be optimistic about, right? This type of thinking is where the phoenix comes into it, cause after all,  we have to move forward, we are all realizing we cannot stay in the same place for too long, as much as because things are getting better. Its not about a cycle of 'good economy' today, and 'bad economy' the next day, it is simple about move onto the next think.  But what we really are very quick to forget is that the overused dirty word is something we do to each other as much as we do to ourselves, the economy words in cycle and a reluctance to hire, or a rise in price, is something we do which hurts ourselves, because it means that someone who would have spent won't, and the more money flows, the better the world is. 2011 will be the year that everyone starts spending more, and start looking at challenges dealing with government debt, and not just forget about it and make excuses [you watch, when the US congress goes to 'raise the debt limit' soon, it won't be able to pass, and not because the US cannot handle anymore debt, but that the US shouldn't, it can start to deal with the issues at hand, rather then governance being all about 'bringing us back from the greatest depression..."] Thinking about global warming, thinking about innovation and entrepreneurship, and thinking about starting a new business, this is going to be the year of the Phoenix, where the modern nations continue their rise. We need to think of what to make of 2011, and what our new thing will be, and that is where I think we begin, and not end, for the prediction i give for 2011 is that we are going to hear the word recession a lot less, cause it isn't 2010 any more, so now we move on to something else, whatever that maybe.

[USA] Obama or the Two-Headed-Monster

Whilst doing some research for this post, i spent some time with Dr. Google [no its ok everyone, im not sick, i mean like Ph.D google] and just happened to type into search bar: Obamaism, and low and behond but not really to my surprize popped up that picture [from obamaism.blogspot.com]. Now if one looks up Bill Clinton and 'socialism' quiet alot of stuff does pop up, but with the tea party movement in full swing there are clearly some crazy people out there. However, If you type in Clintonism you don't get a picture of Clinton with a moushache, nor do you get a picture of Clinton with a red flag in the background [which isn't also white and blue and has traded the stars for that communist hammer thing] you get this weird notion of something that sounds alot like what a Republican would be concerned about: being fiscally responsible [not spending too much government money and saving some of what you have to reduce government debt], work instead of just welfare, and smaller government and more people empowerment. Clinton, was one of the most popular presidents, which some might suggest is due to the surge of economic growth that occured under his presidency [internet boom and all] but i think there is more to a popular president in the United States than that [tho, it does help].

Recently, i spent some time reading a Column of The Washington Post called: Post Leadership, where Jena McGregor talks about Obama re-alignment towards more politically centre lines. Whilst she, like alot of bloggers and columists out there is talking about 'does this new tax deal represent a reinvestion of obamaism to clintonism' [i know, i guess there are going to be a whole lot of tea party people really sad, cause they won't know what to do with their Obama as Starlin posters anymore] but instead she points out a key destinction, saying that Clinton had an inclination to play 'centerist' on side issues, like education, quoting  "symbolic, superficial or trivial" areas, as according to her the The National Review's Jonah Goldberg points out as the one's Clinton would go Bi-partican over. What does this mean? Well, it means that really, when you break it down, this new tax deal, is a huge concession for the white house, and is not a move to the centre like Clinton, but is a move to redefine what it means to be a centerist president. Whilst alot of liberals might be quick to however point out, this represents a stab in the back for them [since isn't this there president!?], not the reinvention of something as great as a Clinton presidency, I think this represents a real mistake on their behalf. What we need in Washington, is progress, which will happen, as long as the Two-Headed-Monster doesn't rare his head.

Too often, we want to talk about politics [specially in Washington] as though it were a game. This big argument, which I have been reading about recently in Hedrich Smith's really good book The Power Game: How Washington Works where he discusses as a side topic whether the best metaphor for how washington works is football or baseball [please, don't judge his book on my one segiment of baseball over football, it really is a awesome account, on how Washington works, all 1000 pages of it]. I however, read this discussion and thought that neither really surfices as an explanation of how politics should work, or does work, WHY? Cause politics, is not a sport, nor is it a game, cause whilst people run for election and either come back for another round [or don't], politics when it comes to the legislation, and the issues at hand, is not easily won by one side. In baseball, or football or any kind of sport, a winner always takes all. And that winner, shouldn't make concessions to the other side, shouldn't compromise, he should be focused on the ball and win. No one however wins this way in politics, you become a 'one man' game if you play politics like this. Just because there is more then one 'I' in politics doesn't mean that it shouldn't be a team effort. Having this notion that politics is a sport where one wins or loses is crazy, and this is where the Two-Headed-Monster comes in. The Two-Headed-Moster, wants us to forget all that. It becomes all about 'one side' over 'the other side' and who gets the most legislation though, who gets to dominate an issue [when really, it could be a bi-partician effort, if people sat down together] and who gets to better their country.

It would seem that some of the best presidents are Democrats who are alot like Republicans [Clinton, Truman, for example] or Republicans who are alot like Democrats [Reagan in his secound term for example]. But more then just that, the best politican are pragmatic and human. They arn't fixed in stone with their ideological positions [and don't inspire crazy people like the tea party in the first place by attatching themselves to one side of politics too much, even tho, Obama in reality isn't even close to Hitler, or Starlin, or anything like that], they are open to reason, and care about the voters they serve enough to compromise to make a difference for them. This concession by the White House, isn't a 'new president' but the one we wanted all long, the one who would work with others, and listen to different ideas, and would get things done. There are alot of people on either side who look at centerism as a fudge factor, but those people are just feeding the Two-Headed-Monster and assuming that politics is one side, with them right, and the other wrong. And whilst so many will scream to critize Obama, this represents progress, where a true centerist platform can be found. We won't have any progress to the better of our country without it, [and come on, lets face it, no one likes a Two-Headed-Monster.]

[NZ] Wiki-Leaks, why I'm glad it wasn't us

When I first found out about the cables that had been exposed to the public, I thought it was another bogus story but when i finally got around to checking some of the papers in the United States [as you do] and see for myself what all this was about, I have to admit I was slightly worried. No, its ok, I haven't been having chats with Hillary Clinton over cable about things I would much rather see kept private [although considering the excitement of some of our local politicans, I have to wonder about others]. I also, just in case your wondering, had nothing to do with Wiki-leaks and this whole mess [I know, big surprize right]. I wasn't concerned either cause I thought something was going to be exposed relevant to New Zealand. I couldn't help but find amusing what Michael Field said in his article, NZ way down the Wikileaks queue, on STUFF.co.nz where he made the point that by the time they produced all the cables that had gone between New Zealand and Washington [and anything interesting] it would have been the year 2033.

In fact in certain respects there remains reasons to rest assured with these leaks are out and the information there. In this weeks [December 13th, 2010] TIME magazine, Fareed Zakaria makes some really good points about how the release of these cables may actually be for the better, in the column: World View. He is not suggesting that whoever released them get off scot free but is suggesting that the cables expose the value of the US State Department, whilst also exposing that Israel isn't the only one concerned with Iran as a potential nuclear power [other middle eastern nations like Saudi Arab came forward with private concern]. I have a feeling even with that as the case, they still were not popping bottles of champagne at the state department, but in any case I think there is some truth to the point Zakaria has made. Iran is now in the cornor concerned, and even accused Washington of releasing the cables [I guess only Iran is the one convinced they were poping champagne at the State Department]. What I guess these cables do, which is really important, is give a clearer picture of the concerns on various people's mind, and show a bit of the reality too often shrouded in secrecy. In any rate, having gotten all that out of the way: Why was I concerned then?

The USA-UK intellgience community, incapsulates a number of different countries around the world which share valuable intelligence that carves foreign policy positions, and security concerns. This network, of collaboration, which includes a whole bunch of similar countries which tend to align, which are: The United States, The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and this very small country in the south pacific called NEW ZEALAND! Thats right, we give, they give, we all share the same pot of intelligence [its ok, this isn't a big secret or anything, I have not been inspired to start my own rounds of leaks]. This is the part though that I'm sure it would be prefered that was thought, but not said. New Zealand, it terms of intelligence, represents the 'back door' in a certain respect where anybody who wants to find out about information shared that might be interesting and valuable to a foreign government. What that means is when the United States has a whole bunch of their cables dumped on the web for the world to see, and at the same time shares all its intelligence [including these cables] with the rest of the world, including little old New Zealand [or so i suspect]. Well?

I think you can see there I am going with this, and here comes the fear that I'm sure would be very real if the United States wasn't sure who had collected and released all these cables [which they are]. Some one frustrated with the secrecy that nations hold their relations could come about anywhere in the world, where these cables were avaliable, and my big fear was that if all this had happened in New Zealand. Wiki-leaks being given global intelligence cables through our back door and in our backyard. Examples of something like this happening in NZ are not as far fatched as you think. One of this dishes that is used to gather intelligence [god knows what those things are doing in New Zealand, but anyway] was tampered with, although some time ago. If you remember a couple of guys climbed over a fence and hey presto, they did what they could to try and damage the dish. The two men were arrested and charged, and whilst I'm sure no one in New Zealand's military with access to these cables would want to share them and catastrophize future kiwi-yanky relations, I couldn't help but wonder if something had gone on, it would only take one crazy member of the New Zealand armed forces [I'm not suggesting a link between that attack, and wikileaks potentially, just an example folks]. I would like to hope that even with the rifts between the US and NZ, we would have nothing like that on our hands. I am glad therefore, that the man who caused this mess was an American [First class private Bradley Manning, who gave the material to wikileaks] and not a kiwi, so that the search for who let the cat out of the bag didn't turn into a witch hunt which might include New Zealand. As for Julian Assange who is the creator of wikileaks and released the material [who many conservative americans want to see hung from the highest tree] he is an Australian, and their problem [for once, we arn't going to fight over a celebratey, you can have him Australia....he has no connections with New Zealand! thank god].

When Hillary Clinton recently came down to New Zealand, I spent those few days drinking tea. I am not so use to having an american politican turn up on our doorstep and have all our local politicans turn giddy. My girlfriend didn't get it though [don't get my wrong, she is a bright one, but she didn't understand what i was going on about, TEA?] Normally I drink coffee, I do so avidly. I explained: "Most of the tea the american's have, is at the bottom of Boston harbour, so i think im safe here drinking tea" [yes, I am talking about the Boston Tea Party, when Britain taxed the shit out of their US colonies with tea, and the now US returned the favour by sticking it in the harbour and telling them to sod off]. However, I don't have anything against the United States, on the contrary, I just get a little nervious when my too favourite countries start mingeling together with no clarity as to 'why?', particularly having someone like Hillary on our doorstep? That being said: I would be concerned if this current climax of 'good relations' was destroyed. With that in mind, I'm glad that even with our own potential backdoor to more US cables then Wiki-leaks would know what to do with, that all we have in our backyard isn't a scandel, but just boring grass, and that it wasn't us!

The Given Century

Too often, we are quick to acknowledge what something is, without realizing how it came to be, or in this case how it will come to be. This type of thinking, where one breaks down the processes of change and the mechanisms that guide it, which was the concern of philosophers of centuries long past, philosophers like Aristotle who put object and change as one, and others like Descartes correcting them in making object and mechanisms of change, distinct. So resulted: Cause, and effect [and is the back bone of just about any academic school of thought]. This thinking, need not be ignored in our own century.

Recently, I have spent time reading Thomas Friedman's column in the NewYork Times, and have read column after column about the biggest concern that should be on every american's mind [but isn't] is how this century is being handed to China, India and anyone else interested in it on a silver platter [I imagine him getting bluer and bluer in the face, as I read more of his columns]. One such column, Got to Get this Right, places huge emphasis on the fact that the United States needs nation-building, and is lost with its own leadership at present, concerned with simple holding a popularity margin to get it through the next election, whether that be the president or congress. Part of this comes down to keeping up with the rest of the world, with China and India, who continue to grow in economic power, which will swiftly turn in the view not necessarily of Friedman but of other more neo-realist thinkers, into military power. Friedman talks about the United States needing to get its act together column after column, but I think beyond the remarks of Friedman that its important to remember that who's century this is, isn't normative. What do i mean what i say normative? you say. I mean that this century isn't set in stone already, like so many in China would love you to think, and so many in the United States seem to be making a habbit of worrying. Our actions make a difference and so will they in guiding this century.

It has been discussed for some time, both academically but also publically of the idea that this is to be the Asian century. But as George Friedman points out in his book, The Next 100 Years, that the Asian century has been discussed since the Nixon years, where many in the United States became convinced that their best years were behind them [as T. Friedman recently pointed out many american are also now]. Looking back, it could certainly be said [without getting all emotional and screaming "oh say can you see?"] that the United States has had some really good times since Nixon was president. However, if this really is to be the Asian century, if China, India, really are to be the next superpowers who direct foreign policy, and guide economic boom and bust phases, then this is also to be the 'Given Century'. What do i mean what i say that? I mean this: that anyone who suggests that this century is the asian one, is making it the case. An idea, a prophacy such as this, is too often a self fufilling one, where people see it as the asian century, and so too invest their money in asia, and watch asia, and the cycle of growth and influence spreads like a virius, as much of the mind, as of circumstance.

If this is the Asian century, it will also be the first 'given' because i can imagine this process will fold out, without a war like the decline of the British empire and European power, or without major disease like the Roman empire declined with. What excuse will this century have to be given up to Asia? The answer is: nothing but our own mind set. In so being the case, I want to reflect on my initial remarks, the process of change, and the object. [And you thought i threw in that babble about Aristotle for fun, this is the part where i see if you were listening.] One has to look not just at what others have and how we can get it, but remember how things work: How did the American century come about? Many would say, that it resulted from the decline of Europe after World War 2, where the United States was a safe haven for wealth, and was a superpower laying in wait. But all this, ignores that the United States was an economically free and thus prosperious nation. In this regard, Asian nations are missing something that it needs to become the next superpower: The Statue of Liberty! Don't suggest that China is the next super power when they are communist, and will so quickly limit and censor what is on the internet and isn't on the political agenda! America got where it is because of its freedom, as much economic and political. Freedom is the name of the current game, no nation will rise to the United State's demise without it.

I am not bagging on China, nor India, bother are great countries, with there current economic strides setting great examples for other nations potentially. But what i am saying is this: there still remains open the possibility that this is not the given century, for in the end, whether the United States steps down and someone else steps up depends on how one sees the world, and what one does in the world. This century, isn't destined to be the Asian century, instead, as much for Americans as for China or whoever else, it is for whoever wants it. It is with this is mind, I tell you that the 'given century' is not the newist prediction, but is instead its own un-doing. For changes in centuries are up to those involved: a nation and superpower are only what they make for themselves. To Americans therefore i say this: whos century this is, it remains up to you! Keep you eyes on the ball, and what you need to do. Don't forget, the road to change is pavent with bricks. Get competitive, the battle ground has changed and the rule narrows down to just one: Be the best, or step aside. Change doesn't just come out of nowhere, you should make sure you remind China of that and fight, not with your bombs, but with your heads and your work ethic, before you simply give this century away.