Operation "Confused Intentions": The No-Fly Zone over Libya

The operations over Libya for many paint a re-newed picture of good old international solidarity against human atrocities, with Qaddafi's forces having attacked Libyan civilians with ground forces and air strikes, the United Nations Security Council switched into gear to put through a resolution allowing the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, to stop continued attacked by forces attempting to crush rebellions in the country with brutal force. Within hours of leaders meeting in Paris, did air strikes from coalition forces take place, with the US and British Navy launching tomahawk after tomahawk [112 in total just in the first few hours of strikes], it didn't take too many days for the coalition to declare that Libya's air force was 'all gone'. However, is this really all about setting an example for other nations in the Middle East with their own rebellions to crush, who might seek out similar measures specially if their own domestic uprisings begin to take hold and make their leaders situation desperate. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other nations like Syria, have all been occupied with their own uprisings, and yet have also supported the idea of opposing Qaddafi, preventing this operation from being an entirely western one, with Qatar even committing four fighter jets to the efforts over Libya. Whilst Arab support for the operation over Libya does make it clearly different from Iraq, or Afghanistan,  [not only because NATO rather then the United States is now in charge] there are however still questions about the true intentions of all this support for the no-fly zone over Libya. With so much frustration having been aimed at Arab leaders like those in Saudi Arabia from Qaddafi [having been accused of being western puppets] it does bring forth the question of how much of this is about human rights and setting an example, and how much is about just getting rid of an annoying Qaddafi who is certainly distasteful to other leaders in the Middle East?

There remains one big reason that the leadership elsewhere in the Middle East may begin to take a role in what is happening in Libya, and that comes down to the need for forces on the ground. If pro-Qaddafi forces occupy cities, it remains difficult for coalition forces to launch attacks, not only with the looming possibility of inflicting casualties on members of the public, but also identifying rebel forces from Qaddafi forces [not all of Qaddafi forces are in tanks, and visa versa]. Bahrain, a small pin prick nation on a map of the Middle East, right next to a much larger Saudi Arabia, experienced external forces from its neighbor recently. With Bahrain in turmoil as the pro-reform revolution took hold in the nation, the royal family in the country called an emergency, and ground forces from Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were quick to respond. Their arrival didn't mean a blood bath, but there were civilian casualties and it remains uncertain as to whether foreign troops were used, and involved. There has already been consideration that a coalition led no-fly zone over Libya may not be as effective as thought, which was one of the main reasons why the United States was reluctant to support the resolution in the first place. If foreign troops are eventually needed, its certain they aren't going to be from the United States, with the White House already being questioned from the current involvement of US forces, having been forced to spell out: 'No US troops on the ground'. With the French, and the deficit concerned British caught in a similar position, any ground forces on the ground in Libya may have to be from the Middle East, particularly if the coalition want to keep this from looking like another Iraq and Afghanistan and potential a western 'oil snatch' like some in the Middle East would believe. While Libya does have neighbors like Egypt, with a better track record for dealing appropriately with public uprisings, they too many be counted out instead needed to maintain stability in their own nations, rather then helping out with the situation in Libya.

If things really do get messy from here, where will the coalition look to go next with a no-fly zone in place and the violence continuing. And even worse, what happens if rebel forces in Libya make an advance, and don't take the humanitarian message to ear, and take comparable restraint to how pro-Qaddafi forces did when he took Libyan cities. What would the coalition do then? It might be that the rebels are a ground force, lacking aircraft [not that it matters, cause no-fly means no-fly for everyone, the jet sent up this week to test the no-fly zone by military forces supporting Qaddafi discovered that] and the military weapons to launch the same indiscriminate attacks that pro-Qaddafi forces did, but whilst taking back cities where sentiment towards Qaddafi is still favorable, attacks on members of the public could become frequent, depending on how divided the nation truly is over the transition. In the end, letting events play out on the ground would send the wrong message, as though the no-fly zone was there all along to give rebel forces the upper hand, a call they may do anything with, specifically if they see the no-fly zone in place against Qaddafi, as the involvement of anti-Qaddafi nations would indicate. Whether this unlikely turn of events plays out [there remains indication that rebel forces, do understand, that if they are do take back cities, they have to do it without bloodshed and civilian atrocities - these are their fellow citizens after all, and Libya may not be as divided as this play out of events suggests] there should be concern, for the current plan needs to incorporate the future, and you cannot just slap the UN slicker on forces from Qatar, Syria, Morocco, or Saudi Arabia, and suddenly make them angels, nor can you enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and expect to make angels out of rebel forces. Having troops called in may be something that doesn't happen, but if it does, the coalition needs to have a big think - considering what options they have ruled off the table already - cause from the looks of who they have involved themselves with, they could have some serious confused intentions on their hands, and not left with options if things turn bad from here.     

All Crude Things Must Come to an End: The Oil Choke

The recent stir up in the Middle East has left oil prices in a rise, and left many asking the question of why after all these years the world hasn't begun to truly move on from crude oil. The United States in particular has maintained a dependency on oil throughout shocks like those caused by the Gulf War and the profit hungry embargo of OPEC [which was basically when a whole bunch of oil producing nations got together and said 'stuff you world' and decided to rise prices together, giving the world no option but to pay more for oil] and even the call of a number of presidents [going back consecutively to Ford through Carter up to the present day] to end the United States dependency on foreign oil [in fact ever sense the United States ran their own oil reserves largely dry] not the mention the destruction of drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico showing the true danger to the environment not with a supposed hypothetical 'global warming' world but instead with such a disastrous oil spill which has scared the region. What is it going to take to have a post-oil world? However, the continued need to do something with the entrenched procrastination to do instead nothing raises the question of whether oil will be like coal, in use until its reserves are truly burnt out, as was the case for the first industrialized nations to utilize it [Britain and the United States] and those nations that still hold reserves [China]. Whilst Oil prices go up and down, demand fluctuates with it and drives the price back to a state of equilibrium to the advantage of the demander and the lazy fat cows of oil consumption. This means that investment has accumulated slowly to fund alternatives, but has forcibly accumulated with 80 billion dollars from the Recovery Act 2009 going into such projects in the United States. But yet it still seems the private sector still lags behind in doing anything about this problem, instead willing to bite the bullet. If we don't move on now, how much longer does the world have to procrastinate before the end of oil is forced upon us when we finally do scrape the bottom of the barrel of oil reserves?

One thing is for certain: the world doesn't have forever to procrastinate like an undergraduate writing his first research essay! Oil is whats left of plant materials that have remained crushed under layers of the earth for some time. Most of the worlds current oil reserves were created million of years ago, with a process of chemical reactions occurring as vegetation which died off in extinction periods is crushed and with the heat of the earth turns into oil over time. Beyond the complicated explanation of where oil comes from, the short of it is that oil on the planet is limited, with this long process that oil goes through to become oil meaning that there is no chance of us creating crude oil out of thin air if we run out. A gentlemen however whom goes by the name of Hubbert provides an avid source of the limits of oil, but also what has turned out to be some very accurate predictions. In 1956 Hubbert predicted accurately that oil production in the United States would peak in the 1970s, and that world production of oil would peak around 2006-2010 which many oiled-obsessed-working-for-BP-and-getting-paid-too-much-Geologists are convinced is the case. What does that mean? We'll, if you take what is called a bell curve, and look at its peak [right at the top] that means that it where a lot of people is convinced is the most oil the world will ever produce now is there, and that global production is going to go down from here. All this leads the end of oil to be 2050, which is kind of a way away, but lets speculate for a moment, what if that number is wrong. Many are inclined to argue that oil reserves will last a lot longer than 2050, but why not instead that margin of error make it sooner rather than later. I am not one for conspiracy theories, nor am I one to stir the pot, but what if we run out of oil sooner then we think?

No amount of speculation will prepare us, and if the price spikes the transition from oil may cost more then those willing to hold on to their investment dollars realize. Instead, the final oil shock may be a choker, with a rush to make a transition from oil a burden on a number of developing countries, but also on developed countries dependent on cheap oil to make plastic, create petrol and jet fuel, and you know keep your car going, but also dependent on whats left of oil to keep research on alternatives to oil going. Thats right, you read that, research to alternatives to oil need oil until we move into a post-oil world. It might sounds slightly crazy, but all these bio-fuels, and hydrogen fuel, as a source of energy and alternative to oil, is dependent on oil to go threw this process where they are created, which involves large machinery for material production, mining and transportation which until we have a viable alternative to oil up and running is still dependent on oil to produce this alternative fuel source, whatever the world will move on to being addicted to next. This means that the biggest cost to research, will be later rather then sooner, and will be huge if oil comes to an end sooner than everyone suspects. It may also be the case that alternatives to oil may not be able to replace oil as we know it in all and every regard, creating an extra dilemma for a post-oil world. Hubbert and many geologists however don't base their time limits on estimation, we have a rough idea of how much oil is left. But that doesn't mean that if they are right we are safe, oil is still running out from here; production is going to go down, and that means prices are going to go up, unless the world truly begins to move on. The process might be long, but the best time to start is sooner rather then later, which means that governments [particularly in the developing world, but also in the developed] and private investors need to continue to fund research into alternatives to oil, and reduce the pain of a transition that could come just as much sooner than later; we shouldn't need Gaddafi's madness to remind us of that. The world needs to begin to move on from oil, all crude things must eventually come to an end, and the world cannot continue to flirt with oil addiction forever. Otherwise, like the wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico from now to just under a year ago, they might find themselves in for a nasty oil choke. 

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!