Search This Blog

Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Gresham’s Law in Present day India


 


If one looks at India's post-Independence scenario in political, social, cultural, academic, literary, journalistic, religious or any other sphere, one comes across the phenomenon of the inferior elements pushing out, by and large, the superior competent ones.

 

To understand the change, let us take, for example, the politics of the Nehruvian days and cite a few representative instances. A member of parliament was thrown out by unanimous vote because he had, knowingly, given a false statement. Acharya Narendra Dev, a leading socialist leader voluntarily resigned his membership of the U.P. state assembly as he had left the Congress on whose ticket he was elected. The Acharya fought on the Socialist Party ticket and he was defeated by the Congress candidate. He had no regrets because his was a principled stand. One must remember that, during those days, it was not legally binding on the Acharya to resign his seat in the assembly as there was no law, making it obligatory for a defector to quit. Take another instance, Harihar Nath Shastri, president of the Indian National Trade Union Congress and an M.P. was killed in an air crash soon after the first general election. Nehru and the Congress offered to make his wife Shakuntala Devi, their candidate in the by-election, but she refused because she was a member of the Socialist Party and not willing to desert it for a sure win. She contested as a Socialist candidate and lost, but had no regrets for turning down the offer from Nehru.

 

Look at the present scenario. Members of central and state legislature frequently defect from one party to another but do not resign their seats. They try to cling to them by exploring some loophole or the other in the anti-defection law. The instances of mass defection by members of Bihar legislature, led by B.P. Mandal in 1967-68 and by Haryana legislators under the leadership of Bhajan Lal are widely known. In both the cases, the defectors formed the government and ruled over their respective states. Only recently, when K. Natwar Singh, a former foreign minister of India, was thrown out by the Congress as his and his son's names figured in the "food for oil" scandal, concerning Iraq, he did not resign his seat in the upper house of the Parliament and lobbied for a seat from the BJP, after his term expired, notwithstanding his self-proclaimed loyalty to secularism and the Nehruvian thinking. H. D. Devegoda, a former prime minister, who heads a party, called Janata Dal (Secular), entered into an alliance with the BJP that has never taken kindly to secularism, just to make his son chief minister of Karnataka, but when the turn of the BJP for heading the government came, he, all of a sudden, woke up to the fact that his party was secular while the BJP was not! Only the other day, a Congress M.P., after being dropped from ministership, crossed over to Mayawati's party, as if ideology was just a shirt to be put on according to one's convenience. The same can be said of a number of politicians who don secular or Hindutva caps, according to expediency.

 

During Nehru's days, K. D. Malviya, then minister for oil and natural gas, had to resign from the cabinet because he had openly recommended the name of a Muslim freedom fighter for some assistance to a nationalist businessman. No quid pro quo was involved. Around the same time Lal Bahadur Shastri, the railway minister resigned, owning moral responsibility for railway accidents.

Those days are long past. Today, ministers cling to their positions even though there are corruption cases against them going on in courts of law. There are members of parliament and assemblies, convicted in the cases involving heinous crimes like murders, thefts, robberies, human smuggling and so on, yet none of them have quit their posts. The list is too long.

 

Very few parliamentarians and legislators have any interest in reading and writing. The latest report from U.P. points out that legislators rarely visit the rich library of the legislature. If one goes through the records of parliament library showing the books borrowed by honourable members, one will not reach any different conclusion. The declining standard of debates is another indicator.

 

If one turns one's attention to academic and literary world, one reaches the same conclusion. By and large, inferior elements, pushing aside the qualified and meritorious ones, have come to occupy dominant positions. If one prepares the lists of all those persons who have been occupying positions of importance in academic institutions or have been nominated to the upper house of parliament or state legislature as "distinguished persons" or awarded literary prizes or Padma decorations, the point will be obvious. The proximity to the people in power, sycophancy, corruption, etc. have been playing no mean role. To give a concrete example, the list of "literary" people, sponsored by various government and semi-government organizations to attend the World Hindi Conference last year, contained quite a sizable number of inferior and fake writers. Pulls and pressures had played a significant role in the preparation of this list.

 

Lately, by floating two fashionable nonsensical concepts, namely, bazaarwad (marketism) and global realism, some inferior writers have been trying to climb up the ladder of eminence. In fact, bazaarwad has been brought in to replace capitalism so that its exploitative character is covered up. Bazaarwad cannot have any place for exploitation because unrestrained market forces assign every commodity whether material or capacity to labour its true value and no one is cheated. Obviously, the champions of this concept serve the interests of capitalism.

If one observes carefully the quality of programmes on electronic media and the character of comments, articles and dispatches in print media over time, the deterioration becomes crystal clear.

 

The phenomenon or tendency, illustrated by the above examples, is not a novel one. It was first mentioned two and a half centuries ago in Greek literature. Aristophanes (456 BC - 386 BC) in his well-known comedy the Frogs underlined it. The play tells the story of the god Dionysus who despairs the plight of Athens as a result of the disastrous Battle of Argiusae. Athens was defeated because the inferior, dishonest, and unqualified people had become dominant after pushing aside superior ones.

To quote the relevant lines:

"The course our city runs is the same towards men and money.

She has fine new gold and ancient silver,

Coins untouched with alloys, gold or silver,

Each well minted, tested each and ringing clear

Yet we never use them!
Others pass from hand to hand,

Sorry brass just stuck last week and branded with a wretched brand.

So with men we know for upright, blameless lives and noble names.

These we spurn for men of brass."

 

Centuries later, in 1858, British economist Henry Dunning Macleod termed this phenomenon "Gresham's Law". Since then this has been in common parlance. In his book Elements of Political Economy. Macleod claimed to have brought to light "a great and fundamental law of currency" that showed the disappearance of good money from circulation with increasing preponderance of bad one. He christened it as Gresham Law on the basis of a letter by Sir Thomas Gresham to Queen Elizabeth I. Sir Thomas, an English merchant, was working as the Crown's financial representative in Antwerp. He informed the Queen that gold coins were disappearing from the circulation as a result of the entry of debased coins, introduced by Henry VIII. The latter had reduced the gold content of coins from six ounces fine to three ounces fine of gold.

 

History shows that the phenomenon that bad money drives good money from circulation was widely known during the earlier periods too. For example, it occurs in the writings of astronomer Copernicus (1473-1543).

 

In the course of time, it has been found that Gresham's Law may be applied to other fields too. People accept inferior goods in place of genuine ones for lack of correct information or the deception created by high voltage advertisement. In the market for second hand cars, lemon automobiles that are analogous to bad money drive out the good cars. Similarly, it is quite dominant in management science. While honest and devoted managers and business leaders take a long time to bring in tangible results while sly ones show good results by employing all kinds of tricks and manipulations. Thus, in the short run, investors and clients are lured by them. It is a different matter that they, ultimately, come to grief when such companies collapse. In India, non-banking financial institutions, only a few years ago, duped large number of gullible investors and then vanished in thin air.

 

In India, even in civil and police administration, a number of incompetent and dishonest people have risen by manipulation and nexus with corrupt politicians. One may look at the startling facts that have emerged after some of them have been caught indulging in corrupt practices and brought before courts of law. One senior officer of civil administration has been found to have a huge real estate besides tens of bank accounts all over the country. In political parties, too, manipulators have risen pushing out the loyal and competent workers and leaders. The Samajwadi Party, led by Mulayam Singh Yadav is a typical example where racketeers with no ideological and political commitments have pushed aside the old ideologically committed workers and leaders.



Get fish-slapping on Messenger! Play Now

Tuesday, 20 May 2008

This week, I've been ashamed to be a woman


 

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

Cherie still defends the war in Iraq. Hillary would go nuke Iran

Monday, 19 May 2008

In 1988 I was on BBC TV debating politics with an all-female audience. For most guests, the 1979 election of Margaret Thatcher had marked an optimistic turn of history. I disagreed vehemently. Our leaderine made me biliously ashamed to be a woman.

Today that old shame heaves again, and stomach acids fill my throat as two more grasping women betray themselves and rob us of our ideals. Hillary Clinton and Cherie Blair would refute the charges. Heed not their denials, not after this week. The two mates are covetous of clout and wealth, rapt in cringing marital dotage, above all, morally questionable and beholden to none. God is always on their blessed side to exonerate any (tiny) trespasses. From those who share their chromosomes, they expect, nay demand, infinite sympathy and fulsome appreciation.
Is this where it leads to, our long road towards gender parity? It might have been better for us not to have started the journey. I don't mean that really. Blame the gloom which is set to deepen as we get a whole week of chirpy Cherie on Radio 4 reading from her (allegedly) million-pound memoir, a well spun tale – Scouse lass from a broken family gets to marry a British PM, just like that assistant in Love Actually... In reality, Mrs Blair's example is less than inspirational. As soon as she stepped over that famous threshold, she turned, like fresh milk left out overnight in the summer. She blames her embarrassing photos after election night, when, bleary and dishevelled, she opened the door to receive flowers. What tosh. All those years building up a reputation as a respected human rights lawyer and champion of equality, her passion and purpose, the luminous intelligence and warmth were jacked in as she fell into the perfidious embrace of power. It was glitzy and wildly exciting, never mind the political corruption that came with the privilege.
Meanwhile, Hillary carries on a noxious, malignant campaign covered in pustules of lies, expediency and congealing ambition. Though she tries hard to wash herself clean, to deodorize the air around her, the stench of forgery lingers on. Five years ago, Hillary wrote her own self-aggrandizing memoir and was paid eight million for the sentimental drivel. Both ex First Ladies have studied law and should know the inviolability of facts and evidence. Hillary misspeaks involuntarily, as if she suffers from a strange brain disease that twists out falsehoods and forces them to be uttered. She pretended to be shot at in Bosnia and insists her name comes from Edmund Hillary, who at her christening had not yet climbed Everest. Observers say both Clintons will tell a big lie when a small one will do and a small lie when the truth would suffice.
But hey, men who rule over us or want to are natural born fibbers so why this level of ire? Are women commentators always bitchy to other women? Because both Cherie and Hillary have used womanhood to get on, but only when it suits.
Over the nomination campaigns, Hillary has come across as a man in bad frocks, a "ventriloquist" says Jane Fonda. Arguably, you have to be a manly woman to get elected – but then she and Cherie climbed up through marriage to stand on the shoulders of husbands with lethal defects and judgements. Though unelected, the wives sought illegitimate influence over national politics and policies. Cherie wanted not only more money, more things, more foreign trips, more kudos, but a vastly more important role. So did Hillary and the claims to "experience" come from exactly that pushy presence she exerted in the White House.
Cherie still defends the war in Iraq. Then she believed New Labour women "should be supporting our men in these difficult decisions, not making it worse by nagging them". So being a sweet little wifie was more important than the law, deaths of innocents, human rights. WHAT? Today those Iraqi wives and mothers who are not grieving are being suppressed, veiled, killed for the freedoms they once had.
After tortuous obfuscations, Hillary now wants to distance herself from her old war-mongering self, but still would go nuke Iran. Both have defended laws curtailing fundamental civil rights and yet both are drawn to back frightfully worthy charities to help womankind.
Finally, the two women lack political conscience. Cherie is no better than John Prescott and, like him, has damaged the Labour party this difficult week. By not stepping aside, Hillary will destroy the Democrats and possibly let the Republicans back in. As women, they ought to know and act better. We should have higher standards otherwise what is the point?



Miss your Messenger buddies when on-the-go? Get Messenger on your Mobile!

This government has been the most rightwing since the second world war,

The prospect of a Tory in No 10 does worry me - but no more so than another term for this cabinet of war criminals

George Monbiot The Guardian, Tuesday May 20 2008 Article historyAbout this articleClose This article appeared in the Guardian on Tuesday May 20 2008 on p27 of the Comment & debate section. It was last updated at 00:04 on May 20 2008. You can hear the wringing of hands and tearing of cloth all the way down Farringdon Road. Dismayed by the local election results, convinced that Labour will be crushed in Thursday's byelection, afraid that this will presage disaster in the next general election, my fellow columnists are predicting the end of the civilised world. But I can't understand why we should care.

Yes, I worry about what the Tories might do if they get in. I also worry about what Labour might do if it wins another term. Why should anyone on the left seek the re-election of the most rightwing government Britain has had since the second world war?

New Labour's apologists keep reminding us of the redistributive policies it has introduced: Sure Start children's centres, reductions in child poverty, raising the school leaving age, the national minimum wage, flexible hours for parents and carers, better conditions for part-time workers, the decent homes programme, free museums, more foreign aid. All these are real achievements and deserve to be celebrated. But the catalogue of failures, backsliding and outright destruction is much longer and more consequential.

One fact alone should disqualify this government from office: we have a cabinet of war criminals. The Nuremberg tribunal characterised a war of aggression as "the supreme international crime". It is not just that Britain's Labour government launched and sustained an unprovoked war, it also sabotaged all means of achieving a peaceful resolution. In April 2002 it helped the Bush administration to sack José Bustani, the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in order to prevent him settling the dispute over Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction. In two separate offers before the invasion, Saddam Hussein agreed to meet the terms the US and Britain were demanding. But they slapped him down and concealed his offers from their electorates. (All references are on my website.)

Cluster bombs can be legally used because the British government helped to block an international ban in 2006: it is still holding out against an outright ban at the current talks in Dublin. The government has undermined another international peace agreement - the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - by deciding to renew the Trident missile programme. It was the first administration to announce a policy of pre-emptive nuclear attack: even the great nuclear enthusiast Harold Macmillan never went this far. In 2007 the defence secretary, without parliamentary debate, revealed that the US would be allowed to use the listening station at Menwith Hill for its missile defence system.

Labour appears to be prepared to meet any demand the Bush administration makes, however outrageous. In 2003 the government signed a one-sided extradition treaty, permitting the US to extract our citizens without producing prima facie evidence of an offence. In the same year the defence secretary announced that he would restructure the British armed forces to make them "inter-operable" with those of the United States, ensuring for the first time in British history that they became functionally subordinate to those of another sovereign power.

Labour's foreign policy is as unethical as Margaret Thatcher's. It provides military aid to the government of Colombia, whose troops are involved in a campaign of terror against the civilian population. It granted an open licence for weapons exports to the government of Uzbekistan, and sacked the British ambassador when he tried to draw attention to the regime's human rights abuses. It has collaborated with the US programme of extra-judicial kidnapping and imprisonment, left our citizens to languish in Guantánamo Bay, and made use of Pakistani torture chambers in seeking to extract testimony from British suspects. Until 2005 it tied its foreign aid programme to the privatisation of public utilities in some of the world's poorest countries. Last year it held out against reform of the International Monetary Fund's unfair allocation of votes.

The proportion of the British population in prison has risen by a fifth since the Tories left office. Today Britain locks up 151 out of every 100,000 people. The Chinese judiciary, by contrast, which is notorious for its willingness to bang up anyone and everyone, jails 119 people per 100,000; Burma imprisons 120; Saudi Arabia 132. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, passed in 2005, contains clauses that permit the police to ban any demonstration, however peaceful. It is one of a long series of bills the Labour government has passed that restrict the right to protest.

The citizen has been re-regulated; business has been deregulated. Last year deaths caused by serious injuries at work rose by 11%: a predictable result of the sacking of 1,000 staff at the Health & Safety Executive and a 24% reduction in workplace inspections. In 2006 the government instructed the Serious Fraud Office to drop its corruption case against the arms manufacturer BAE Systems. It has obstructed efforts by other states to investigate the company.

Labour has shifted taxation from the rich to the poor, cutting corporation tax from 33% to 28% and capital gains tax from 40% to 18%, and introducing a new entrepreneurs' relief scheme, taxing the first million of capital gains at just 10%. It tried to raise the income tax paid by the poorest earners from 10% to 20%. Labour has lifted the inheritance tax threshold from £300,000 to £700,000, and maintained the cap on the highest rates of council tax. While vigorously prosecuting benefits cheats, it has allowed tax avoidance, mostly by the very rich, to reach an estimated £41bn. Inequality today is slightly worse than it was when Labour took power in 1997 (the Gini coefficient which measures it has risen from 0.33 to 0.35).

Both as chancellor and prime minister, Gordon Brown has forced the private finance initiative into almost all public services. His privatisation schemes have crept into places where the Conservative government never dared to tread. Labour has waged war against our planning system and overseen a disastrous decline in social housing: under Thatcher an average of 46,600 social homes were built every year; under Tony Blair the average was 17,300. Labour is closing post offices, small schools and GPs' surgeries, while overseeing a doubling of airport capacity and the construction of 4,000km of trunk roads. These developments ensure that even the modest targets in the climate change bill are likely to be missed. Carbon dioxide pollution fell faster under the Conservatives than under Labour.

Above all, the Labour government has destroyed hope. It has put into practice Thatcher's dictum that "there is no alternative" to a market fundamentalism that subordinates human welfare to the demands of business. Labour has created a political monoculture that kills voters' enthusiasm, and has delayed electoral reforms that would have given smaller parties an opportunity to be heard. All we are left with is fear: the fear that this awful government might be replaced by something slightly worse. Fear has destroyed the Labour party, but people keep supporting it in trepidation of letting the other side win.

Save this government? I would sooner give money to the Malarial Mosquito Conservation Project. Of all the causes leftist thinkers might support, New Labour must be the least deserving.

The Cyclone Disaster In Myanmar And The Human Tragedy Of Global Capitalism

By Li Onesto

20 May, 2008
Countercurrents.org

On May 2, 2008, Cyclone Nargis swept through the country of Myanmar, leaving in its wake a catastrophic human disaster. Deaths are estimated as high as 100,000 people, and at least one million are now homeless. Entire towns and villages have been washed away. 10,000 people died in one coastal town alone.

The densely populated Irawaddy Delta of 6 million people, with many fishing communities, was hit hard. Yangon (the former capital) on the edge of the Delta, where another 6.5 million people lived, was completely flooded. Flimsy houses in the poor shantytowns around cities were demolished. Some 24 million people in the five disaster-hit states—almost half of Myanmar’s population of 57 million—were affected by the cyclone with its 120 mph winds and 12-foot waves that surged up to seven miles inland.

Even areas not hit as hard are now running out of food and water. Crops, livestock, and fish have been ruined, along with irrigation systems, rice mills, and storage barns. The areas hit by the cyclone make up half of the irrigated farmland in Myanmar—which had produced 65 percent of Myanmar's rice. Millions of people who survived are now facing hunger, disease and lack of shelter.

*****

People around the world are witnessing the terrible plight of the Myanmar people unfold before their eyes. In the face of such immense human tragedy, there is hope that everything possible will be done to provide aid and relieve the terrible suffering.

There is tremendous wealth, resources, and technology in the world that could be used to respond to this disaster. There is no shortage of people with skills and compassion that could be mobilized to help. But clearly, this is not happening.

The Western mainstream media says this is because: The U.S. and other countries are trying to help but a despotic regime in Myanmar is refusing to cooperate and is therefore to blame for the high death toll and continuing suffering.

This article will break down this storyline, look at what’s behind it and compare it to reality.

To understand the situation in Myanmar today you have to examine two interpenetrating contradictions. One is the relations between the world imperialist system and Myanmar as a poor country oppressed and dominated by global capitalism. The other dynamic is the geostrategic importance of Myanmar to imperialism and the rivalry between different capitalist countries in the region. These larger factors have deeply influenced the extent and character of the destruction caused by the cyclone, as well as the rescue and relief efforts.

Natural Disasters and Man-Made Conditions

The official storyline argues: In the face of natural disasters like Cyclone Nargis, humanitarian aid trumps everything. Condoleezza Rice says: “What remains is for the Burmese government to allow the international community to help its people. It should be a simple matter. It is not a matter of politics.”

In reality: There are terrible natural disasters human beings have little control over. But what happens in the face of such catastrophes is profoundly affected by the organization of human society. So, to answer Condoleezza Rice: It is NOT a “simple matter” of relief efforts. It IS very much a matter of politics, economic relations, and power relations, from beginning to end.

Disaster relief and aid—both within a particular country, and between particular countries—doesn’t take place in a vacuum.

We live on a planet where human life is susceptible to tornados, tsunamis, cyclones, and earthquakes. Scientific understanding exists to predict and prepare, to a certain degree, for such acts of nature. But whether and how this works and what happens in the wake of such disasters is profoundly imprinted with and goes through the workings of the world capitalist system.

Look what did and did not happen before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina. Everyone saw how power relations in society, poverty, and the oppression of Black people affected who got out and who didn’t; who died and who survived. Everyone saw how all the inequalities that already existed affected what happened as the floodwaters rose.

Natural disasters do not “discriminate”—people all over the world are hit by tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes. But different people and different countries are not affected equally.

We live in a hugely lopsided world where a handful of rich, imperialist countries dominates the rest of the planet. The U.S. sits at the top of a global capitalist system driven and shaped by the maximization of profit. The majority of people live in poor countries oppressed and dominated by imperialism and by social-economic structures that reflect and reinforce the interests of local elites who are subordinate to imperialism. Development of these countries has been stunted and distorted by imperialism. And all this profoundly affects the capacity and ability of governments and people to respond to a natural disaster.

Myanmar already faced rising costs for basic foods, commodities, and especially fuel. 10 percent of the population did not receive enough food to meet its basic daily needs. In many rural areas 70 percent lived under the absolute poverty line. Shantytowns surrounded the cities.

What we see now is a vivid example of how the poverty and distorted development that comes from being dominated and oppressed by foreign powers can turn a natural disaster into catastrophic human tragedy. As Debarati Guha-Sapir, Director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels, said: “The villages are in such levels of desperation — housing quality, nutritional status, roads, bridges, dams — that losses were more determined by their condition rather than the force of the cyclone.”

It is also the case that international political relations—where Western imperial powers are generally hostile to the military regime in Myanmar—are behind the contentiousness over aid getting into Myanmar. China’s economic interests and political relationship with Myanmar have factored into international relief efforts. And Myanmar’s economic and political relationships with other countries in South Asia have also figured into what aid has been offered.

“Isolated” from the World?

The official storyline says: Myanmar is run by a bunch of dictators who chose to isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

Reality: Myanmar society is repressive and relatively closed off from the outside world. The reactionary military regime seeks to maintain power and control society through brutal force and by limiting contact with the rest of the world. But this is not why the U.S. criticizes Myanmar.

What the U.S. really means when it says Myanmar has “isolated” itself is that Myanmar has not fully opened its doors to U.S. imperialism. The military regime has not been completely pliable, compliant, and subservient to the United States. And now it has refused to accept aid from the U.S. that has all kinds of conditions and potential “strings attached”—such as Bush’s insistence that Myanmar open its borders to U.S. officials, aid workers and military personnel.

It is not surprising that Myanmar hesitated to accept U.S. help, given there is open speculation and discussion about the use of U.S. military aircraft, troops, and warships to deliver aid. A Time magazine headline read: “Is It Time to Invade Burma?” And France is pushing to invoke a UN “responsibility to protect” doctrine to deliver aid without Myanmar’s permission.

U.S. sanctions on Myanmar (that began in 1997 and have since been extended) ban new investments in the country and prohibit imports into the U.S. from Myanmar. The U.S. says it maintains these sanctions because of human rights abuses. But in fact, this U.S. “isolation” of Myanmar is aimed at undermining and destabilizing the government and creating conditions to bring to power a regime more subservient to the United States.

Reality: In fact, Myanmar is not “isolated” and cut off from the rest of the world. Historically and up to today, Myanmar’s development has been conditioned by its integration into and subordination tothe global system of imperialism.

Burma (which changed its name to Myanmar in 1989) was a colony of British imperialism for over 60 years. In fact the commercial production of oil in Myanmar dates back to 1871 when British colonialists set up the Rangoon Oil Company.

Since formal independence in 1948, different imperialist powers have exploited the country’s people and plundered its resources. It is beyond the scope of this article to review this history. But an example of imperialist control and development of Myanmar’s energy resources provides a picture of the country’s relationship to the world capitalist system.

Myanmar has the world's tenth largest gas reserves. It has been producing natural gas since the 1970s. Today, gas exports are Myanmar's most important source of national income.

In the 1990s Myanmar granted gas concessions to foreign companies from France and Great Britain. Later Texaco and Unocal (now absorbed into ChevronTexaco) gained rights to Myanmar’s gas as well.

In 2005 other countries in the region, including China, Thailand, and South Korea invested in Myanmar’s oil and gas industry.

What did this mean for the masses of people in Myanmar?

In 1996 a human rights suit was filed against the American-based Unocal Corp. A group of villagers accused Unocal of using forced labor conscripted by Myanmar soldiers. Villagers were raped, murdered, and brutally relocated during the construction of a $1.2 billion gas pipeline to Thailand, started in 1990.

The suit, which Unocal settled in 2004, brought to light the kind of horrible crimes that were being committed by a consortium of foreign companies, including Unocal, all of which were receiving support and protection from the military regime.

One woman testified how soldiers came to her home, shot her husband, and killed her baby. Other villagers recounted how their neighbors were executed because they refused to leave the area Unocal wanted. Two girls said soldiers raped them at knifepoint (The Nation, June 30, 2003). Human Rights Watch interviewed hundreds of villagers who were driven from their homes and farms, many forced to work at gunpoint and beaten by guards.

The UN issued warnings of serious human rights abuses in 1995. After such embarrassing evidence came out, Texaco left the country in 1997. But Unocal retained 28 percent interest in the pipeline.

The U.S. State Department even acknowledged forced labor was being used. But still the U.S. government openly defended Unocal in this suit. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft filed a brief denouncing the villagers' attempt to sue Unocal, arguing that the suit (and similar suits) should be dismissed because they interfere with U.S. foreign policy and undermine the U.S. “war on terrorism.”

Today, on the blood and bones of the Myanmar people, the Unocal pipeline transports some 700 million cubic feet of gas per day.

This story provides a window into Myanmar’s relationship to world imperialism – how the development of Myanmar has been conditioned by its integration into and subordination tothe global system of imperialism.

*****

Beyond the interest of imperialism in profiting off the resources and people in Myanmar there is the geostrategic importance of this in the world. And this is a big factor in how the U.S. and various international forces look at their relationship with Myanmar and how they have responded to the current disaster.

U.S. Geostrategic Interests in Myanmar

The official storyline: Laura Bush joined the chorus of U.S. critics calling the Myanmar government “inept” for failing to alert people about the cyclone and standing in the way of getting humanitarian aid to people.

Reality: It is shameless and utter hypocrisy for the U.S. to be criticizing any government for not helping people in the face of a natural disaster. The U.S. has more money and resources than any other country in the world—many, many times those of a poor country like Myanmar. But when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the Bush regime was responsible for horrible humanitarian crimes. It failed to evacuate people to safety, abandoned thousands to die in the rising floodwaters and then subjected tens of thousands, overwhelmingly African-Americans, to the most inhuman and degrading treatment.

The inadequacies and failures of the Myanmar government in responding to the cyclone disaster have everything to do with two defining facts: its reactionary nature, and larger geo-political dynamics.

The military regime in Myanmar is an oppressive and corrupt force that has ruled the country since 1962. It has not hesitated to use the most brutal methods to crush any popular resistance and is widely hated by the people.

The military dominates and administers major aspects of the country’s economy. Only military personnel are allowed to own shares in the military-run corporations that form a significant part of the economy. Military officials occupy top positions in almost every government agency. It oversees a society and economy of great inequality and savage capitalist and semi-feudal exploitation.

In the last 15 years, the economy has in fact become more integrated with the world capitalist economy, especially through the development of the country’s oil and natural gas industries. The military has entered into various kinds of joint ventures with foreign energy companies—and, as in the case of Unocal [[see Part 1]], even provided these companies with brutally conscripted forced labor.

The reality is: The US criticism of the Myanmar government has nothing to do with concern for the victims of the cyclone. It has everything to do with cold calculations about how to use this disaster to further U.S. interests—to pry open the country, to weaken the military regime, and to create more favorable conditions for a full-out regime change. The U.S. wants to bring to power a government in Myanmar that more fully serves U.S. economic and political interests, including in relationship to U.S. contention with other capitalist powers. To understand this, we need to first of all look at the geostrategic interests the U.S. is pursuing in Myanmar.

Three great regions of Asia come together where Myanmar sits on the planet—China in the north, Southeast Asia in the south, and India in the west. Looking at a map, it becomes clear how Myanmar is key to establishing land-links between Central Asia in the west, Japan in the east and Russia in the north.

Off the coast of Myanmar is the Strait of Malacca. This waterway between Malaysia and Indonesia is one of the world’s most strategic water passages. It links the Indian and Pacific Oceans and is the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. Each and every day, supertankers carrying more than 12 million barrels of oil pass through this strait. More than 80% of all China's oil imports are shipped through this waterway.

Since 9/11, the U.S. has been trying to strengthen its military influence in this region—arguing that this is part of the “war on terror.” The U.S. has set out to further and deepen its empire in the world. The focus of the U.S. right now is dominating and controlling the Middle East. At the same time there is a whole complex of world contradictions in which control in Southeast Asia is highly important.

The U.S. has been virulently critical of the military government in Myanmar—not because of the regime’s reactionary nature. The real reason for U.S. hostility towards Myanmar is because its government is not the kind of pliant pro-U.S. neo-colonial state the United States wants and needs in the region.

It is no secret that the U.S. wants a “regime change” in Myanmar. It plays the “human rights card,” backs pro-U.S. anti-government movements, and aims to demonize and strangle the regime through sanctions and other measures. The military regime in turn has responded by seeking closer ties with China and other countries in the region. And part of the reason the U.S. wants greater influence and control in Southeast Asia (including in Myanmar) is that it wants to counter China’s growing regional strength.

Capitalist China has invested heavily in countries in Southeast Asia and has looked to profit off of Myanmar’s timber, minerals and natural gas. Myanmar provides an overland route for Chinese goods to the Indian Ocean. Trade between the two countries has grown. Since 1989 China has given the Myanmar regime some $1.5 billion worth of military hardware.

For the U.S., Myanmar is a strategically important choke point in relationship to economic and geo-strategic interests. And now the U.S. is looking for ways to exploit the devastating tragedy in Myanmar to step up its maneuverings for a “regime change” in Myanmar. Bush stated: “We're prepared to move U.S. Navy assets to help find those who have lost their lives, to help find the missing, to help stabilize the situation. But in order to do so, the military junta must allow our disaster assessment teams into the country.”

Economist and author F. William Engdahl has written about U.S. efforts to bring about “regime change” in Myanmar and the particular role of the National Endowment for Democracy, an entity funded by the U.S. government and designed to support U.S. foreign policy objectives. Engdahl says:

“The U.S. State Department has recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar. Since 2003, the U.S. has provided the NED with more than $2.5 million a year for activities that promote a regime change in Myanmar. The NED funds key opposition media including the New Era Journal, Irrawaddy and the Democratic Voice of Burma radio... In reality the U.S. State Department has recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar. It has poured the relatively huge sum (for Myanmar) of more than $2.5 million annually into NED activities in promoting regime change in Myanmar since at least 2003.”

All this is behind the scenes and clearly at play now as the U.S. offers assistance and aid to Myanmar in the wake of Cyclone Nargis. Such “humanitarian help” comes with political strings and a whole imperialist agenda. The Bush administration says a condition for aid is that U.S. officials, aid workers and military personnel be allowed to come into Myanmar and directly handle emergency relief operations—rather than let the authorities in Myanmar administer and deliver the aid.

In 1997 the U.S. imposed sanctions against Myanmar, which prohibited new investments in the country. In 2003 the U.S. banned Myanmar imports into the U.S. and restricted financial transactions with named government officials. In 2007 Bush imposed new financial sanctions against Myanmar, freezing U.S. assets of additional members of the military government. One week before the cyclone hit Myanmar, the U.S. ban on trade and investment and the freezing of assets for the country was strengthened even further. Then on May 17, two weeks after the cyclone, Bush ordered the sanctions to remain in effect. This has only further exacerbated the economic plight of the people in Myanmar. Meanwhile ChevronTexaco continues to operate its gas pipeline project in Myanmar, which is the single largest foreign investment project in the country and the single largest source of income for the military regime.

*****

When a terrible natural disaster strikes a country like Myanmar, millions of people are affected; many lives hang in the balance. Humanity’s knowledge and resources need to be brought together. People need to be mobilized to save lives, provide medical care and deliver food. But in the world today—dominated by the global system of capitalism—the driving interests of profit, not the needs of the people, are put first and foremost.

Today in such human catastrophes, the outmoded economic, political and social relations of imperialism stand out in stark relief. The world needs revolution, and things could be a different way. In a whole new socialist society power would be in the hands of the people. Society’s resources and knowledge and, most especially, the compassion, creativity, and political consciousness of the masses, could and would be fully mobilized to build a whole new emancipating society that will be able to figure out and solve all kinds of problems, including how to deal with natural disasters.


Li Onesto is a writer for Revolution and author of the book, Dispatches from the People's War in Nepal, (Pluto Press and Insight Press, 2004)

Monday, 19 May 2008

Cricket's Corporate Crackdown

Game Theory? Zero Sum

A corporate stranglehold over cricket may mean that no one wins. Star players in the IPL can only chafe at the new rulebook.

ROHIT MAHAJAN
At the end of the day, people need to understand that the IPL has a corporate side to it, and a very definite corporate side. It's not at all cricket in the traditional sense.
—Vijay Mallya, owner of Bangalore Royal Challengers



Pundits say the Indian Premier League is not cricket at all, and that's debatable. But one thing's certain—it certainly doesn't answer to tradition. IPL is an unprecedented, brazen marriage of money and cricket, pitting corporate values against those that define cricket. The cold pursuit of profit plays by a logic that demands predictability, and on the cricket field it's often luck that decides if a snick would go for a four or result in a dismissal. Worse, T20 is cricket's most perilous form, with suicidal batsmen and scapegoat bowlers. Ironically, it's bankrolled by corporate czars who make money out of industrial and market certitudes. It's this world of certainties they want to recreate on the cricket ground, a place that derives its buzz and drama from the very mercurial nature of sport. But they believe it's their right to expect returns on their investments. It's a clash of cultures that's becoming overt: in the form of marketing men officiously proffering knowledge of cricket basics to grizzled professionals in team meetings.

But this has become rampant in the IPL, most conspicuously in the Bangalore Royal Challengers team. Its owner, Vijay Mallya, is a man nurtured on success. Much he's touched has turned into gold, except in big sport. His Force India team is an also-ran in Formula One, but because F1 isn't a big draw in India, the ignominy is not crushing. In contrast, cricket is stronger than faith in India. And the Challengers' poor show—seven defeats in nine games so far—has hurt Mallya's ego; his bouquet of spirits was to suffer the scorn that's the lot of a loser whose bark is worse than the bite.

Mallya then made the first corporate-style intervention, pulling out the pink slip on team CEO Charu Sharma. They said he resigned due to personal reasons; Sharma insisted he was fired. Bowling coach Venkatesh Prasad was also in the line of fire, but was reportedly spared by captain Rahul Dravid interceding on his behalf. But long before the hire and fire syndrome hit home, over-enthusiastic executives of Mallya's UB Group had descended on the team. Dravid and Martin Crowe, the chief cricket officer, had to reluctantly put up with it.

Insiders say meddling in the Bangalore team has reached ridiculous proportions. "They join the team meetings and point out mistakes to the coach and players," a Royal Challengers source told Outlook . "They even berate the video and statistics analyst for not providing enough data to the team to form its plans." Besides this piecemeal cricket analysis, the corporate minders even insisted players must double their practice time, arguing that "when we fail to meet our targets, we work doubly hard".

Even before the team began to stumble during its campaign, Mallya treated the players as he would treat staff. For instance, he expected them to grace his parties late into the night. "They'd say these guys (cricketers) have a good time at our expense and don't do enough on the field," says another source.

Pounded by rivals onfield and besieged by UB executives off it, the embattled team thought it fit to take a break. The wilds of Ranthambhore was elected as an escape from the cricket. Hotel bookings were done. Then the omnipotent bosses stepped in. They decided the team hadn't earned the right to a holiday and cancelled the bookings. (An ITC Welcomgroup source confirmed this to Outlook.) A punitive approach reminiscent of a stern parent taking away candy from an errant child—is it appropriate for a team of high-profile cricketers?

After Charu's exit, Mallya turned the heat on Dravid."I want from Rahul Dravid to do the best for the team and to produce good results for us because I don't think Rahul Dravid enjoys being at the bottom of the league tables, and certainly I don't," he said. Mallya regretted not playing a bigger role during the player auctions. "I was tempted to bid for players I wanted but they (Dravid and Sharma) held me back.... When Rahul Dravid was not present at the second auction, I wanted to get some players but Charu Sharma was tentative about them. I mean I bought Misbah-ul-Haq because I was determined to do it. There were other players I was discouraged about."

But team insiders say Misbah was never an issue and Mallya's wishlist couldn't be purchased because of the cap ($5 million) on the amount an owner could spend at the auction. Cricket requires a team of at least 11 players; one expensive player has to be at the expense of a few. Nor was the selection of the team without logic. A source familiar with the thought behind the choice says, "The idea was to shore up the bowling; the logic was that batsmen would be likely to perish at the first mistake, but bowlers would have 24 balls to bowl. The team was thus packed with top bowlers." Unfortunately, problems cropped up. Nathan Bracken got injured, ditto Anil Kumble, and Dale Steyn was not released by Cricket South Africa for the first three games. And Jacques Kallis, among the world's best allrounders, performed below par. This source says Mallya was indeed keen on some other players. "Obviously, in an auction, you cannot always get the players you want," he added.

Firm grip: Unlike Dravid, Warne is firmly in control in Jaipur

But men with fat wallets and fatter egos want their money's worth. "IPL is cricket, but the foundation of this is money," says a senior Delhi Daredevils official. "The owners spent millions of dollars on teams, and they want to have their say. And whether you like it or not, you have to listen." Having bought a 'commodity', they're stomping with self-importance on turfs where the game's biggest administrators tread softly. "Even Sharad Pawar has never attended a team meeting," says a Daredevils insider. "But these corporate people attend meetings, and fools among them even try to tell players and coaches how to play!"

Corporate interference is, understandably, less when the team is racking up victories. For instance, when there were attempts to include the son of a powerful bcci administrator in Shane Warne's Rajasthan Royals, Warne put his foot down. The young man would never have made it to the playing XI, but could have been richer by Rs 1.8 lakh through daily allowance. "Warne said he was not good enough to be even among the irregulars," says a Royals source. "Warne had to warn them off, saying, 'You handle the administration and we handle the cricket,'" says the source. "Else, he said, he and other Australians in the team would walk away."

Another team with minimal meddling is Mumbai Indians. "That's because of two factors—Mukesh Ambani's restrained style and the presence of Sachin Tendulkar," says a source. "No one would dare try to tell Tendulkar how to play cricket!" Mumbai's coach, Lalchand Rajput, confirmed this to Outlook: "Even after four defeats, we were not put under pressure. Even I was a bit surprised by this, but they only said as long as you put in your best efforts, it is fine."

Likewise with Kolkata Knight Riders. Co-owner Shahrukh Khan, who dons the mantle of a cheerleader, works the fans to a frenzy but when it comes to the cricket, he keeps out. Being a filmstar helps, for he's aware of the capricious nature of the nation's two obsessions, cricket and cinema.

On the face of it, sport lends itself beautifully to some of the basic tenets of corporate culture—dispassionate evaluation, for instance.Who could argue against tons of runs or wickets? Corporate culture has also helped market cricket and earn big bucks for players. But it can also be a bane. Cold corporate logic cannot comprehend a perfect outswinger from an opponent, an umpiring error or a stunning catch. There are also excessive checks and balances. "I'm tired of the red-tape involved, the need to keep a 100 people in the loop on every small decision or action I take," an official of the Jaipur team told Outlook.

From the corporate world has also come the dreaded trait of layoffs. Kolkata released five of their players since they had little chance of playing the remaining six games; they remain contracted, though, and would not lose monetarily. But Ranadeb Bose, the most prominent of the five, declared he was disappointed. The decision to release the five was taken by coach John Buchanan, insisted Joy Bhattacharya, the team director. He claimed it was not an exercise in cost-cutting—it would have cost the team about Rs 70,000 a day to keep the five. But others say that with profits still very far in the horizon, IPL teams are under pressure because of the billions invested in the game.

IPL has turned sport into a commodity. And though its votaries cite European football leagues as their model, there's a crucial difference, say critics. Unlike IPL, massive salaries in English football are for a game that's very serious: football, not a crossbreed—not, say, a 20-minute game that's played by five people with a goal double the actual size. "The owners must understand the nature of the beast," says a Bangalore insider. "You might be a champion parrot trainer, but that doesn't make you a champion lion trainer. You must understand the nature of the beast, else the lion will eat you."

But, for now, it's the game that's changing its colour in the face of a predator.







 
 
Trust the compulsive showman to trump it all: Shah Rukh Khan's Pied Piper act, Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje Scindia's custommade leheriya sari with Jaipur's IPL colours and Preity Zinta's wide-eyed enthusiasm.
With a spectacular display of toy-flinging petulance, Vijay Mallya, beer baron, airline magnate, tycoon-atlarge, F-1 team owner, managed to turn the spotlight onto himself.
As his Rs 445-crore Bangalore Royal Challengers Indian Premier League (IPL) team hit the rock bottom, Mallya sacked his CEO Charu Sharma and then distanced himself from the team selection, dishing out low blows to captain Rahul Dravid in the bargain.
The Challengers have lost seven matches out of nine and have little to play for now other than Mallya's ire and the increasing amusement of his sniggering social set.
For Indian cricket, this has been an illuminating episode. After all, even before the IPL, the corporate world was its most snuggly bedfellow.
Mallya's swift abandonment of his struggling team has shown just how far big business' attachmentto cricket goes—only until the next victory, exactly like the fickle, effigy-burning fan.
Except that this fan wields a fat cheque book that few inside Indian cricket have been able to resist.
The Challengers and their soreloser boss may be at the extreme end of this phenomenon, but IPL's cricketers have all felt the heavy breath of corporate impatience after a few defeats.
In his newspaper column, M.S. Dhoni noted how supportive his management at the Chennai Super Kings was.
Even so, after Kings lost three in a row, sources say the team received a firm speech to remind them of just what the stakes were and how there were investors to answer to.
As the Delhi Daredevils slid down the points table, its directors looked through the team personnel they had engulfed in bear hugs after victory. "A message has been sent out to the team, you can sense the nervous edge," said a Delhi Daredevils squad member.
With every reverse, franchises see their operational expenses of anything between Rs 30-50-crore this season going down the tube, taking their brand value with it. To them, leaning on players is like cracking down on underperforming departments.
Mallya's sacking of CEO Sharma certainly cranked up the anxiety levels. As Bangalore lost, Sharma had become the buffer between the increasingly badtempered "Company" and the players.
With Mallya turning the heat on his subordinates, executives began to sit in on Challengers team meetings, once reportedly button-holing the team data analyst to crunch numbers for them.
Challengers' Chief Cricketing Officer Martin Crowe then presented the executives' statistical theories to flummoxed players. The next day, the batting collapsed and the team lost again.
A Challengers insider says, "Corporate guys think if you practice four hours instead of having the normal two-hour net, you will play twice as well." Coach Venkatesh Prasad only narrowly saved his job when Dravid hinted he too would walk out if Prasad was removed.
Not everyone's public facade has cracked as openly as Mallya's but in private the franchise business has shown up its less attractive face.
One boss demanded an explanation from a cricketer as to why their team was dropping catches. When a captain tried to assuage an angry management man by saying that the players were trying their damnedest, he had his head bitten off.
The cricketers are not amused. An India player says, "The franchises are being obnoxious. We wouldn't dream of telling them how to run their businesses. The last thing you need is them telling you how to play cricket."
The freemarket cheerleaders claim that corporate accountability is IPL's biggest gift to Indian cricket. It could have been had those making calls on cricketers been experts or master practitioners of the sport they now own.
A Mumbai Indians senior executive sat up in panic during a game, saying he thought his team were a man short. Quickly, two minions launched on a panicky head-count to reassure the boss.
When rousing cheers for Lasith Malinga rang out, it was pointed out that the man being cheered was not the unmistakable Malinga with the curly bottle-blond tints, but Dilhara Fernando.
The end of IPL on June 1 will signal the beginning of the franchise's own financial reckoning. Already there are rumblings about cutbacks: Delhi has got rid of its cheerleading squad saying they were no longer needed.
Two teams—the King's XI Punjab and the Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR)—'released' their contracted players, on grounds that they needed to concentrate on the core team as the semi-finals drew close.
KKR team director Joy Bhattacharjya denied cost-cutting. Keeping six more players on the squad until the end of IPL he said, would have amounted to an expense of Rs 1.2 lakh more.
"That's peanuts. Why would we do something that would cause a major PR issue in order to save peanuts? That would not be ruthless, that would be stupid."
King's XI CEO Neil Maxwell said his team had taken on an extended player pool to give locals a chance to work with the world's leading cricketers for a specific period. "We were trying to do the right thing and had to deal with a backlash instead."
For overseas players—and the vast cast of foreign coaches—IPL is just an opportunity to swirl right in with India's cricketing circus, earn generous pay packets and enjoy the late-night postgame parties.
India's stars, though, feel the change in temperatures acutely. When Sourav Ganguly's KKR lost three matches in a row, a teammate watching him in his next game remarked, "The only time I've seen Sourav so much under pressure was in the World Cup final."
Indian cricket's biggest names are feeling the weight of their enormous salaries, dealing with bean counters rather than selectors as judges and playing the fastest and least familiar format of the game, with its low comeback rate.
A franchise executive says, "It's almost as if the players are more tense in IPL than with India— this is cricket at its most commercial and every one is feeling jumpy."
Inadvertently, Vijay Mallya's I-was-robbed routine has put the franchise's alter ego on mainstage. Cricketers are discovering that the smiling fan with the fat cheque book can also become the cry-baby boss with the pink slip.


Get Started!

Sunday, 18 May 2008

Twenty Nine Reasons People Need To Pull Their Heads Out Of The Sand



 

 

By Wanda Marie Woodward

17 May, 2008
Countercurrents.org

When money speaks, the truth keeps silent.
Russian Proverb

All it takes for evil to exist is for good people to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

Corporations have been enthroned…An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people…until wealth is aggregated in a few hands…and the Republic is destroyed.
Abraham Lincoln

Less than two years ago, I sent an email to an acquaintance regarding some pressing topic like global environmental degradation, erosion of habeas corpus in America, or the millions of women and girls around the world who are being sold as sex slaves, victims of female genital mutilation, raped, beaten, and murdered. The response from the acquaintance shocked me, especially since she was highly educated, is a mental health professional (supposedly with lots of compassion), and has two small children who will, of course, inherit the legacy of the condition in which she and I and 6.6 billion others will leave this world. To paraphrase, she said: "Oh, I can't read this stuff. I bury my head in the sand because there is so much and I can't do anything about it."

I read an article recently by a gentleman who has proposed a new diagnostic label for people who are apathetic, indifferent, or otherwise not predisposed to engage in some kind of activity to assist others who are suffering, disadvantaged, unempowered, and/or oppressed (White, 2004). The diagnosis is called "Political Apathy Disorder" and it is defined as "failure to develop a social conscience" and its "essential feature is a pervasive pattern of failing to help reduce human suffering in the world combined with overconsumption of society's limited resources" (p. 47). Being a psychotherapist and someone who stays informed about the overwhelming challenges and dangers which are facing our planet, I was unsure whether to laugh or cry. Actually, I did both.

This acquaintance that dismissed my email was using the common defense mechanism called denial as a way to avoid the threats to her sense of well-being as well as her relatively comfortable lifestyle. It is something that people all over the world do and, while it is an understandable desire to want to avoid pain and suffering and to seek comfort, safety, and happiness, in today's world to do so without also simultaneously helping others less fortunate will have dire effects on the entire globe. A hundred years ago, when nations were fairly isolated from each other, the consequences of indifference and inaction towards helping disadvantaged people were minimal to the person who responded with disregard. Life could go on as usual, maintaining the status quo, ignoring the long-term effects. In Buddhist lingo, the karma would take a long time to rebound. Today, that karma due to apathy and indifference is swiftly reverberating all around us, like a boomerang that just whizzes around and comes back to hit us before we can escape it. There will always be those whose very nature is to reach out to help others. We call these people altruistic. They want to help others merely for the sake of helping others, nothing else to be gained from it other than it is inherent in the nature of that person's being to want to alleviate another person's suffering.

It is a moral and existential imperative that we unite to overcome the greatest adversaries which confront us: ignorance, apathy, hatred, prejudice, greed, and evil. In fact, with the current state of the world, greed is synonymous with evil. There are three essential areas that I refer to as the Triad of Destruction: 1. overpopulation, 2. consumerism, and 3. capitalism. This triad is the genesis of global warming. Undergirding this triangle is a duality of avarice and ignorance. Capitalists fall into the camp of unbridled greed, some of whom are ignorant, but many are fully aware of the deleterious effects that consumerism has upon the Common Good. Most people fall into the camp of the uninformed, many of whom are so physically and psychologically drained by the day-to-day burdens of earning a dwindling living just to pay for the essentials that they either lack the time to stay educated on current events, they avoid reading more depressing news because it is too emotionally and mentally taxing or, like the acquaintance at the beginning of the article, they feel helpless and hopeless.


Voluntary avoidance is an option, but below is a list of 29 good reasons that people need to be informed and unite to act for the Common Good. While it is not exhaustive by any means, and others could provide additional reasons, these are a good start. Time is running out and using denial to escape these harsh realities is no longer an option.

1. According to a Washington Post article in 1998, a poll was conducted by the New York Museum of Natural History which found that seven out of ten scientists from the American Institute of Biological Sciences are convinced that a mass extinction is underway and that within 30 years, one fifth of all living species could become extinct (Warrick, 1998). In 2005, respected scientist Professor Peter Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, stated that, unless humankind changes behaviors, as many as two-thirds of world species could be extinct by 2100 (Collins, 2005).

2. According to World Wildlife Fund Director-General, James Leape, we would need a total of five planets to sustain the world's population if everyone on the planet had the same consumption rate as America. This finding was reported in the 2006 Living Planet Report which is the outcome of an annual study that has been conducted since 1998 to determine the rate of change in global biodiversity and the pressure on the biosphere which manifests from the human consumption of natural resources (World Wildlife Federation, 2006a). The 2006 Report also noted that in 2003, the world exceeded biocapacity by 25%. This means that with a global population of 6.6 billion people, the world is currently consuming at a rate of 25% more than what the earth is capable of regenerating. What will that rate be when the world has 10 billion people?

3. The world's population in 1600 was at 500 million (Leakey & Lewin, 1995). Two hundred years later in the year 1800, it had doubled to one billion. By 1940, another 140 years, the global population tripled to 3 billion. From 1940 to present day, 66 years later, the world's population has more than doubled to 6.6 billion. It is projected to be around ten billion by 2050.

4. Global greenhouse gases due to anthropogenic causes have increased 70% between 1970 and 2004 with carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas, having increased 80% between the same 34 year period. Two other green house gases, methane and nitrous oxide, have also increased substantially and rank high in terms of a negative affect on the environment. If global average temperature exceeds 3.5 degrees Celsius, it is projected that between 40-70% of species will be at risk for extinction. Eleven of the past twelve years (1995-2006) have been the warmest years of record for global surface temperature since 1850 (IPCC, 2007, p. 1). Global warming is creating changes in the migratory patterns of animals, altering the timing of plant flowerings, causing changes in the flow of the Gulfstream, and creating changes in the ocean and the atmosphere which increase the occurrence of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes. The primary causes are fossil fuel use (gasoline to power cars, boats, etc.) and agricultural and land use changes (deforestation, multinational farming methods, soil erosion, etc.).

5. The IPCC report says that, by 2080, 1.1 to 3.2 billion people will experience water scarcity, 200-600 million will be starving, and 2 to 7 million people each year will experience coastal flooding (cited in Vidal, 2007). As many as one billion people, or 17% of the world's population, may be forced to abandon their homes over the next 50 years and migrate to another more habitable geographical area. Most of these people will be from poor and undeveloped countries. A combination of social, civil and military conflicts, large-scale development projects, and global environmental decline will make life inhabitable for hundreds of millions of people, mostly from Africa, south Asia, and the Middle East where, ironically, the least amount of consumption takes place.

6. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading science-based non-profit organization working for a healthier environment, reports that America has 5% of the world's population, but emits 25% of the world's carbon dioxide (UCS, 2006). The Union of Concerned Scientists' web site also exposes the efforts of ExxonMobil which spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 hiring advocacy organizations that intentionally discredit the overwhelming evidence pointing to global warming (UCS, 2006).

7. When oil and gas senior executives speak to lawmakers and the public, they report smaller profit margins (around 8 to 10 percent) than when they speak to Wall Street analysts and shareholders (Slocum, 2006).

8. On a global scale, there was an average species decline between 1970 and 2000 of 40% with species in rivers, lakes and marshlands having declined by 50% during the same period (Global Biodiversity Outlook 2, 2006). Research points to declines in amphibians, African mammals, birds in agricultural lands, corals, and common fish species. The World Conservation Union, or IUCN, Red List of Threatened Species is recognized as the most reliable evaluation of the world's species. According to the 2007 Red List, life on earth is disappearing fast and the extinction process will continue unless urgent action is taken. There is a total of 41,415 species on the Red list (IUCN, 2007). Last year, 16,118 were facing extinction and now 16,306 are threatened. The aggregate number of extinct species is 785. The Red List reports that 25% of mammals, 13% of all birds, 33% of all amphibians, and 70% of the world's assessed plants are now threatened with extinction. One of the most disturbing statistics is that of the vertebrate family which includes mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. The entire vertebrate family saw an increase in threatened species jump from 3,314 in 1996 to 5,742 in 2007. Life in the ocean is in peril. According to the 2007 IUCN Red List, there are some 41, 415 species of marine life listed and, out of that, 30% are at risk for extinction. Some other vertebrates facing extinction are the tigers in India which are now thought to total no more than 1,500. In 2002, there were 3,642. Of particular concern is the rapid loss of plant species. From 1996 to 2007, the number of critically endangered plant species jumped from 909 to 1,569 and the number of endangered during the same period rose from 1,197 to 2, 278. The number of vulnerable plants during that period rose from 3,222 to 4,600. Altogether, the number of plant species that are threatened jumped from 5,328 in 1996 to 8,447 in 2007. Twenty percent (20%) of the earth's reefs have been destroyed over the past thirty years and another 50% are endangered by human activity.

9. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, electric power plants caused 67% of the total sulfur dioxide, more than 25% of the nitrogen oxides, 33% of the mercury, and 40% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States in 1998 (Natural Defense Resources Council, 2003). Approximately 120 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air.

10. The use of toxins, pesticides, and chemicals over the past sixty years has posed a substantial problem for wildlife and humans. Between 1930 and 2000, the global production of man-made chemicals skyrocketed from 1 million to 400 million tons per year (World Wildlife Federation, 2006b). Since the middle of the 20th century, the amount of pesticides sprayed on crops has increased by 26%. Because these pesticides seep into the soil, the crops that are grown absorb it. Humans eat the crops which are absorbed in the body.

11. Factory farms in the United States produce 500 million tons of manure each year which is three times the amount of human sanitary waste (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). This poses serious threats to the water we drink and the oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams. Large multimillion dollar corporations own many of the farms that generate pollution in the large lagoons that collect the urine and manure from the animals. Because lagoons have broken, failed, or overflowed, these leakages cause fish to be killed and the people living near the lagoons to report higher incidences of illnesses (Marks, 2001). Gases such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and methane are emitted from the lagoons and the irrigation pivots. These gases are toxic, consume oxygen, and are even potentially explosive. People residing near the lagoons have reported a host of physical ailments including headaches, excessive coughing, respiration problems, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, depression, and fatigue. Also hazardous are the pathogenic microbes in the animal waste that can infect humans. The amount of meat production in 2006 hit a record 276 million tons which results in greater amounts of sludge from these farms. According to the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy organization, millions of tons of potentially toxic sewage sludge has been used as crop fertilizer to millions of acres of farmland in America (Center for Food Safety, n.d.). Municipal governments sell sewage sludge to farmers as a way to dispose of unwanted byproducts from the municipal wastewater treatment plants. Sewage sludge contains anything that is flushed in a toilet or put down a kitchen sink. Many people have become ill from the heavy metals, industrial compounds, viruses, bacteria, drug residues, and radioactive materials which are found within the sewage sludge which is, as mentioned, put on the crops. Government monitoring of this hazardous waste is lax.

12. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Americans discarded 246 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2005 and businesses threw away 7.6 billion tons of industrial waste in the same year (EPA, 2007). This is an increase of 60% since 1980. Municipal residential waste includes items such as paper, yard trimmings, food scraps, plastics, metals, rubber, leather, wood, glass, sofas, computers, and refrigerators. It excludes industrial and hazardous waste. About 11% of landfills are made of plastic waste, a total of 26.7 million tons. Thirty five percent (35%) is made of paper, a total of 83 million tons. The amount of plastic thrown away increased from less than 1% in 1960 to 11.3% in 2003. The amount of paper discarded increased three fold between 1960 and 2003. The majority of municipal solid waste is comprised of containers and packaging followed by nondurable goods such as clothing, shoes, and other textiles. Globally, humans use 1.5 million tons of petroleum-based plastic to make bottles on an annual basis. It takes one million years for glass bottles to decompose. For aluminum cans, it takes 80 to 100 years while tin cans take 50 to 100 years. It takes a plastic coated milk carton five years to decompose and cigarette butts take anywhere from one to 12 years to degrade. It is a 25 to 40 year decomposition process for leather shoes and a 30 to 40 year process for nylon fabric. Environmentalists say that it will take 50 years for all the oil from the Exxon Valdez spill to finally degrade.

13. The World Wildlife Federation (2007) reports that the use of toxic man-made chemicals has increased from 1 million to 400 million tons between 1930 and 2000. They are seeping into the soil and into the food chain of all animals which, ultimately, ends up in the human body.

14. The tropical rainforest is a rich biosystem and contains the greatest diversity of species of biomes on earth which is why there is so much attention given to its preservation. This system is a home for 50-90% of all living organisms and to 90% of primates. It provides home and sanctuary to 50 million creatures that are unable to survive anywhere other than in the tropical rainforest. Serious threats from deforestation, road construction, clearing the land for agricultural purposes, and climate change are decimating it and its flora of animal wildlife. The logging industry needs the wood from forests to provide products such as paper, wood for home and commercial construction, packaging, and a host of others.

McDonald's needs 800 square miles of trees to make the amount of paper that they need solely for their packaging of products. As more and more people eat hamburgers and steaks, factory farms are necessary to grow the livestock. In the South American Amazon region, there are 100,000 beef ranchers. Norman Myers, the Oxford University environmentalist and expert on biodiversity, was the first to bring widespread attention to deforestation when he wrote The Sinking Ark in 1979 in which he estimated that more than 80,000 square miles per year of forests are being felled. This amounts to one acre per second being cut down. In the Amazon, there is an average of 1,500 acres of forest cut down each day.

15. Today, 50% of the forests that originally covered 48% of the earth are gone (NRDC, 2004). Americans use 27% of the worldwide consumption of commercially harvested wood yet only 5% of the world' population is in the United States. The United States is the largest consumer and producer of industrial wood and the world's largest importer of wood (Shugart, Sedjo, & Sohngen, 2003). In the construction industry, approximately 1/6 of the wood that is delivered is never used. It is predicted that, by the year 2050, global wood consumption will increase by 50%. In the U.S., more than 50% of the coastal temperate rainforests that once covered areas from California to Alaska have been destroyed. Mexico is losing an estimated 600,000 to 2.5 million acres of forests each year. Most of the mahogany exported from Peru is illegally logged by corporations, a major threat to forests all over the world. Canada provides 80% of their forest products to U.S. consumers. Only 8% of Canada's valuable boreal forest is sufficiently protected.

16. The United States has lost over 50% of the wetlands in the lower 48 states. The rate of loss is predicted at 60,000 acres per year. Louisiana has lost 500,000 acres of wetlands since the 1950s (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003).

17. Humans have wiped out 90% of the ocean's large fish (World Wildlife Federation, 2006) and exploited 52% of the world's fish populations. Of the remaining fish population, 24% are overexploited, depleted or making a recovery from collapse. The world now has only 17% of the ocean fish that it had 100 years ago. In 2004, 156 million tons of seafood was consumed, three times the average amount of per person seafood eaten in 1950 (Worldwatch Institute, 2007). During the 1980s and early 1990s, scientists estimated that 25% of the fish that were caught (60 billion pounds each year) were discarded (Pew Oceans Commission, 2003). It is clear that the 19th century biologist, Thomas Huxley, was mistaken when he made the statement that all the sea fisheries were inexhaustible. The global industrialized fishing fleet is currently 2.5 times larger than what the ocean can sustain. What that means is that humans are consuming 2.5 times more than what the oceans can regenerate.

18. Invasive species is largely a man-made act in which one species is purposely moved from its natural environment and transported to another environment resulting in the extinction of species. Few people are aware that invasive species is one of the most serious global environmental challenges that we face today. Hundreds of extinctions have resulted from invasive species. The impact of alien invasive species is immediate and, in most cases, irreversible. Some species relocate unintentionally, but it is still through man-made intervention such as when a species attaches itself to the bottom of ships and is transported to another area. When foreign species are imported into the U.S., it does generate billions of dollars for the economy, but it also poses threats to agriculture and the environment (Schmitz & Simberloff, 2005). Global trade is a direct contributor to this threat to nature.
19. CEOs are now earning $10,000 to $12,000 per hour while the average salary increase for the average American worker is less than two percent (Democracy Now, 2007). If we pause briefly to compare work hours and wages between the average CEO and the average American worker, we see an egregious disparity. Ninety percent (90%) of Americans earn less than $100,000 per year, thus, the year of labor that it takes 90% of Americans to earn $100,000, it only takes the average CEO a total of 10 hours to earn. Sixty six percent (66%) of Americans earn less than $50,000 per year, thus, the year of labor it takes 66% of Americans to earn $50,000, it only takes the average CEO a total of five hours to earn. Fifty percent (50%) of Americans make less than 30,000 per year, so the average CEO makes that in less than three hours. The CEO does not even have labor for an entire day. According to the Drum Major Institute (2006), a non-partisan, non-profit think tank, their 2006 Injustice Index finds that the ratio of the average U.S. CEO annual pay to minimum wage worker's is 821:1 whereas twenty years ago the ratio was 40:1. According to Kevin Murphy of the University of Southern California, the average U.S. CEO pay rose 369 times that of the average worker in 2005 while it was 191 times in 1993 and 36 times in 1976 (Krugman, 2002). Compare the 1993 ratio of U.S. CEO pay to the average American worker of 191:1 to the same ratio in Germany which was 23:1 and Japan which was 17:1 (Clinton, 1992). In 2006, the top 20 CEOs of U.S. companies made three times more than the top 20 CEOs of European companies that had higher sales profits than their U.S. counterparts (Sahadi, 2007). In August 2007, the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy published their joint study on the wage gap between average American workers versus CEOs, private equity managers and hedge fund managers. Private equity and hedge fund managers' pay averaged $657.5 million in 2006 which is 16,000 times more than the average full-time worker and it is 61 times larger than the average CEO pay (Sahadi, 2007).

20. Paul Krugman (2002), an economist at MIT and regular columnist for The New York Times, reports that in a 29 year period between 1970 and 1999, the average annual salary in America rose ten percent (10%) whereas, during the same period, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top CEOs in America rose more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary American workers and, according to a 2001 Congressional Budget Office study, between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent of American families rose 157 percent (157%). Krugman (2005) reports that the average income of the top one percent (1%) of Americans has doubled since 1973 and the income of the top 0.1% has tripled. According to the United Nations Development Report (United Nations, 1999), the net wealth of the ten wealthiest billionaires is $133,000,000,000 (133 billion dollars), more than 1.5 times the total national income of the least developed countries. Doug Henwood (1998), in Wall Street: How It Works and for Whom, writes that the richest 5% of Americans own 95% of all stock shares and the top 1% of the population owns 25% of the productive capital and future profits of corporate America. In Henwood's (2003) After the New Economy, he exposes that the richest 10% of Americans possess over ¾ of all the wealth in America and the bottom 50% has almost none of the wealth, but notes that they do have substantial debt. In a government study, the group which had the largest growth in total income between 2000 and 2005 was the top 0.001% individuals who make $1 million or more and which grew by more than 26% during these five years (Johnston, 2007). In the recent government report of the top 0.001% who make $1 million+, that group not only walked away with almost 47% of the total income gains in 2005 compared to 2000, but, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, they captured 62% of the savings from the reduced tax rates on long-term capital gains and dividends for the wealthy that President Bush signed into law in 2003 (Johnston, 2007). If the richest 5% of Americans own 95% of all stock shares and the top 1% of the population owns 25% of the productive capital and future profits of corporate America, it does not take a math genius to deduce that President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy have overwhelmingly benefited 5% of Americans and have resulted in vastly deteriorated economic outlooks for the other 95%. The Citizens for Tax Justice reports that out of 134 million American taxpayers, those who make $10 million or more—a total of 11,433 taxpayers---saved almost $1.9 million each and reaped 28% of the investment tax cut savings. As an aggregate, these 11,433 Americans saved $21.7 billion in taxes on their investments as a direct result of President Bush's tax cuts for the top wealthiest in America while the other 90% of American who make less than $100,000 a year saved an average of $318 on each investment.

21. One investment bank has commented that the current period for corporations is "the golden era of profitability" (Greenhouse & Leonhardt, 2006, p. A.1) with corporate profits climbing to the highest amount since the 1960s. Even though productivity levels have risen by double digits in the past decade, American workers' pay increases have risen by less than 2%. As Herbert (2007) describes it this way: "If your productivity increases by 18% and your pay goes up 1%, you've been dealt a hand full of jokers in which jokers aren't wild" (p. A.19). Most productivity gains have gone straight into the pockets of corporate executives. The savings rate for middle and poor class is now negative and more Americans are filing for bankruptcy than they are for divorce (Herbert, 2007). Moreover, 30 million Americans, or 25% of the U.S. workforce, make less than $9.00 per hour, or just $17,280 per year and, according to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau statistics, 37 million Americans now live in poverty (Hartmann, 2006).

22. Multinational corporations own animal patents to clone animals. The first animal patent that was issued was in 1988 for the "Oncomouse," a genetically manipulated mouse to develop cancers that mirror human diseases. The research was conducted at Harvard University, but it was DuPont that was awarded the European Patent 169672 on the mouse in 1992. More than 660 animal patents have been issued in the United States since 1988. This means corporations have power over the DNA structure if cloning is not banned. If there is no ethical and moral line to be drawn with cloning of animals, how long will it take until humans are cloned? What happens if another Hitler or Stalin assume power?

23. More than 75 percent of workers in most of the industrial nations are performing work that is primarily simple and repetitive (Rifkin, 2004). In the United States, out of 124 million workers, more than 90 million jobs are at risk for replacement by machines. Currently, 3.6 billion out of 5.4 billion people in the world lack adequate cash or credit to purchase goods and services (Barnet & Cavanagh, 1994). Human androids are being made that will, one day, be indiscernible to a real human being (Whitehouse, 2005). Will they have a conscience? Not only will these androids take over work because of their slavish, blind obedience to authority and the wealthy capitalists, how will billions of unemployed real human beings survive and how will a real human being know if they are marrying a human being or an android? Will androids have legal and political rights? If so, without a conscience, how will they vote and what will they demand? If they become leaders, what will become of the world?

24. Corporations and individuals now own patents on 20 human pathogens (Crichton, 2007). This allows the owner of the patents to halt research, prevent medical testing, and to withhold vital information from a patient or doctor. A corporation can charge any amount for tests related to that disease. The owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions of dollars by researchers to study the disease. Not surprisingly, researchers turn to studying other less expensive diseases. When SARS was spreading around the world, medical researchers were reticent to study it because of the patent concerns behind it. The inhibition of innovation and research makes the patenting of human genes particularly insidious. Corporations literally have the power to prevent the finding of cures for disease. Perhaps the most disturbing patent is that of U.S. patent 5,476,995 on Tracey the sheep. Tracey had human genes injected into her mammary glands to produce a certain protein. The alteration of her genetic make-up allows the two companies which own her, Pharmaceutical Proteins Ltd. and Bayer, to describe her as a human invention. This takes the concept of Orwellian doublespeak and turns it into the more accurate phrase: diabolical deception.

25. Millions of birds, cats, dogs, farm animals, fish, mice, monkeys, rats, rabbits and a host of other domestic and wild animals are subjected to animal testing by psychologists, biologists, biochemists, physiologists, and geneticists. In a 2005 study, it was reported that the United States used 1.14 million animals (excluding rats, mice, birds and cold-blooded species), and an estimated 100 million mice for research (PETA, 2006a). Of these, it is known that 84, 662 animals suffered pain without pain relief. In the same study, it was found that Canada used 2.32 million animals for research and 167,000 animals were subjected to experiments that cause severe pain. In Great Britain, a total of 2.45 million animal experiments were conducted.

26. The military testing of weapons in which they use animals as subjects is a particularly horrible practice, but the public remains largely uninformed about it. According to PETA (2006b), the U.S. military uses AK-47 rifles, biological and chemical weapons, and nuclear blasts to test on animals. In 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported that more than 330,000 dogs, cats, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates, rats, mice, dolphins, fish, and other animals had been subjects in their military tests. This excludes the experiments conducted by nongovernmental organizations in which sheep, goats, and pigs are shot in wound experiments, so the aggregate number of military tests in which animals are used is likely underreported.

27. President George W. Bush has backed out of important treaties since gaining power. He backed out of the Kyoto Treaty after assuming office in 2001 which meant he refused to honor commitments to work with over 100 other countries who had signed the treaty in addressing global warming. That was troubling enough. Then in December 2001 Bush announced that the United States would no longer honor the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that the U.S. signed with Russia in which there was a sort of balance of powers established. This withdrawal marked the first formal unilateral withdrawal of a major power from a nuclear arms treaty and it also triggered Russia to withdraw from its commitments under the START II arms reduction treaty. If that wasn't alarming enough, in 2002, the Department of Defense presented the Nuclear Posture Review to Congress which expanded the range of situations in which the U.S. could use nuclear weapons allowing the option of using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear nations. This was another withdrawal from an agreement the U.S. had made in 1995 when it said it would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon parties unless they attacked the U.S. while allied with another nuclear-weapon country. The Nuclear Posture Review to Congress also allowed pre-emptive attacks and permitted the development of nuclear warheads. In November 2006, Bush posted plans on a public website stating intentions to build nuclear weapons. Immediately following, six Arab nations made formal announcements that they were launching nuclear programs of their own. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Saudia Arabia, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, the United Arab of Emirates, and Egypt had revealed their nuclear ambitions the prior month and were giving formal notice of those plans. Arms experts called this announcement a "stunning reversal of policy" in the Arab world because of a long past of commitments to a nuclear free Middle East. While the six countries told the IAEA that their intention was the pursuit of nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons, it is clear that nuclear energy technology can be turned into weaponry. Then in mid 2007, Bush announced he was going to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe. Vladimir Putin responded by notifying NATO governments that Russia would suspend its obligations under the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a cold war treaty that limited arms proliferation. Putin said that the bullying of President Bush was forcing Russia to make this move particularly with two major moves: the combination of the U.S. backing away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and its intention to rearm Eastern Europe.

28. There are currently (as of April 2008) nine countries that have nuclear weapons: United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, North Korea, China, India, Pakistan and Israel.

29. Following the bombing of Japan, a group of American atomic scientists published an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) establishing the Doomsday Clock and set it at 7 minutes before the close of midnight. It was intended to be a stark symbol of how close the world was approaching total obliteration. In 2006, the BAS directors and affiliated scientists met to reassess what the most grievous threats to life on the planet are today. The decision was made that global warming is second only to nuclear annihilation and so the Doomsday clock was moved up by two minutes. It is now set at five minutes before midnight.

The informed, compassionate, and active are tasked with daunting and overwhelming challenges. It is imperative for us to build bridges and remain connected during these profoundly troubling times. Let us persevere, stay informed, remain sober and realistic, and act with moral conscience on the scientific information that is available to us. And let us keep hope alive.

Wanda is a psychotherapist and author of The Anatomy of the Soul: An Authentic Psychology published in 2004 which posits an original theoretical model of the Soul, or Transcendent Psyche. Her second book, Malignant Masculine Power: The Narcissistic Consciousness of Deceit, Exploitation, Domination, and Destruction That is Leading the World Toward Annihilation, posits an original theoretical model of masculine psychosocial pathology and will be published later in 2008. She is currently pursuing a doctorate in psychology and enjoys reading, writing, listening to classical and easy listening music, meditating, and gardening. She is interested in issues pertaining to gender psychology, philosophy, spirituality, socioeconomic justice, and peace.




Get 5GB of online storage for free! Get it Now!