The state can only deal with our myriad compulsive behaviours by first recognising their common basis
Anthony Giddens
Tuesday October 16, 2007
The Guardian
Two important reports came out this weekend. One says obesity will cost the UK £45bn a year by 2050 if current trends are not reversed. Another shows the number of people admitted to hospital with drink-related problems has risen by 30% since 2002. Overeating, undereating, binge drinking and alcoholism, smoking, dependence on tranquillisers or antidepressants, excessive gambling and hard-drug use: what do they have in common? In his report as chair of the Tories' Social Justice Policy Group, Iain Duncan Smith, says they are the result of our "broken society". That isn't convincing, however. Most are worsened by poverty, but addictions spread much further. Affluence is not a protection against them and may, in some cases, make people more vulnerable.
Addictive behaviour always starts with pleasure. That may be the result of substances such as alcohol, cigarettes or other drugs, or it may be people saying "you look good" when you've lost weight, a win on a poker machine, or the feeling of relief from anxiety or pain. Pleasure turns into addiction when the high becomes a necessity. In other words, what is originally satisfying turns into a dependency and can take the form of a deteriorating cycle.
Addiction is compulsive behaviour. When an initially pleasurable experience becomes a fix, individuals have lost control of their behaviour. To regain the intensity of the initial high, they have to have a higher dose, or more frequently repeated doses. Anorexia is just as much a form of addiction - a compulsive cycle into which the individual becomes locked - as overeating.
I first became interested in addiction when looking one day at two Sunday newspaper magazines. I put them side by side. The first featured a starving girl, caught up in a famine in Africa. The second had on its cover a starving teenager, in the US. Save for the fact that one was black and the other white, they looked almost identical. The African girl was starving because of lack of food; the American was starving to death in a society where food is available in abundance, and her appearance was the result of a deteriorating compulsive cycle. The outcome was the same, but the dynamics of the two were plainly very different.
Why is compulsive behaviour so common in modern society? It seems to be linked to lifestyle choice. We are freer now than 40 years ago to decide how to live our lives. Greater autonomy means the chance of more freedom. The other side of that freedom, however, is the risk of addiction. The rise of eating disorders coincided with the advent of supermarket development in the 1960s. Food became available without regard to season and in great variety, even to those with few resources.
The fact that substance addiction may have a physiological dimension might lead us to suppose that it should be separated from other compulsive behaviours. But that would be a false approach: all addictions have a common basis in compulsive repetition - habits that are hard to break because of their emotional content. The politics of addiction is a relatively unexplored area but has become hugely consequential. How should government approach it? The government apparently has no generic policy framework for reducing addiction but deals with each area separately.
Such an approach can to some extent involve a generalisation of existing policy orientations. For instance, regulation of the food industry has to be stepped up - a process that is still in its early stages. Governments can try to persuade people to eat more healthily, but a great deal can be done to improve the quality of available foods, above all in the fast food industry. Pressure is increasing on food producers, but it needs to be much greater; and in supermarkets even small things such as changing store layouts can make a big difference to impulse buying of sweets and alcohol.
However, there is a need for involvement in areas governments normally avoid. Addictive behaviour is bound up with identity and the emotions. The theorist of happiness Professor Richard Layard has been successful in persuading the government to fund an extension of counselling for depression. But addictive behaviour, which in any case overlaps with depression, has more serious consequences for society.
There are some principles to establish. One is to spend money on treatment when addictions are first formed; the other is to orient policy towards self-esteem. Addiction almost always goes with a loss of self-confidence. Therapists such as Susie Orbach have long insisted that developing emotional literacy should be the foundation of most areas of social policy. I agree. Whenever individuals' behaviour is controlled by habits that they should control, we are at the fulcrum of the relationship between domination and freedom. Government has been reluctant to intrude, but now it must.
· Anthony Giddens is a Labour peer and a former director of the London School of Economics.
“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer
Search This Blog
Tuesday 16 October 2007
Monday 15 October 2007
Guru Of Greed: The Cult Of Selfishness
By Leonard Doyle
15 October, 2007
The Independent
Why is it that millions of ordinary Americans vote for conservative policies that seem inimical to their lives? Why are the politicians who support healthcare reforms to give access to a doctor for the 47 million Americans without insurance branded as closet socialists or worse?
Why, in this upside-down world do so many blue-collar Americans vote Republican, and family farmers support a President whose Wall Street friends would gladly push them off the land?
Why do people shrug and say "tough", when they read that hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their homes, after falling victims to crooked mortgage salesmen? The most common response is that millions of people who otherwise could never have afforded a home are now enjoying the American Dream.
Perhaps the greatest political riddle of the US is why so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests?
If it were otherwise, then surely John Edwards, the telegenic Democratic candidate for President would lead the polls since he has dedicated his campaign to lifting tens of millions out of poverty. Instead it is Hillary Clinton, whose economic policies might as well have been drafted by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who looks a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination.
So what's the matter with America?
The answer may be contained in the writings of the Russian emigrée and radical libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand. Two decades after her death, she remains the darling of right-thinking Americans and sales of her novels, paens of praise to unbridled capitalism, are even outselling The Da Vinci Code.
More copies of her book Atlas Shrugged are sold now than when she was the literary pied piper of Wall Street. In his early thirties, no less a figure than Alan Greenspan, who married one of her closest friends and went on to become the chairman of the Federal Reserve fawned over her. On Saturday nights he made his way to Rand's deliberately darkened apartment in Manhattan to sit in rapt admiration as passages of her novels were read aloud to her conservative salon.
"Ayn," Mr Greenspan would say according to those who were also present, "upon reading this, one tends to feel exhilarated!"
Mr Greenspan was already making lots of money as an economics consultant, advising the Wall Street moguls and other captains of industry whom Ms Rand idealised in her books.
At the time Mr Greenspan embraced the Rand dogma, he favoured removing all safety nets from the US economy and bringing back the Gold Standard. When Atlas Shrugged was negatively reviewed as an apology for totalitarianism in the New York Times, Mr Greenspan wrote a letter to the paper, which in retrospect looks like an application for the job that would eventually make him one of the most powerful figures in the world.
To the editor:
Atlas Shrugged is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should,
Alan Greenspan
New York
Over the years as Mr Greenspan became the World's pre-eminent central banker he slipped from Rand's circle of influence. And while never quite dumping her theory of Objectivism – in fact he has fond memories of her salon in his new book – he turned his back on her cold-hearted worldview for the rest of his powerful career.
Some argue that it was Rand herself rather than her philosophical ideas that held the public gaze. Biographies penned by spurned lovers and collections of her letters reveal a difficult personality, alternatively passionate and cold. A woman who kept lists of sworn enemies. She enjoyed kinky sex with swinging couples and enforced a cult of loyalty among her followers.
Rand was born in 1905 in Russia and her comfortable life was turned upside down when the Bolsheviks attacked her father's pharmacy, declaring his business to be state property. She had fled the Soviet Union by1926 and soon arrived in Hollywood. There she looked though the studio gates to see the director Cecil B. DeMille on the set filming a silent movie, King of Kings.
She talked her way onto the set, and got a job as an extra, later becoming a junior screenwriter. There she also met and married the writer Frank O' Connor.
For a few years she wrote screenplays as well as novels that failed to sell. It was only in 1943 that her career took off when word-of-mouth campaign got The Fountainhead noticed and put her on the road to success.
Rand's most influential book, Atlas Shrugged begins in a recession. To save the economy her hero, John Galt, calls for a strike by intellectuals against government interference. Factories, farms and shops close. Riots break out as food becomes scarce. Rand herself said she "set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them" and to portray "what happens to a world without them".
The book was published into a welter of criticism. The New York Times critic denounced it as "written out of hate" and called it "a triumph of English as a second language". Both conservatives and liberal critics disparaged it, with the right condemning its promotion of a godless ethic and the left condemning its message of "greed is good". Rand cried every day as bad reviews poured in.
But now she is back in fashion of a sort. Her theories have made inroads into academia. Objectivism is taught at more than 30 universities, with fellowships at several leading philosophy departments. The Ayn Rand Institute has a war chest of over $7m to promote her ideas and more than a million high school pupils are being given free copies of her novels to read.
Now a movie, starring Angelina Jolie in the lead role, is being released next year.
As Forbe's magazine – aka The Capitalist's Tool – breathlessly reported: "Sales on Amazon in the first nine months of this year are already almost double the total for 2006." With the 50th anniversary of its publication today, Atlas Shrugged was ranked 124th on Amazon's sales charts while The Da Vinci Code languished at 2,587.
The book made Rand the toast of every Rotary Club in the land.
Legions of readers, including Hillary Clinton, members of the Supreme Court and of course Mr Greenspan count Rand among their formative influences. And the 140,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged, which are sold every year, are a small fraction of the 6 million books sold since the book was first published.
Rand's credo is summed up by the title of a collection of her essays, The Virtue of Selfishness, which have circulated in an almost samizdat fashion among enthusiasts of capitalism red in tooth and claw.
It attracted the devotion of America's top corporate executives, who would only speak of its impact behind closed doors. A staple read of undergraduate business schools, the book provided comfort to each generation of entrepreneurs by telling them that there is no conflict between private ambition and public benefit.
One of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, summarises her philosophy of Objectivism with the following oath: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another human being, or ask another human being to live for mine."
Her novels continue to inspire visceral feelings of worship and disgust among readers. Reviewing the newly published memoir of her acolyte Greenspan, the conservative writer Andrew Ferguson complains in The Weekly Standard that "her creepy philosophy of Objectivism, placing the self at the centre of the moral universe, still is embraced by tens of thousands of pimply teenage boys in the dreamy moments between fits of social insecurity and furious bouts of masturbation."
One way or another Rand's ode to American individualism has made her one of the towering figures of US political thought in the late 20th century.
By rejecting altruism and embracing selfishness she rejected the Judaeo-Christian underpinning of the religious right. The only moral obligation a person had was to his or her own happiness. That meant capitalism should be given a free rein with an unregulated market economy.
She pushed America's cult of individualism into uncharted waters where ruthless self-interest and disdain for poorer members of society were the guiding principles.
Her admirers partly credit her revived appeal to an absence of ideas coming from the US left: "Today's left doesn't have anything positive to offer to young people," says Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "When they were socialists, there was at least something they were fighting for, and they believed in a right and a wrong. Today's leftist agenda is negative and nihilistic – focused on stopping industrialisation, capitalism and even Western civilisation. But young people want positive values. That's why religion is so strong today, because many view it as the only thing that promises a brighter future.
"Ayn Rand is the only voice that offers a secular absolutist morality with a positive vision and agenda, for individuals and for society as a whole."
The coming presidential election will reveal the extent to which ordinary poor Americans will proudly vote themselves out of jobs, off the land and ensure that their children can never afford to go to university or afford health care. It happened in the last two presidential elections, and the Ayn Rand Institute is banking that it will happen again.
Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!
15 October, 2007
The Independent
Why is it that millions of ordinary Americans vote for conservative policies that seem inimical to their lives? Why are the politicians who support healthcare reforms to give access to a doctor for the 47 million Americans without insurance branded as closet socialists or worse?
Why, in this upside-down world do so many blue-collar Americans vote Republican, and family farmers support a President whose Wall Street friends would gladly push them off the land?
Why do people shrug and say "tough", when they read that hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their homes, after falling victims to crooked mortgage salesmen? The most common response is that millions of people who otherwise could never have afforded a home are now enjoying the American Dream.
Perhaps the greatest political riddle of the US is why so many Americans vote against their economic and social interests?
If it were otherwise, then surely John Edwards, the telegenic Democratic candidate for President would lead the polls since he has dedicated his campaign to lifting tens of millions out of poverty. Instead it is Hillary Clinton, whose economic policies might as well have been drafted by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, who looks a shoo-in for the Democratic nomination.
So what's the matter with America?
The answer may be contained in the writings of the Russian emigrée and radical libertarian philosopher Ayn Rand. Two decades after her death, she remains the darling of right-thinking Americans and sales of her novels, paens of praise to unbridled capitalism, are even outselling The Da Vinci Code.
More copies of her book Atlas Shrugged are sold now than when she was the literary pied piper of Wall Street. In his early thirties, no less a figure than Alan Greenspan, who married one of her closest friends and went on to become the chairman of the Federal Reserve fawned over her. On Saturday nights he made his way to Rand's deliberately darkened apartment in Manhattan to sit in rapt admiration as passages of her novels were read aloud to her conservative salon.
"Ayn," Mr Greenspan would say according to those who were also present, "upon reading this, one tends to feel exhilarated!"
Mr Greenspan was already making lots of money as an economics consultant, advising the Wall Street moguls and other captains of industry whom Ms Rand idealised in her books.
At the time Mr Greenspan embraced the Rand dogma, he favoured removing all safety nets from the US economy and bringing back the Gold Standard. When Atlas Shrugged was negatively reviewed as an apology for totalitarianism in the New York Times, Mr Greenspan wrote a letter to the paper, which in retrospect looks like an application for the job that would eventually make him one of the most powerful figures in the world.
To the editor:
Atlas Shrugged is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should,
Alan Greenspan
New York
Over the years as Mr Greenspan became the World's pre-eminent central banker he slipped from Rand's circle of influence. And while never quite dumping her theory of Objectivism – in fact he has fond memories of her salon in his new book – he turned his back on her cold-hearted worldview for the rest of his powerful career.
Some argue that it was Rand herself rather than her philosophical ideas that held the public gaze. Biographies penned by spurned lovers and collections of her letters reveal a difficult personality, alternatively passionate and cold. A woman who kept lists of sworn enemies. She enjoyed kinky sex with swinging couples and enforced a cult of loyalty among her followers.
Rand was born in 1905 in Russia and her comfortable life was turned upside down when the Bolsheviks attacked her father's pharmacy, declaring his business to be state property. She had fled the Soviet Union by1926 and soon arrived in Hollywood. There she looked though the studio gates to see the director Cecil B. DeMille on the set filming a silent movie, King of Kings.
She talked her way onto the set, and got a job as an extra, later becoming a junior screenwriter. There she also met and married the writer Frank O' Connor.
For a few years she wrote screenplays as well as novels that failed to sell. It was only in 1943 that her career took off when word-of-mouth campaign got The Fountainhead noticed and put her on the road to success.
Rand's most influential book, Atlas Shrugged begins in a recession. To save the economy her hero, John Galt, calls for a strike by intellectuals against government interference. Factories, farms and shops close. Riots break out as food becomes scarce. Rand herself said she "set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers and how viciously it treats them" and to portray "what happens to a world without them".
The book was published into a welter of criticism. The New York Times critic denounced it as "written out of hate" and called it "a triumph of English as a second language". Both conservatives and liberal critics disparaged it, with the right condemning its promotion of a godless ethic and the left condemning its message of "greed is good". Rand cried every day as bad reviews poured in.
But now she is back in fashion of a sort. Her theories have made inroads into academia. Objectivism is taught at more than 30 universities, with fellowships at several leading philosophy departments. The Ayn Rand Institute has a war chest of over $7m to promote her ideas and more than a million high school pupils are being given free copies of her novels to read.
Now a movie, starring Angelina Jolie in the lead role, is being released next year.
As Forbe's magazine – aka The Capitalist's Tool – breathlessly reported: "Sales on Amazon in the first nine months of this year are already almost double the total for 2006." With the 50th anniversary of its publication today, Atlas Shrugged was ranked 124th on Amazon's sales charts while The Da Vinci Code languished at 2,587.
The book made Rand the toast of every Rotary Club in the land.
Legions of readers, including Hillary Clinton, members of the Supreme Court and of course Mr Greenspan count Rand among their formative influences. And the 140,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged, which are sold every year, are a small fraction of the 6 million books sold since the book was first published.
Rand's credo is summed up by the title of a collection of her essays, The Virtue of Selfishness, which have circulated in an almost samizdat fashion among enthusiasts of capitalism red in tooth and claw.
It attracted the devotion of America's top corporate executives, who would only speak of its impact behind closed doors. A staple read of undergraduate business schools, the book provided comfort to each generation of entrepreneurs by telling them that there is no conflict between private ambition and public benefit.
One of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, summarises her philosophy of Objectivism with the following oath: "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another human being, or ask another human being to live for mine."
Her novels continue to inspire visceral feelings of worship and disgust among readers. Reviewing the newly published memoir of her acolyte Greenspan, the conservative writer Andrew Ferguson complains in The Weekly Standard that "her creepy philosophy of Objectivism, placing the self at the centre of the moral universe, still is embraced by tens of thousands of pimply teenage boys in the dreamy moments between fits of social insecurity and furious bouts of masturbation."
One way or another Rand's ode to American individualism has made her one of the towering figures of US political thought in the late 20th century.
By rejecting altruism and embracing selfishness she rejected the Judaeo-Christian underpinning of the religious right. The only moral obligation a person had was to his or her own happiness. That meant capitalism should be given a free rein with an unregulated market economy.
She pushed America's cult of individualism into uncharted waters where ruthless self-interest and disdain for poorer members of society were the guiding principles.
Her admirers partly credit her revived appeal to an absence of ideas coming from the US left: "Today's left doesn't have anything positive to offer to young people," says Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "When they were socialists, there was at least something they were fighting for, and they believed in a right and a wrong. Today's leftist agenda is negative and nihilistic – focused on stopping industrialisation, capitalism and even Western civilisation. But young people want positive values. That's why religion is so strong today, because many view it as the only thing that promises a brighter future.
"Ayn Rand is the only voice that offers a secular absolutist morality with a positive vision and agenda, for individuals and for society as a whole."
The coming presidential election will reveal the extent to which ordinary poor Americans will proudly vote themselves out of jobs, off the land and ensure that their children can never afford to go to university or afford health care. It happened in the last two presidential elections, and the Ayn Rand Institute is banking that it will happen again.
Are you the Quizmaster? Play BrainBattle with a friend now!
Wednesday 10 October 2007
SO YOU Think English is Easy???
Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.
We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all.
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
PS. - Why doesn't ' Buick' rhyme with 'quick'
Can you read these right the first time?
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce .
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present .
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row .
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
You lovers of the English language might also enjoy this .
There is an English two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP.' It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP? At a meeting, why does a topic come UP? Why do we speak UP! and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report ? We call UP our friends. And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver, we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car. At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses. To be dressed is one thing , but to be dressed UP is
special. And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night. We seem to be pretty mixed UP! about UP !
To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions. If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP , you may wind UP with a hundred or more. When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP. When the sun comes out we say it is clearing UP .
When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP. When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.
One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP, for now my time is UP,
so... it is time to shut UP!
We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all.
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
PS. - Why doesn't ' Buick' rhyme with 'quick'
Can you read these right the first time?
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce .
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present .
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row .
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
You lovers of the English language might also enjoy this .
There is an English two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP.' It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP? At a meeting, why does a topic come UP? Why do we speak UP! and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report ? We call UP our friends. And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver, we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car. At other times the little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses. To be dressed is one thing , but to be dressed UP is
special. And this UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night. We seem to be pretty mixed UP! about UP !
To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions. If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP , you may wind UP with a hundred or more. When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP. When the sun comes out we say it is clearing UP .
When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP. When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.
One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP, for now my time is UP,
so... it is time to shut UP!
Bring On The Recession
I recognise that recession causes hardship. I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. These are the avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than welfare...
GEORGE MONBIOT
If you are of a sensitive disposition, I advise you to turn the page now. I am about to break the last of the universal taboos. I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises.
I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. I do not dismiss these impacts or the harm they inflict, though I would argue that they are the avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than welfare. What I would like you to recognise is something much less discussed: that, beyond a certain point, hardship is also caused by economic growth.
On Sunday I visited the only UN biosphere reserve in Wales: the Dyfi estuary. As is usual at weekends, several hundred people had come to enjoy its beauty and tranquility and, as is usual, two or three people on jet skis were spoiling it for everyone else. Most economists will tell us that human welfare is best served by multiplying the number of jet skis. If there are two in the estuary today, there should be four there by this time next year and eight the year after. Because the estuary's beauty and tranquility don't figure in the national accounts (no one pays to watch the sunset) and because the sale and use of jet skis does, this is deemed an improvement in human welfare.
This is a minor illustration of an issue which can no longer be dismissed as trivial. In August the World Health Organisation released the preliminary results of its research into the links between noise and stress(1). Its work so far suggests that long-term exposure to noise from traffic alone could be responsible, around the world, for hundreds of thousands of deaths through ischaemic heart disease every year, as well as contributing to strokes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, broken sleep and other stress-related illnesses. Noise, its researchers found, raises your levels of stress hormones even while you sleep. As a study of children living close to airports in Germany suggests, it also damages long-term memory, reading and speech perception(2). All over the world, complaints about noise are rising: to an alien observer it would appear that the primary purpose of economic growth is to find ever more intrusive means of burning fossil fuels.
This leads us to the most obvious way in which further growth will hurt us. Climate change does not lead only to a decline in welfare: beyond a certain point it causes its termination. In other words, it threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people. However hard governments might work to reduce carbon emissions, they are battling the tide of economic growth. While the rate of growth in the use of energy declines as an economy matures, no country has yet managed to reduce energy use while raising gross domestic product. The UK's carbon dioxide emissions are higher than they were in 1997(3), partly as a result of the 60 successive quarters of growth that Gordon Brown keeps boasting about. A recession in the rich nations might be the only hope we have of buying the time we need to prevent runaway climate change.
The massive improvements in human welfare - better housing, better nutrition, better sanitation and better medicine - over the past 200 years are the result of economic growth and the learning, spending, innovation and political empowerment it has permitted. But at what point should it stop? In other words, at what point do governments decide that the marginal costs of further growth exceed the marginal benefits? Most of them have no answer to this question. Growth must continue, for good or ill. It seems to me that in the rich nations we have already reached the logical place to stop.
I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain.The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel and insurance bills must be astronomical. They have been liberated from the horrible poverty their grandparents suffered, and this is something we should celebrate and must never forget. But with one major exception, can anyone argue that the basic needs of everyone in the rich nations cannot now be met?
The exception is housing, and in this case the growth in value is one of the reasons for exclusion. A new analysis by Goldman Sachs shows that current house prices are not just the result of a shortage of supply: if they were, then the rise in prices should have been matched by the rise in rents. Even taking scarcity into account, the analysts believe that houses are overvalued by some 20%(4).
Governments love growth because it excuses them from dealing with inequality. As Henry Wallich, a governor of the US Federal Reserve, once pointed out in defending the current economic model, "growth is a substitute for equality of income. So long as there is growth there is hope, and that makes large income differentials tolerable"(5). Growth is a political sedative, snuffing out protest, permitting governments to avoid confrontation with the rich, preventing the construction of a just and sustainable economy. Growth has permitted the social stratification which even the Daily Mail now laments.
Is there anything which could sensibly be described as welfare that the rich can now gain? A month ago the Financial Times ran a feature on how department stores are trying to cater for "the consumer who has Arrived"(6). But the unspoken theme of the article is that no one arrives - the destination keeps shifting. The problem, an executive from Chanel explained, is that luxury has been "over-democratised." The rich are having to spend more and more to distinguish themselves from the herd: in the US the market in goods and services designed for this purpose is worth £720bn a year. To ensure that you cannot be mistaken for a lesser being, you can now buy gold and diamond saucepans from Harrods. Without conscious irony, the article was illustrated with a photograph of a coffin. It turns out to be a replica of Lord Nelson's coffin, carved from wood taken from the ship on which he died, and yours for a fortune in a new, hyper-luxury department of Selfridges. Sacrificing your health and happiness to earn the money to buy this junk looks like a sign of advanced mental illness.
Is it not time to recognise that we have reached the promised land, and should seek to stay there? Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened wastes of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?
But because political discourse is controlled by people who put the accumulation of money above all other ends, this policy appears to be impossible. Unpleasant as it will be, it is hard to see what except an accidental recession could prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.
GEORGE MONBIOT
If you are of a sensitive disposition, I advise you to turn the page now. I am about to break the last of the universal taboos. I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises.
I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. I do not dismiss these impacts or the harm they inflict, though I would argue that they are the avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than welfare. What I would like you to recognise is something much less discussed: that, beyond a certain point, hardship is also caused by economic growth.
On Sunday I visited the only UN biosphere reserve in Wales: the Dyfi estuary. As is usual at weekends, several hundred people had come to enjoy its beauty and tranquility and, as is usual, two or three people on jet skis were spoiling it for everyone else. Most economists will tell us that human welfare is best served by multiplying the number of jet skis. If there are two in the estuary today, there should be four there by this time next year and eight the year after. Because the estuary's beauty and tranquility don't figure in the national accounts (no one pays to watch the sunset) and because the sale and use of jet skis does, this is deemed an improvement in human welfare.
This is a minor illustration of an issue which can no longer be dismissed as trivial. In August the World Health Organisation released the preliminary results of its research into the links between noise and stress(1). Its work so far suggests that long-term exposure to noise from traffic alone could be responsible, around the world, for hundreds of thousands of deaths through ischaemic heart disease every year, as well as contributing to strokes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, broken sleep and other stress-related illnesses. Noise, its researchers found, raises your levels of stress hormones even while you sleep. As a study of children living close to airports in Germany suggests, it also damages long-term memory, reading and speech perception(2). All over the world, complaints about noise are rising: to an alien observer it would appear that the primary purpose of economic growth is to find ever more intrusive means of burning fossil fuels.
This leads us to the most obvious way in which further growth will hurt us. Climate change does not lead only to a decline in welfare: beyond a certain point it causes its termination. In other words, it threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people. However hard governments might work to reduce carbon emissions, they are battling the tide of economic growth. While the rate of growth in the use of energy declines as an economy matures, no country has yet managed to reduce energy use while raising gross domestic product. The UK's carbon dioxide emissions are higher than they were in 1997(3), partly as a result of the 60 successive quarters of growth that Gordon Brown keeps boasting about. A recession in the rich nations might be the only hope we have of buying the time we need to prevent runaway climate change.
The massive improvements in human welfare - better housing, better nutrition, better sanitation and better medicine - over the past 200 years are the result of economic growth and the learning, spending, innovation and political empowerment it has permitted. But at what point should it stop? In other words, at what point do governments decide that the marginal costs of further growth exceed the marginal benefits? Most of them have no answer to this question. Growth must continue, for good or ill. It seems to me that in the rich nations we have already reached the logical place to stop.
I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain.The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel and insurance bills must be astronomical. They have been liberated from the horrible poverty their grandparents suffered, and this is something we should celebrate and must never forget. But with one major exception, can anyone argue that the basic needs of everyone in the rich nations cannot now be met?
The exception is housing, and in this case the growth in value is one of the reasons for exclusion. A new analysis by Goldman Sachs shows that current house prices are not just the result of a shortage of supply: if they were, then the rise in prices should have been matched by the rise in rents. Even taking scarcity into account, the analysts believe that houses are overvalued by some 20%(4).
Governments love growth because it excuses them from dealing with inequality. As Henry Wallich, a governor of the US Federal Reserve, once pointed out in defending the current economic model, "growth is a substitute for equality of income. So long as there is growth there is hope, and that makes large income differentials tolerable"(5). Growth is a political sedative, snuffing out protest, permitting governments to avoid confrontation with the rich, preventing the construction of a just and sustainable economy. Growth has permitted the social stratification which even the Daily Mail now laments.
Is there anything which could sensibly be described as welfare that the rich can now gain? A month ago the Financial Times ran a feature on how department stores are trying to cater for "the consumer who has Arrived"(6). But the unspoken theme of the article is that no one arrives - the destination keeps shifting. The problem, an executive from Chanel explained, is that luxury has been "over-democratised." The rich are having to spend more and more to distinguish themselves from the herd: in the US the market in goods and services designed for this purpose is worth £720bn a year. To ensure that you cannot be mistaken for a lesser being, you can now buy gold and diamond saucepans from Harrods. Without conscious irony, the article was illustrated with a photograph of a coffin. It turns out to be a replica of Lord Nelson's coffin, carved from wood taken from the ship on which he died, and yours for a fortune in a new, hyper-luxury department of Selfridges. Sacrificing your health and happiness to earn the money to buy this junk looks like a sign of advanced mental illness.
Is it not time to recognise that we have reached the promised land, and should seek to stay there? Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened wastes of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?
But because political discourse is controlled by people who put the accumulation of money above all other ends, this policy appears to be impossible. Unpleasant as it will be, it is hard to see what except an accidental recession could prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.
The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is A Threat’
By Scott Ritter
09 October, 2007
CommonDreams.org
Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.
Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection.
Where Iran has demonstrated the ability for global reach is in the spread of Shi’a Islamic fundamentalism, but even in this case the results have been mixed. Other than the expansive relations between Iran (via certain elements of the IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Iranian success stories when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution are virtually non-existent. Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC to export Islamic revolution abroad, especially into Europe and other western nations, have produced the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations made by former and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives chosen to spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to Iran noting that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible but preferable to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these IRGC officers began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats in Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.
The concept of an inherent incompatibility between Iran, even when governed by a theocratic ruling class, and the United States is fundamentally flawed, especially from the perspective of Iran. The Iran of today seeks to integrate itself responsibly with the nations of the world, clumsily so in some instances, but in any case a far cry from the crude attempts to export Islamic revolution in the early 1980’s. The United States claims that Iran is a real and present danger to the security of the US and the entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology, Iran’s continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s “status” as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference into the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples of how this threat manifests itself.
On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.
The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting “intelligence operatives” who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific evidence.
Iran as a nation represents absolutely no threat to the national security of the United States, or of its major allies in the region, including Israel. The media hype concerning alleged statements made by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has created and sustained the myth that Iran seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly contradict this myth. First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated an Iranian policy objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel’s policies would lead to its “vanishing from the pages of time.” Second, and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole purview of the “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States inclusive of an offer to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This initiative was rejected by the United States, but nevertheless represents the clearest indication of what the true policy objective of Iran is vis-à-vis Israel.
The fact of the matter is that the “Iranian Threat” is derived solely from the rhetoric of those who appear to seek confrontation between the United States and Iran, and largely divorced from fact-based reality. A recent request on the part of Iran to allow President Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath at “ground zero” in Manhattan was rejected by New York City officials. The resulting public outcry condemned the Iranian initiative as an affront to all Americans, citing Iran’s alleged policies of supporting terrorism. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the reality that Iran was violently opposed to al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan throughout the 1990’s leading up to 2001, and that Iran was one of the first Muslim nations to condemn the terror attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
A careful fact-based assessment of Iran clearly demonstrates that it poses no threat to the legitimate national security interests of the United States. However, if the United States chooses to implement its own unilateral national security objectives concerning regime change in Iran, there will most likely be a reaction from Iran which produces an exceedingly detrimental impact on the national security interests of the United States, including military, political and economic. But the notion of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute a security threat simply because it retains the intent and capability to defend its sovereign territory in the face of unprovoked military aggression is absurd. In the end, however, such absurdity is trumping fact-based reality when it comes to shaping the opinion of the American public on the issue of the Iranian “threat.”
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).
09 October, 2007
CommonDreams.org
Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.
Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection.
Where Iran has demonstrated the ability for global reach is in the spread of Shi’a Islamic fundamentalism, but even in this case the results have been mixed. Other than the expansive relations between Iran (via certain elements of the IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Iranian success stories when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution are virtually non-existent. Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC to export Islamic revolution abroad, especially into Europe and other western nations, have produced the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations made by former and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives chosen to spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to Iran noting that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible but preferable to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these IRGC officers began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats in Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.
The concept of an inherent incompatibility between Iran, even when governed by a theocratic ruling class, and the United States is fundamentally flawed, especially from the perspective of Iran. The Iran of today seeks to integrate itself responsibly with the nations of the world, clumsily so in some instances, but in any case a far cry from the crude attempts to export Islamic revolution in the early 1980’s. The United States claims that Iran is a real and present danger to the security of the US and the entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology, Iran’s continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s “status” as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference into the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples of how this threat manifests itself.
On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.
The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting “intelligence operatives” who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific evidence.
Iran as a nation represents absolutely no threat to the national security of the United States, or of its major allies in the region, including Israel. The media hype concerning alleged statements made by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has created and sustained the myth that Iran seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly contradict this myth. First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated an Iranian policy objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel’s policies would lead to its “vanishing from the pages of time.” Second, and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole purview of the “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States inclusive of an offer to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This initiative was rejected by the United States, but nevertheless represents the clearest indication of what the true policy objective of Iran is vis-à-vis Israel.
The fact of the matter is that the “Iranian Threat” is derived solely from the rhetoric of those who appear to seek confrontation between the United States and Iran, and largely divorced from fact-based reality. A recent request on the part of Iran to allow President Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath at “ground zero” in Manhattan was rejected by New York City officials. The resulting public outcry condemned the Iranian initiative as an affront to all Americans, citing Iran’s alleged policies of supporting terrorism. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the reality that Iran was violently opposed to al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan throughout the 1990’s leading up to 2001, and that Iran was one of the first Muslim nations to condemn the terror attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.
A careful fact-based assessment of Iran clearly demonstrates that it poses no threat to the legitimate national security interests of the United States. However, if the United States chooses to implement its own unilateral national security objectives concerning regime change in Iran, there will most likely be a reaction from Iran which produces an exceedingly detrimental impact on the national security interests of the United States, including military, political and economic. But the notion of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute a security threat simply because it retains the intent and capability to defend its sovereign territory in the face of unprovoked military aggression is absurd. In the end, however, such absurdity is trumping fact-based reality when it comes to shaping the opinion of the American public on the issue of the Iranian “threat.”
Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).
Monday 8 October 2007
The Entire State Of Jammu And Kashmir Is Disputed
By Dr Shabir Choudhry
05 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Before we can make any progress on Kashmir we need to understand what is the Kashmir dispute, as different people have different definitions of the Kashmir dispute. Also we want to define what we mean by Kashmir.
When we refer to Kashmir we mean the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as it existed on 14th August 1947; and the entire state, in our view, is disputed which includes areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh.
Kashmir dispute, whether you call it India and Pakistan problem or give it any other name, is essentially related to national identity and future of people of Jammu and Kashmir. To make it further clear it is an issue of right of self – determination, which is our birthright and doesn’t have to be granted by anyone.
United Nations is supposed to be guardian of human rights. It is there to protect and promote human rights and that includes fundamental right of self - determination, from where all other political, social, economic and cultural rights emanate.
It is unfortunate that we Kashmiris never had an opportunity to present our case to the UN. India and Pakistan presented their case on Kashmir in the UN, not to protect and advance interest of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but to protect and promote their national interest, which was in conflict to the national interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir.
It was on the floor of the UN where we lost our right of self – determination, and in its place we were given a right of accession wrapped as self – determination. Many Kashmiris were persuaded to buy that as it was presented to them, but thinking Kashmiris were able to distinguish the difference between the two and rejected it.
It is a long and complicated story why the UN could not even get its own resolutions implemented and give people of Jammu and Kashmir right of accession. Ok, we understand these resolutions were passed under chapter six and therefore they could not be implemented by force, as it was the case with certain other resolutions passed under chapter seven.
But fact however remains that it was government of Pakistan that first refused to withdraw its armed personnel from the areas of the state occupied by Pakistan. A complete Pakistani withdrawal in accordance with the UNCIP resolution of August 1948, had to be followed by a withdrawal of ‘bulk’ of Indian forces and subsequent plebiscite where the people of Jammu and Kashmir had to decide whether they wanted to become Pakistanis or Indians.
That never happened and later on Kashmir became a part of the ‘Cold War’ politics, and that provided India an opportunity to change its stance on Kashmir. They started calling Kashmir its ‘integral part’, even though the accession to India was ‘provisional’ and had to be ratified by the people in a referendum.
The slogans of ‘integral part’, and ‘sha rag’, meaning a jugular vein dominated and controlled politics of Jammu and Kashmir, and to large extent politics of India and Pakistan.
It is not possible to give all the details regarding the Kashmir dispute here. Fact however is that it has been a bone of contention between the two countries since 1947, and has been the major source of tension and instability in the region. There have been many attempts to resolve it through bilateral talks, wars, armed struggle, proxy war and international covert or overt involvement, but to date there is no breakthrough.
In my view, after the involvement of the UN, Baroness Emma Nicholson and the EU took first major international initiative on Kashmir, which culminated in the form of that report on Kashmir that is still known as Emma Nicholson report, even though the EU Parliament with thumping majority passed it. That report by no means is perfect, and I hope its author will also agree with this. But it does provide us some new bases to consider the Kashmir dispute in new and much changed world when UNCIP resolutions were passed in late 1940s.
It is true that the EU is not the UN. Both institutions have different mandate and different roles. But with time role and influence of the EU is increasing. The EU has its own experience, strength and influence, and can help us to promote culture of peace, dialogue and mutual coexistence.
If we are sincere to resolve the Kashmir dispute and have peace and stability in the region, and yet are unable to make the desired progress, then we should not shy away from seeking outside help and advice, be it direct or indirect.
Both governments and Kashmiri leaders claim that they are sincere in resolving the Kashmir dispute. They also claim that they are well-wishers of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Let actions speak louder than words. Anyone can claim to be your friend, but as thinking people and people with future at stake, we need to see who is our real friend and who is pretending to be our friend. The criterion for this is very simple to analyse this friendship.
Kashmir dispute, as we understand, is a political one. It relates to nations right to determine its future without any restriction imposed on them. Those who have transformed the dispute to a religious one cannot be our friends, as it has created new problems for us and have paved way for division of the State on religious lines.
Those who brought Jihadi warriors from various parts of the world, in my view, are not our friends as the Jihadi culture brought extremism and hatred, and that changed fundamental character of our struggle; and made it part of Islamic fundamentalism whatever that means in the context of the world today.
We also need to consider view of those who advocate that Kashmir is an issue of economic development. Yes, like any other society and nation we also want economic development, but the Kashmir dispute in reality is not an economic issue.
Economic development comes as a result of investment, be it domestic investment or external; and investors WILL NOT investment in an area where there is political instability, armed conflict or a civil war. Political stability with proper planning brings investment and economic development.
So it is not complicated like egg and chicken situation - which came first, we know there has to be political stability first before we can embark on economic development. I am sure if Kashmiris are masters of their own destiny, and if Kashmiri economists plan with a Kashmiri interest in mind, they can within a few years make Kashmir economically stable.
I understand both India and Pakistan, rightly or wrongly, have vested interest in Kashmir, and some sections of the Kashmiri community have also become part of this vested interest. It is believed that the biggest hurdle in the way of peace and resolution of the Kashmir dispute is this vested interest. To some the Kashmir dispute has become a lucrative business, and this entrepreneurial thinking and approach must change if we are to make any progress in resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Also if we are to make any progress then we, people of Jammu and Kashmir, have to think as Kashmiris, and protect and promote a Kashmiri interest. We should not become foot soldiers of India and Pakistan. Let India and Pakistan defend their national interests and let us defend our interest, our identity and our future. I end with this quote of Khalil Gibran:
“Pity on a nation which is divided into number of groups and each group calls itself the nation”.
Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
05 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Before we can make any progress on Kashmir we need to understand what is the Kashmir dispute, as different people have different definitions of the Kashmir dispute. Also we want to define what we mean by Kashmir.
When we refer to Kashmir we mean the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as it existed on 14th August 1947; and the entire state, in our view, is disputed which includes areas of Gilgit and Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh.
Kashmir dispute, whether you call it India and Pakistan problem or give it any other name, is essentially related to national identity and future of people of Jammu and Kashmir. To make it further clear it is an issue of right of self – determination, which is our birthright and doesn’t have to be granted by anyone.
United Nations is supposed to be guardian of human rights. It is there to protect and promote human rights and that includes fundamental right of self - determination, from where all other political, social, economic and cultural rights emanate.
It is unfortunate that we Kashmiris never had an opportunity to present our case to the UN. India and Pakistan presented their case on Kashmir in the UN, not to protect and advance interest of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but to protect and promote their national interest, which was in conflict to the national interest of people of Jammu and Kashmir.
It was on the floor of the UN where we lost our right of self – determination, and in its place we were given a right of accession wrapped as self – determination. Many Kashmiris were persuaded to buy that as it was presented to them, but thinking Kashmiris were able to distinguish the difference between the two and rejected it.
It is a long and complicated story why the UN could not even get its own resolutions implemented and give people of Jammu and Kashmir right of accession. Ok, we understand these resolutions were passed under chapter six and therefore they could not be implemented by force, as it was the case with certain other resolutions passed under chapter seven.
But fact however remains that it was government of Pakistan that first refused to withdraw its armed personnel from the areas of the state occupied by Pakistan. A complete Pakistani withdrawal in accordance with the UNCIP resolution of August 1948, had to be followed by a withdrawal of ‘bulk’ of Indian forces and subsequent plebiscite where the people of Jammu and Kashmir had to decide whether they wanted to become Pakistanis or Indians.
That never happened and later on Kashmir became a part of the ‘Cold War’ politics, and that provided India an opportunity to change its stance on Kashmir. They started calling Kashmir its ‘integral part’, even though the accession to India was ‘provisional’ and had to be ratified by the people in a referendum.
The slogans of ‘integral part’, and ‘sha rag’, meaning a jugular vein dominated and controlled politics of Jammu and Kashmir, and to large extent politics of India and Pakistan.
It is not possible to give all the details regarding the Kashmir dispute here. Fact however is that it has been a bone of contention between the two countries since 1947, and has been the major source of tension and instability in the region. There have been many attempts to resolve it through bilateral talks, wars, armed struggle, proxy war and international covert or overt involvement, but to date there is no breakthrough.
In my view, after the involvement of the UN, Baroness Emma Nicholson and the EU took first major international initiative on Kashmir, which culminated in the form of that report on Kashmir that is still known as Emma Nicholson report, even though the EU Parliament with thumping majority passed it. That report by no means is perfect, and I hope its author will also agree with this. But it does provide us some new bases to consider the Kashmir dispute in new and much changed world when UNCIP resolutions were passed in late 1940s.
It is true that the EU is not the UN. Both institutions have different mandate and different roles. But with time role and influence of the EU is increasing. The EU has its own experience, strength and influence, and can help us to promote culture of peace, dialogue and mutual coexistence.
If we are sincere to resolve the Kashmir dispute and have peace and stability in the region, and yet are unable to make the desired progress, then we should not shy away from seeking outside help and advice, be it direct or indirect.
Both governments and Kashmiri leaders claim that they are sincere in resolving the Kashmir dispute. They also claim that they are well-wishers of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Let actions speak louder than words. Anyone can claim to be your friend, but as thinking people and people with future at stake, we need to see who is our real friend and who is pretending to be our friend. The criterion for this is very simple to analyse this friendship.
Kashmir dispute, as we understand, is a political one. It relates to nations right to determine its future without any restriction imposed on them. Those who have transformed the dispute to a religious one cannot be our friends, as it has created new problems for us and have paved way for division of the State on religious lines.
Those who brought Jihadi warriors from various parts of the world, in my view, are not our friends as the Jihadi culture brought extremism and hatred, and that changed fundamental character of our struggle; and made it part of Islamic fundamentalism whatever that means in the context of the world today.
We also need to consider view of those who advocate that Kashmir is an issue of economic development. Yes, like any other society and nation we also want economic development, but the Kashmir dispute in reality is not an economic issue.
Economic development comes as a result of investment, be it domestic investment or external; and investors WILL NOT investment in an area where there is political instability, armed conflict or a civil war. Political stability with proper planning brings investment and economic development.
So it is not complicated like egg and chicken situation - which came first, we know there has to be political stability first before we can embark on economic development. I am sure if Kashmiris are masters of their own destiny, and if Kashmiri economists plan with a Kashmiri interest in mind, they can within a few years make Kashmir economically stable.
I understand both India and Pakistan, rightly or wrongly, have vested interest in Kashmir, and some sections of the Kashmiri community have also become part of this vested interest. It is believed that the biggest hurdle in the way of peace and resolution of the Kashmir dispute is this vested interest. To some the Kashmir dispute has become a lucrative business, and this entrepreneurial thinking and approach must change if we are to make any progress in resolving the Kashmir dispute.
Also if we are to make any progress then we, people of Jammu and Kashmir, have to think as Kashmiris, and protect and promote a Kashmiri interest. We should not become foot soldiers of India and Pakistan. Let India and Pakistan defend their national interests and let us defend our interest, our identity and our future. I end with this quote of Khalil Gibran:
“Pity on a nation which is divided into number of groups and each group calls itself the nation”.
Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com
Wednesday 3 October 2007
The Junta’s Accomplices
Western companies still trading with Burma use it as their first and last defence. If we withdraw, they insist, China will fill the gap. China has become the world’s excuse for inaction.
GEORGE MONBIOT
China has become the world’s excuse for inaction. If there is anything a government or a business does not want to do, it invokes the Yellow Peril. Raise the minimum wage to £6 an hour? Not when the Chinese are paid £6 a year. Cap working time at 48 hours a week? The Chinese are working 48 hours a day. Cut greenhouse gas emissions? The Chinese are building a new power station every nanosecond. China is our looking-glass bogeyman. If you behave well, the bogeyman will get you.
As we saw during George Bush’s climate pantomime last week, China the excuse is not the same place as the China the country. Bush insists that the US cannot accept mandatory carbon cuts, because China and India would reject them. But while he stuck to his voluntary approach, China and India called for mandatory cuts(1). “China” is a projection of the West’s worst practices.
I mention this because the western companies still trading with Burma use it as their first and last defence. If we withdraw, they insist, China will fill the gap. It is true that the Chinese government has offered the Burmese generals political protection in return for cheap resources. In January, for example, China vetoed a UN resolution condemning the junta’s human rights record. Three days later it was given lucrative gas concessions in the Bay of Bengal(2). It is also true that the Chinese government has no interest in promoting democracy abroad. But the more the Burmese junta must rely on a single source of investment and protection, the more vulnerable it becomes. China is not intractable. If western governments boycotted the Beijing Olympics, they would precipitate the biggest political crisis in that country since 1989.
The businesses still working in Burma are having to scrape the barrel of excuses. Even Tony Blair, that bundle of corporate interests in human form, said “we do not believe that trade is appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people.”(3) Explaining his company’s decision to pull out of the country, the CEO of Reebok noted that “it’s impossible to conduct business in Burma without supporting this regime. In fact, the junta’s core funding derives from foreign investment and trade.”(4) As the junta either controls or takes a cut from most of the economy, as almost half the tax foreign business generates is used to buy arms, any company working in Burma is helping to oppress its people.
The travel firms Asean Explorer and Pettitts, which take British tourists round the country in defiance of Aung San Suu Kyi’s pleas, both refused to comment when I rang them, then slammed down the phone(5). Aquatic, a British company which provides services for gas and oil firms, was more polite, but still refused to talk(6). The tourism companies Audley Travel and Andrew Brock Ltd promised to phone me back but failed to do so(7). But aside from invoking the Chinese bogeyman, each of the others produced a different justification.
The spokeswoman for Orient Express, a travel company which runs a cruiser on the River Irrawaddy and a hotel in Rangoon, told me that “tourism can be a catalyst for change.” Given that tourism has continued throughout the junta’s rule, I asked, how effective has that catalyst been? “There has been very slow progress, but we feel it has helped.”(8) The Ultimate Travel Company explained that “We feel we just like to offer the people who travel with us a choice. If people want to travel, they can. And really I’d prefer not to enter into a debate about it.”(9)
Rolls-Royce, which overhauls engines for Myanmar Airways, a company owned by the state, told me that it operates “in line with UK export licences.… As long as we are meeting government requirements, that’s what we work to. I’m not getting into a debate on this issue. We’re doing this to ensure passenger safety.”(10)
William Garvey, the boss of the furniture company which bears his name and which works mostly in Burmese teak, admitted that he buys timber “that comes from Rangoon, through government channels.” But if he stopped, “a highly likely consequence is that the rate of felling would increase dramatically. … whatever you may think about the Burmese government, they are still using a sustainable system for extracting teak.” Aren’t human rights a component of sustainability? “In the strict sense, no.”(11)
The managing director of Britannic Garden Furniture, which makes its benches from Burmese teak, and supplies the Royal Parks and the Tower of London, told me “I know it’s no excuse to say we don’t buy it directly. … You try and get teak from other sources. But it’s rubbish. … The government has given us no directive not to trade with Burma.”(12)
All these companies have felt some pressure already, thanks to the work of the Burma Campaign UK, which includes them on its “dirty list”(13). But I have stumbled across one western firm which most Burma campaigners appear to have missed. It is run by one of the world’s most famous sportsmen, the golfer Gary Player. Player has made much of his ethical credentials. Next month he will host the Nelson Mandela Invitational golf tournament, whose purpose is “to make a difference in the lives of children”. One of his websites shows a painting of Mr Player bathed in radiant light and surrounded by smiling children. Nelson Mandela stands behind him, lit by the same faint halo(14).
Golf, to most of us, looks like a harmless if mysterious activity, but in Burma it is a powerful symbol of oppression. Some of the country’s courses have been built on land seized from peasant farmers, who were evicted without compensation. Golf is the sport of the generals, who conduct much of their business on the links.
Player’s website shows him, in 2002, launching the “grand opening” of the golf course he designed, which turned “a 650-acre rice paddy into The Pride of Myanmar. The golfer’s paradise that stands in Myanmar today is said to be living proof that miracles do happen.”(15) I asked his company the following questions. Who owned the land on which the course was constructed? How many people were evicted in order to build it? Was forced labour used in its construction? As Player’s company is based in Florida, did the design of this course break US sanctions? His media spokesman told me “The Gary Player Group has decided not to comment on any questions regarding Myanmar-Burma.”(16) It seems to me that there is a strong case for asking Nelson Mandela to remove his name from Mr Player’s tournament.
If, like me, you have been shaking your head over the crushing of the protests, wondering what on earth you can do, I suggest you get on the phone to these companies, demanding, politely, that they cut their ties. I sense that it wouldn’t take much more pressure to persuade them to pull out. By itself, this won’t bring down the regime. But it will cut its sources of income, and allow us to focus on confronting the reality of Chinese investment, rather than the excuse.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. Ewen MacAskill, 29th September 2007. Europeans angry after Bush climate speech ‘charade’. The Guardian.
2.No author, 20th July 2007. Myanmar: Pariah or Prospect? Energy Compass.
3. Tony Blair, 25 Jun 2003. Prime Minister’s Questions. Hansard Column 1042.
4. Paul Fireman, 7th June 2005. Burma: Time to Restore Human Rights and Democracy. Wall Street Journal.
5. Phoned on 28th September.
6. ibid.
7. ibid.
8. Pippa Isbell, Orient Express, 28th September 2007.
9. Gloria Ward, Ultimate Travel Company, 28th September 2007.
10. Martin Brodie, Rolls-Royce, 28th September 2007.
11. William Garvey, William Garvey Ltd, 28th September 2007.
12. The managing director would not give her name. 28th September 2007.
13. Dirty List
14. The painting flashes up in the top righthand panel here
15. Gary Player Design, 21st November 2002. Design Excellence Revealed at Grand Opening of Gary Player Signature Course in Myanmar.
16. Duncan Cruickshank, 30th September 2007.
GEORGE MONBIOT
China has become the world’s excuse for inaction. If there is anything a government or a business does not want to do, it invokes the Yellow Peril. Raise the minimum wage to £6 an hour? Not when the Chinese are paid £6 a year. Cap working time at 48 hours a week? The Chinese are working 48 hours a day. Cut greenhouse gas emissions? The Chinese are building a new power station every nanosecond. China is our looking-glass bogeyman. If you behave well, the bogeyman will get you.
As we saw during George Bush’s climate pantomime last week, China the excuse is not the same place as the China the country. Bush insists that the US cannot accept mandatory carbon cuts, because China and India would reject them. But while he stuck to his voluntary approach, China and India called for mandatory cuts(1). “China” is a projection of the West’s worst practices.
I mention this because the western companies still trading with Burma use it as their first and last defence. If we withdraw, they insist, China will fill the gap. It is true that the Chinese government has offered the Burmese generals political protection in return for cheap resources. In January, for example, China vetoed a UN resolution condemning the junta’s human rights record. Three days later it was given lucrative gas concessions in the Bay of Bengal(2). It is also true that the Chinese government has no interest in promoting democracy abroad. But the more the Burmese junta must rely on a single source of investment and protection, the more vulnerable it becomes. China is not intractable. If western governments boycotted the Beijing Olympics, they would precipitate the biggest political crisis in that country since 1989.
The businesses still working in Burma are having to scrape the barrel of excuses. Even Tony Blair, that bundle of corporate interests in human form, said “we do not believe that trade is appropriate when the regime continues to suppress the basic human rights of its people.”(3) Explaining his company’s decision to pull out of the country, the CEO of Reebok noted that “it’s impossible to conduct business in Burma without supporting this regime. In fact, the junta’s core funding derives from foreign investment and trade.”(4) As the junta either controls or takes a cut from most of the economy, as almost half the tax foreign business generates is used to buy arms, any company working in Burma is helping to oppress its people.
The travel firms Asean Explorer and Pettitts, which take British tourists round the country in defiance of Aung San Suu Kyi’s pleas, both refused to comment when I rang them, then slammed down the phone(5). Aquatic, a British company which provides services for gas and oil firms, was more polite, but still refused to talk(6). The tourism companies Audley Travel and Andrew Brock Ltd promised to phone me back but failed to do so(7). But aside from invoking the Chinese bogeyman, each of the others produced a different justification.
The spokeswoman for Orient Express, a travel company which runs a cruiser on the River Irrawaddy and a hotel in Rangoon, told me that “tourism can be a catalyst for change.” Given that tourism has continued throughout the junta’s rule, I asked, how effective has that catalyst been? “There has been very slow progress, but we feel it has helped.”(8) The Ultimate Travel Company explained that “We feel we just like to offer the people who travel with us a choice. If people want to travel, they can. And really I’d prefer not to enter into a debate about it.”(9)
Rolls-Royce, which overhauls engines for Myanmar Airways, a company owned by the state, told me that it operates “in line with UK export licences.… As long as we are meeting government requirements, that’s what we work to. I’m not getting into a debate on this issue. We’re doing this to ensure passenger safety.”(10)
William Garvey, the boss of the furniture company which bears his name and which works mostly in Burmese teak, admitted that he buys timber “that comes from Rangoon, through government channels.” But if he stopped, “a highly likely consequence is that the rate of felling would increase dramatically. … whatever you may think about the Burmese government, they are still using a sustainable system for extracting teak.” Aren’t human rights a component of sustainability? “In the strict sense, no.”(11)
The managing director of Britannic Garden Furniture, which makes its benches from Burmese teak, and supplies the Royal Parks and the Tower of London, told me “I know it’s no excuse to say we don’t buy it directly. … You try and get teak from other sources. But it’s rubbish. … The government has given us no directive not to trade with Burma.”(12)
All these companies have felt some pressure already, thanks to the work of the Burma Campaign UK, which includes them on its “dirty list”(13). But I have stumbled across one western firm which most Burma campaigners appear to have missed. It is run by one of the world’s most famous sportsmen, the golfer Gary Player. Player has made much of his ethical credentials. Next month he will host the Nelson Mandela Invitational golf tournament, whose purpose is “to make a difference in the lives of children”. One of his websites shows a painting of Mr Player bathed in radiant light and surrounded by smiling children. Nelson Mandela stands behind him, lit by the same faint halo(14).
Golf, to most of us, looks like a harmless if mysterious activity, but in Burma it is a powerful symbol of oppression. Some of the country’s courses have been built on land seized from peasant farmers, who were evicted without compensation. Golf is the sport of the generals, who conduct much of their business on the links.
Player’s website shows him, in 2002, launching the “grand opening” of the golf course he designed, which turned “a 650-acre rice paddy into The Pride of Myanmar. The golfer’s paradise that stands in Myanmar today is said to be living proof that miracles do happen.”(15) I asked his company the following questions. Who owned the land on which the course was constructed? How many people were evicted in order to build it? Was forced labour used in its construction? As Player’s company is based in Florida, did the design of this course break US sanctions? His media spokesman told me “The Gary Player Group has decided not to comment on any questions regarding Myanmar-Burma.”(16) It seems to me that there is a strong case for asking Nelson Mandela to remove his name from Mr Player’s tournament.
If, like me, you have been shaking your head over the crushing of the protests, wondering what on earth you can do, I suggest you get on the phone to these companies, demanding, politely, that they cut their ties. I sense that it wouldn’t take much more pressure to persuade them to pull out. By itself, this won’t bring down the regime. But it will cut its sources of income, and allow us to focus on confronting the reality of Chinese investment, rather than the excuse.
www.monbiot.com
References:
1. Ewen MacAskill, 29th September 2007. Europeans angry after Bush climate speech ‘charade’. The Guardian.
2.No author, 20th July 2007. Myanmar: Pariah or Prospect? Energy Compass.
3. Tony Blair, 25 Jun 2003. Prime Minister’s Questions. Hansard Column 1042.
4. Paul Fireman, 7th June 2005. Burma: Time to Restore Human Rights and Democracy. Wall Street Journal.
5. Phoned on 28th September.
6. ibid.
7. ibid.
8. Pippa Isbell, Orient Express, 28th September 2007.
9. Gloria Ward, Ultimate Travel Company, 28th September 2007.
10. Martin Brodie, Rolls-Royce, 28th September 2007.
11. William Garvey, William Garvey Ltd, 28th September 2007.
12. The managing director would not give her name. 28th September 2007.
13. Dirty List
14. The painting flashes up in the top righthand panel here
15. Gary Player Design, 21st November 2002. Design Excellence Revealed at Grand Opening of Gary Player Signature Course in Myanmar.
16. Duncan Cruickshank, 30th September 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)