Erratum Terrium

This Year In Democracy

2010-12-31T14:42:00.000-08:00

2010 has given us some spectacular shows of democracy -- successes and failures alike. Some were famous, their effects felt and heard 'round the world. Others not quite so attention-grabbing; perhaps a pair of AP wire stories and a brief mention in a cable news text scroll. And, of course, we hear more about the failures than the successes, with Cote D'Ivoire the most recent nation to slip into post-election bloodshed. Globalized Democracy® in the post-Cold War period has certainly not proven to be the panacea some were expecting. However, as always, neither the rose-eyed optimists nor the doom-and-gloom pessimists have everything right. Many blooming democracies have been crushed under the foot of military power grabs or wilted under a corrupt and incompetent state apparatus despite international support. And yet at the same time many countries have found ways to not only bring decades of dictatorship or war to a peaceful close, but also to embrace an open society and forge functioning democratic institutions. Here is a look at ten of this past year's less-heralded success stories (in chronological order):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
and deserve to get it good and hard."
--H.L. Mencken

1. Croatia

Ivo Jospovic of the left-wing Social Democratic Party wins the presidential election in a landslide, replacing popular outgoing president Stjepan Mesic, the leader of the right-center party. Mesic had been in power since the end of Tudjman regime which had presided over Croatia's bloody involvement in the region's wars during the 1990s. This election further solidifies democracy in Croatia, and helps in their delayed but ongoing negotiations for accession into the European Union.

2. Chile

Sebastian Piñera of the right-center National Renewal party narrowly defeated former President Eduardo Frei of the left-center Concert of Parties for Democracy in the presidential election to succeed popular outgoing president Michelle Bachelet. This was the fifth consecutive democratic presidential election in Chile, and cements their civilian institutions even further after the 1973-1990 military rule of Pinochet.

3. Ukraine

Viktor Yanukovych defeats Yulia Tymoshenko and incumbent Viktor Yushchenko in the presidential election, representing a shift towards Russia and away from the 2004 Orange Revolution which had originally brought Tymoshenko and Yushchenko to power. These two had grown apart during their time as Prime Minister and President, respectively. This time there was no uprising of "people power", as Tymoshenko dropped her appeal a few weeks after the elections. Ukraine's politics are still wracked with corruption and less-than-democratic Russian influences, but a peaceful, democratic transition of power is never a bad thing.

4. Iraq

Okay, not the least-heralded of 2010 elections, but it's significance may have been underestimated. Iraq held parliamentary elections in March that resulted in a political deadlock that set a record for length (207 days between election and creation of government) but did not result in widespread violence. The voting blocs of Allawi and Maliki, both former Prime Ministers, received the most support, but neither had enough to form a government. Complicated negotiations and machinations followed, with resolution not achieved until October. Nonetheless this election represents a strong step towards productive democracy in Iraq. The individual actors, on the whole, did not resort to violence during the difficult negotiations -- perhaps setting the bar a bit low, but progress is progress.

5. Poland

Bronislaw Komorowski defeats Jaroslaw Kaczynski to become President just two months after a plane crash killed the former President -- Kaczynski's twin brother Lech -- along with many other senior members of the government. The Polish voters showed political maturity by voting with their opinions and not their emotions, and the nation is moving past the worst tragedy in recent history.

6. Colombia

Juan Manuel Santos, former Defense Minister of outgoing President Uribe, defeats surprise Green Party candidate Antanas Mockus, former Mayor of Bogota. The relatively easy Santos victory is a sign that Uribe's right-center policies are well-liked and will continue. An open, peaceful election is still something not taken for granted in this long-suffering country. Colombia's political scene has broken free from the widespread and violent influence of narco-traffickers -- the same cannot be said for some of its Central American neighbors.

7. Kyrgyzstan

In June Kyrgyz voters approved a referendum which limited the powers of the presidency and any single parliamentary party. The 'Yes' vote was 91% with over 70% voter turnout. This referendum was a reaction to the events of April, when anti-government riots forced then-President Bakiyev (who himself had come to power in the 2005 Tulip Revolution) to resign. The country's political future is by no means certain, but every fair election adds to people's trust in the system.

8. Kenya

Kenyan voters approved a new constitution by a 68%-31% margin, and over 70% voter turnout. Kenyan politics have been at a wary standstill ever since the violence which followed the fraudulent 2007 Presidential election. The top vote-getters in that election, President Kibaki and Prime Minister Odinga, are currently ensconced in a power-sharing agreement. The approval of this constitution is an important step towards rebuilding a functional democracy and allowing for some national healing.

9. Bosnia

Voters elected representatives to Bosnia's tripartite political system, with Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs all having somewhat separate branches. The election seemed to confirm similar levels of political deadlock in the country, with moderates favoring further national unification facing off against mainly Croat and Serb nationalists who want division along ethnic lines. This country suffered terribly during the 1990s, and while this election may not provide an immediate solution to these intransigent problems, continued political haggling is far superior to a resumption of violence.

10. Guinea

Guinean voters placed their trust in Alpha Conde, a 72 year-old former opposition leader, to take the presidency after a long period of political turmoil and the threat of renewed conflict. The country had been in the hands of a shifting military junta since the death of strongman Lansana Conte in December 2008. this period was marred by human rights violations, the attempted assassination of the first military leader, and the repeated postponing of elections. The country is still in the political woods, but this election -- most notably the decision by runner-up Cellou Diallo to concede defeat instead of urging his supporters to the streets -- is a step and a hop away from the edge of the abyss.

Honorable Mentions: The Philippines and Brazil
Both of these countries had successful presidential elections in 2010, but the relatively reliable nature of their democratic processes keeps them off the top ten success stories.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important to recognize these success stories, and this can be done without marginalizing the extremely difficult situations that face the many countries that experienced recent political disasters. Democracy is not easy. There are many people who need to do their job right for an election to work even on the most basic mechanical level. Poll workers are a rarely celebrated breed, but in countries like those mentioned above their work deserves respect and recognition. In the post-Bush doctrine world it has become fashionable to downplay "democracy" as a good unto itself. To be sure, the act of holding elections will not solve deep-seated issues (see: Afghanistan, Russia, etc.). Elections may in fact put a dangerous level of stress on a weak status quo, letting loose the blood-dimmed tide (see: Cote D'Ivoire, Haiti, etc.). Elections may simply act as a cover -- a fake doctor's note, if you will -- for authoritarian regimes with no real interest in sharing power (see: Sri Lanka, Burundi, Rwanda, etc.).

And yet the open society which democracy both encourages and requires IS a good unto itself, and well worth the aforementioned risks. Even a good dictator cannot last forever, and at some point in the near future of every country and every people on earth they will need to deal with the conflicts which grow like mushrooms under the whole of human society. The more these conflicts -- be they based on religion, ethnicity, resources, or any other divide -- are suppressed, the greater the possibility that upon exposure they will cause death and destruction. Iraq after the fall of Saddam and the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s are examples of this danger. However, Iraq, Croatia, and Bosnia are also on the list of 2010 electoral successes, a testament to the perseverance of the democratic forces in those countries.

Democracy is often ugly and slow. It is not the ideal system for effective decision-making. But it provides something which no other political system can: the opportunity for political maturity. We cannot hope for long-term stability and peace unless groups and individuals in conflict can appear together -- in a courtroom, in a public square (analog or digital), or on a ballot -- and have it out. There is no substitute (excepting ethnic cleansing). But courtrooms, public square, and ballots don't grow on trees and should never be taken for granted. Democracy is slow and ugly and it's hard work, no metaphor needed. So let's celebrate these ten success stories from 2010, and hope that 2011 will bring us even more.

Oh, and kitties.

September 12th

2010-09-12T05:10:00.000-07:00

Nine years ago to the day people around the world woke up from a strange nightmare. If they were anywhere near a television, the images broadcast would have confirmed that the burning skyscrapers, the dot-people leaping to their death, the massive rubble exploding into dust, and the jetliner banking, over and over again, to its final destination, that these were no slumbering cerebral invention but instead were the death of 2,996 human beings and the echo of the starting pistol for a new era in world affairs. Among those 2,996 dead there were 19 Others, 19 Arabs, 19 who received posthumous responsibility for the events of September 11th. They had been acting in the name of a murky organization which, in the fertile chaos of failed states and repressive but disinterested plutocrats, had managed to fuse greasy petroleum profits and an understanding of modern technology and media with a strand of self-righteous quasi-religious philosophy that imbues its members with a Machiavellian sense of right and wrong. The Western powers, lacking a readily identifiable enemy-word since the fall of Eurasia and Communism, had finally found a replacement in Terrorism. And so newspapers headlines went back to screaming "War!", the President made square-jawed speeches broadcast around the world, and a few billion dollars more of gasoline was bought to send the streamlined machinery of Death on a world tour.

Today we must ask, just as we did nine years ago: What Happened? Who are These People trying to kill Us? And How do we stop Them?

Answers abound, but which ones have proved worthwhile? We spent a great deal of time and money determining exactly What Happened and who These People were. Nonetheless, the conspiracy theory has experienced a rebirth in the (Global) War on Terrorism, and these flames have been repeatedly fanned by major "news" sources and political figures in every country, whether the topic be the events of September 11th, the myriad wars and attacks in the nine years that followed, or even the birth place and religion of the current U.S. President. And although we may mostly agree on Who was responsible for September 11th, we have yet to agree on Why they did it. And the Why is important. Is terrorism fed by poverty? If so, we need to do a much better job of mitigating the aftershocks of globalized capitalism. Do they hate us because of our Freedoms -- gay marriage, cursing and pornography on TV, abortions, etc.? If so, we either need to get rid of those Freedoms or make sure that every country in the world becomes Free™. Are Muslim leaders using Islam to engender anti-Western terrorism? If that's the case, then the response should be to limit the power of those type of leaders by any means possible. Despite our professed allegiance to Rational Thought, over the past nine years we have always justified our actions with an answer to the Why instead of genuinely seeking to answer the Why and then basing our actions on that. The result has been one confused policy after another and a dangerous decrease in the Friend:Enemy ratio.

I must descend from the editorial post and confess that this post is personal. I watched the Twin Towers fall on 9/11 -- not on TV like most of the world, but in person. I looked out the window as a fireball erupted on the North Tower, felt the second plane's impact on the South Tower, listened to the announcement that the country was at war against an unknown enemy, heard and then saw the first tower fall and the dust cloud rush up the street towards me carrying vaporized human remains, walked uptown as the second tower fell behind me. I remember walking by a TV studio in midtown Manhattan and seeing a video of the second plane hitting the South Tower. The immensity of the events of the past few hours began to truly sink in, although I, like the rest of the world, could not even begin to comprehend what was to come. That was nine years and one day ago today. Nine years ago exactly we all woke up and began to wonder what would happen next.

The question I would ask is, knowing what we now know, would we have done things differently? It is easy for any individual to say that, yes, things should have been different: Should have captured Bin Laden. Shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Should have seen the real estate bust coming. But as a people, as a chaotic mass of opinions, fears, desires, would we have done things differently? And will we use the lessons learned over the past nine years to make the next nine better? Can we learn to open our political discourse without devolving into screeching primates? Can we harness market forces to build not only higher corporate profits but jobs and a solid economic base? Can we begin to lend an authentic helping hand to the citizens of the Third World -- especially the Muslim ones? Can we learn to lead with respect -- as a country, as citizens, and as family and community members? As I stated in an earlier post, the election of Obama represents an opportunity for change, even if you don't agree with his particular brand of Change™. Opportunity implies responsibility. If we choose to let this opportunity go by, to fantasize that laissez-faire is suficiente in this globalized world, then we have no right to blame anyone else for anything. Over the past nine years, we have heard time and time again that 9/11 was a "wake-up call". So why are we still asleep?

Out of the Indus Deluge

2010-08-22T07:56:00.000-07:00

So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

Genesis 6:7

And it moved on with them amid waves like mountains; and Nuh called out to his son, and he was aloof: "O my son! Embark with us and be not with the unbelievers.

He said: "I will betake myself for refuge to a mountain that shall protect me from the water."

Nuh said: "There is no protector today from Allah's punishment but He Who has mercy; and a wave intervened between them, so he was of the drowned."

Sura 11:42-43

-------------------------------------------

It has recently come to the attention of various media sources that Western countries do not have a lot of love for the Pakistani people. Despite a flood of Biblical-Quranic proportions which has swept entire provinces away and left millions struggling to survive in makeshift camps ripe for epidemics, the response by Western countries has been described as "lukewarm", "sluggish", and "trickling". The BBC compared the response in the first 3 weeks to those of the recent earthquake in Haiti and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Mosharraf Zaidi does the same, looking at funding given per affected person. Clearly the Christian West -- headlined as usual by the United States, the supplier of the vast majority of the world's humanitarian and development aid, is not jumping to open its checkbooks for the inhabitants of the Indus Valley. But why?

Here's a question from a reporter at Thursday's U.S. State Department press briefing:

QUESTION: But why should the American taxpayer who just this morning got another horrible – more bad economic news be asked to contribute more than they already are to this when the results – as I said before, this is a country that has difficulty or is unable to collect tax money from its own people, the wealthiest Pakistanis who live there, and has not been entirely cooperative in going after people that attacked us.

Here we have the 2 top reasons given as to why donor aid is slow to Pakistan: their government is corrupt and not worth supporting, and furthermore has and continues to support terrorist organizations. Both quite true -- although Transparency International rates Pakistan higher than Haiti in corruption, and U.S. citizens seemed to have less trouble stomaching charity to Haiti -- which suggests that corruption alone can't account for the donor gap. Which leaves us with Pakistani support for terrorism -- and perhaps on a larger scale, a general distrust of the Pakistani government. In the weeks leading up to the flood we had the WikiLeaks episode and the David Cameron "gaffe", both cementing the perception that the Pakistani government isn't "on our side". During the first days of the flood the major story was Pakistani President Zardari's European tour, sleeping in fancy silk bedding while his people struggled to even find hard ground to sleep on. And now in the relative aftermath we have the story of the West's lack of compassion for poor Muslim Pakistanis.

Perceptions are key here, and as often in Muslim-West relations, they rarely reflect the truth. Americans perceive that Pakistanis support terrorism, and that keeps them from putting serious weight behind humanitarian efforts. The reality is that Pakistanis have suffered as much as any people from terrorism, and there is only a very small minority which actively support Al-Qaeda and its Western-hating ilk. Pakistanis perceive that Americans are uninterested in their problems and are willing to support any regional leaders that fight Al-Qaeda and its ilk even when those same leaders are causing the suffering which swells the radical Islamist ranks.

As long as these perceptions remain, the Pakistani-U.S. relationship will continue to get worse. The Pakistani government, corrupt as it is, needs U.S. support in the fight against growing radical Islamist groups -- the same groups that have provided timely aid to flood victims in places where the government and the international community has yet to reach. Simply tossing bags of rice embossed with the American flag at those communities won't be enough. The long-term Pakistan problem is essentially a P.R. problem for the United States, and we need to be at our most opportunistic in using this disaster to "re-start" relations with the Pakistani people. What better disaster than a flood to remind everyone about the commonalities in the Christian and Muslim traditions?

This is not the time to hedge aid on discussions over Afghanistan or the ISI. This is not the time to make a mockery of freedom of religion by denying American Muslims a cultural place in the post-9/11 world. This is not the time to avert our eyes to suffering, even -- maybe especially -- if those suffering don't agree with our world view. Let's helicopter in ten million pounds of rice and ten million mosquito nets to be handed out in mosques -- especially those mosques with half-burnt American flags lying under flood waters. Let's take the private contractors out of Iraq and get them building levees and community shelters in Pakistan, and setting up cricket pitches in the refugee camps for the kids who used to have Osama Bin Laden posters on their walls (more of a metaphor). Let's put together a 100,000 Urdu-English Qurans and send them to Pakistani madrassas with flooded libraries.

The Biblical/Quranic flood can be interpreted in many ways. What is clear in the story is that God was upset with how the world had progressed and was using the flood to wipe the slate clean. This story is almost identical in the Bible and the Quran. While to attribute a divine presence to the recent flood in Pakistan would be, at the very least, sacrilegious, the opportunity to wipe the slate clean is very real. We began to write the history of humanity in the fertile Indus Valley nearly 5000 years ago. How will the next chapter read?

Among the Volcanoes

2010-07-10T06:35:00.000-07:00

Guatemala is a land of incredible beauty; cloud-drenched highlands, black sand beaches, rainforests thick with life, and ancient volcanoes. The Mayan culture lives on in the majority indigenous population, a testament to the longevity of tradition. Tranquility seems to float through the populace, characterized by general friendliness and a laid-back attitude. Guatemala is also in danger of becoming the Americas' newest failed state.

Two major reasons for state failure should be familiar to anyone reading news about Latin America: guns and drugs. Massive amounts of guns were shipped into the country during the 40 year "internal conflict", and when the conflict "ended" in 1996 little was done to reduce the number of arms floating around the country. Drug trafficking has long been an issue, but spiraled out of control around 2007 when Mexico began a full-fledged war on drug cartels -- who then shifted operations to Guatemala and found a perfect transport point. The cartels and the drug-based economy they have spawned is incredibly well-armed and more than willing to use violence when necessary. The Guatemalan government, never a paragon of efficiency or transparency, offers next to nothing in the way of law enforcement. Impunity is the key word -- this is a country where might clearly makes right, whether on a dark rural highway or in a well-lit courtroom. Justice, in the mind of the people, lies not with corrupt or blackmailed prosecutors and judges, nor with swiss cheese jails, but with hand-made revenge.

Guns, drugs, and lack of law enforcement are powerful proximate causes that has led Guatemalans towards a failed state. The current government of Alvaro Colom has weakened significantly over the past few months, and in the past weeks has taken to accusing the opposition of trying to bring down his government -- which has been true since he took office in 2007, but the current calls reek of desperation. The head of the UN-supported CICIG prosecutor's office quit in June, castigating Colom for failing to make any significant law enforcement reform and for appointing an Attorney General linked to the drug cartels (whose "election" was summarily nullified by the Constitutional Court). The spiraling violence, while most intense in Guatemala City, has touched all parts of the country. The coming presidential elections in 2011 will bring a period of even more violence, and will without a doubt endanger the future of democracy in Guatemala. If elections only bring bloodshed and never bring any real social change, why would anyone want more? There is real popular support for a "benevolent" dictatorship in Guatemala -- and the person best placed to become such a dictator is Otto Perez Molina, the so-called "Mano Dura" (Strong Hand), a general with dirty hands from the internal conflict and who retains links to violent groups. This is a situation which will get worse, and may never get better.

The proximate causes for Guatemala's unraveling are fairly clear, and steps can still be taken by domestic and international actors to deal with these issues. But there are deeper wounds that need to be dealt with before the country can truly move beyond its current troubles.

The internal conflict began in the late 1960s, pitting a small left-wing intellectual guerrilla movement against a government that clearly and without apology represented the interests of the wealthy landowners. Much of this movement grew out of support for earlier left-wing presidencies of Arevalo and Arbenz, the latter being overthrown in 1954 by the CIA. The guerrillas tried to link their movement to the interests of the poor indigenous population, with some success but without the force strength or unity to ever pose a real threat to the government. Despite the weakness of the insurgency, the government decided to wipe out all the guerrillas and anyone who might support them. This murderous offensive continued well into the 1980s, and its after-effects still linger today.

According to UN investigators, more than 200,000 people were killed during the internal conflict, with over 90% of the murders committed by government military and para-military forces (which often included indigenous men conscripted and forced to kill their neighbors). Violence against women, including rape, was common. Almost every Guatemalan was touched by these crimes in some way -- a family member or friend was victimized, or committed crimes -- and none of them have forgotten. These experiences reaped untold psychological damage, tearing apart families and communities, unraveling centuries of social trust, and leaving hundreds of thousands to go on with their lives with gaping sections of their psyche missing. Yet there was no efforts at real national reconciliation, no official programs to deal with the years of violence, no tribunals for those responsible, and no justice for the victims. In 2010 the first conviction was handed down for his role in the infamous Dos Erres massacre, but the vast majority of those who ordered and led human rights abuses live free without fear of prosecution (at least one is a member of Congress). The subject of the internal conflict is almost entirely ignored in Guatemalan schools.

Dealing with criminals and victims from the conflict would be incredibly difficult at this point. It would require an unprecedented political commitment and a powerful, independent investigative and judicial apparatus, as well as immense international and domestic support. But until past crimes and past victims are given justice, there can be no hope for justice elsewhere in the country. Peace is not simply the absence of public violence; it requires a personal sense of safety, a sense that the beasts of chaos have been banished underground. The new generation of Guatemalans may grow up without the violent memories of their parents, but they will inherit a culture of violence ready to explode at the slightest provocation and rain ash over the people among the volcanoes. How can we possbily have Peace if the beasts of chaos live in our own minds?

See the International Crisis Group's recent report on Guatemala for more information.

World Cup Fever!

2010-06-25T13:49:00.000-07:00

Every four years several billion people spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. No, not Eurovision. World Cup fever strikes deep, a potent mix of nationalism, hooliganism, and referee-hatred. Life and death (and a great deal of property damage) are decided by each game. The worldwide excitement is high. The group stage is complete, and tomorrow marks the beginning of the knockout rounds where the fate of each team rides on a single game, and possibly a single foot. What a perfect moment for the first installation of Erratum Terrium's Spellbindingly Entertaining Statistics!! SES!!!

Money is, now more than ever, an integral part of the sports world. Even in the World Cup where player salaries don't figure, rich countries still have a significant advantage. They can recruit and train players from a young age, support them throughout their career, and provide a much higher levels of resources for their national team. And, unlike the poorer countries, they have mountains of extra support from corporate sponsors and therefore don't have to make budgetary sacrifices to provide those same resources.

Yet the World Cup retains fundamental equalizers that the overall international system lacks. The rules are the same for all teams; a goal struck by Cameroon or Paraguay is equal to one struck by France or the United States. But what is the relationship between a country's wealth and its 2010 World Cup success?

At first glance it appears that wealth is a fairly good predictor of success. Only 1 of the 7 poorest* teams (Ghana, the tournament's poorest side) made it past the group stage, while 5 of the 8 wealthiest* teams made it.

*Here we are measuring "wealth" by GDP per capita in PPP$ as measured by the IMF in 2009, with the sole exception being North Korea whose numbers are based on a 2009 CIA estimate. Let it be said loud and clear that Erratum Terrium's use in this situation of GDP per capita is a pure measurement of total country wealth. We do not, repeat, do not believe in GDP per capita as an accurate measure of the economic situation in any given country.

So the wealthiest teams tend to do better than the poorest teams. Fairly predictable, but not the whole story. Let's take a look at efficiency; that is, how well a given country used its wealth to achieve World Cup success. Here we will look at points scored in the group stage as a percentage of GDP per capita. Excluding the two teams who failed the score a point (North Korea and Cameroon, both very poor countries) there were twelve teams whose points scored made up less than 0.02% of their GDP per capita. Except for Algeria ($6,869) all of those teams have GDP per capita above $26,700 and only two of them (the United States and England in a fairly easy Group D) made it past the group stage. On the opposite side, there were 6 teams whose points made up at least 0.05% of their GDP per capita (with the most efficient being Ghana at 0.26%). 5 of those 6 teams qualified for the knockout round, with the only return-ticket team being Ivory Coast, who to their benefit managed 4 points in the Group of Death with powerhouses Portugal and Brazil despite the second-lowest GDP per capita among all 32 teams.

And for the wealthy countries, their successes were costly. Let's imagine that each country's citizens (the fictionally equal citizens implied by the GDP per capita calculations) had to pay for their points and goals with equal contributions based on GDP. The French would have to pony up $33,679 for each point, and the Swiss $43,007 for each goal. Meanwhile the Ghanaians only need to flip over $388 for each of their points, and the people of Ivory Coast only $419 for each goal scored.

Of course in all this analysis we are ignoring the 150+ countries that failed to qualify for the World Cup, most of which are poor. Although it is worth noting that none of the world's 5 richest countries qualified.

So basically we can say that while wealth is a fairly good predictor of World Cup success, it by no means assures any victories -- which France, Australia, Denmark, and Switzerland found out the hard way. And while poverty hinders World Cup success, it cannot contain quality play -- which Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Paraguay have proved this year.

We will have an opportunity to test the effects of the wealth disparity tomorrow when Ghana, the tournament's poorest team, takes on the United States, the tournament's wealthiest team with a GDP per capita nearly 30 times that of Ghana, on the first day of knockout play (Mighty Ducks, anyone?). For the sake of barefoot kids kicking plastic bottles down dirty streets around the world, let's hope the Black Stars comes out victorious.

ADDENDUM (4/7/10)

Victory was short-lived. In the first knockout round Ghana (#151 GDP per capita in the world) defeated the U.S. (#6) and Paraguay (#117) made sushi rolls out of Japan (#23). England (#19) and South Korea (#30) were sent packing. The quarter-finals, on the other hand, brought a harsh dose of reality to the economic underdogs. All four games saw the wealthier country take home victory. The lone, not-so-rich, non-Eurozone holdout is Uruguay (#62), who needed penalties to send the Black Stars home. Trivia Twist: Uruguay won the first ever World Cup in 1930.

A few more statistical snacks...the average GDP per capita ranking for the 32 teams which qualified for the World Cup was 59 (out of 182), and the median ranking was 39. Much of that differential is due to Paraguay and Ghana, the only two teams from the bottom economic half to qualify. Below see the changes in the average GDP per capita rankings of qualifying teams:

World Cup = 59
Knockout round = 49
Quarterfinals = 64
Semifinals = 29

¡Uruguay all the guay!

The Bitten Hand

2010-05-29T13:08:00.000-07:00

Much attention is currently focused on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The environmental repercussions will be terrible, and it may be decades before the fragile region recovers. We learned that MMS government regulators were...shall we say, "relaxed" in their pursuit of oversight. And much attention has also been paid to the ping-pong game of responsibility played between the Obama Administration and the owners of the sunken oil platform which caused the spill, BP (No, not "British Petroleum" -- just "BP". Like when Prince changed his name to that symbol.) The administration has made a big show of being "tough" on BP, insisting that the company pay for the clean-up and announcing plans for new regulations and energy legislation. And where there's politics, there's money -- lots of oily BP money, much of which has gone to Obama and Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu (D).

In recent times we have seen more conflicts between multi-national corporations and local governments in their countries of operation. Usually the battle-lines are far from the front pages. In back rooms it's much easier to solve these sort of problems "amicably". Once things go public the opportunities for bribery and corruption shrink. The BP oil spill is one example of a MNC/national government tiff. Let's take a look at some others.

GREECE

As if things could get any worse, 2 Danish pharmaceutical companies have decided to stop supplying vital drugs to the Greek medical system. The 2 companies, Novo Nordisk and Leo Pharma, previously supplied 17 insulin products, and a anti-blood-clotting agent and anti-psoriasis medication, respectively. Both companies state that their decision to withdraw the products is due to the Greek government's recent decision to cut all pharmaceutical prices by 25% -- a decision prompted by international pressure to reduce government spending. The companies, already owed hundreds of millions of euros by the Greek government, state that the new reduced prices would force them to run their businesses in Greece at a loss and could trigger similar price reductions in others countries. To their benefit, Novo Nordisk did agree to the price reduction on one less-advanced insulin product and will offer another basic insulin product for free. However, "Steve Gaudis" is not convinced of their goodwill. According to that same article, 40% of Novo Nordisk profits come from the modern insulin products. 50,000 people in Greece use(d) these products. The word "blackmail" comes up repeatedly in Greek statements.

SOMALIA/GERMANY

Abdinur Ahmed Darman, a Somali expatriate who maintains his baloney claims to be the President of Somalia*, has apparently signed an agreement with a German security company to send 100 mercenaries to Somalia. According to the contract, the former Bundeswehr soldiers will only arrive in the country when Darman returns as the legitimate president. Asgaard Security Group, the contracted party, has stated that it would wait for UN recognition of Darman before sending its troops. However other reports have the first contingent of mercenaries already on their way to Somalia. The internationally recognized President of Somalia* Sharif Sheikh Ahmed called the contract "laughable" and Darman a "con artist". Con artist or not, Darman is an interesting political character. He claims to have been elected president at a national reconstruction conference in 2003, and that all leaders since are illegitimate. He also claims credit for setting up the relatively stable Islamic Court system that ruled the country before the 2006 invasion by Ethiopia -- there is no evidence that this is true. There was a report made by several Somali journalists that his militia tried to kill them after finding their reporting objectionable. His government operates its own official government and PR websites (check the "Contact" page -- funny, but still a big step up from somalipresidency@yahoo.com). Perhaps coincidentally the PR website is run out of Germany as well. Check out the videos here and here.

Two ways of looking at this situation.
One: Darman and Asgaard are just looking for publicity. Asgaard wants to advertise its services in "unstable environments" (don't get any more unstable than Somalia these days) and Darman capitalizing on a weak Somalian government and a recent failed international conference in Turkey to make his name known to power brokers inside and outside of Somalia.
Two: This shit is for real. Darman wants to "re"-take power in Somalia, and he knows the international community is tired of the weak-kneed and fractional current government. He wants international backing for a new regime -- a.k.a. the Chalabi Gambit -- and he thinks that bringing in former western military types will buy him some Davos cred. Not sure if he realizes that the EU (Germany included) has already sent troops to Somalia to help train the army.

Oh and the * sign after "President of Somalia" is meant to remind readers that this title implies little if any actual control over said country, given that most of said country is run by one of two conglomerated Islamist groups.
SO WHAT?

Here we have 3 situations in different parts of the world, linked by one aspect: the changing dynamic between national governments and multi-national corporations. It is clear to everyone that national governments (NAGs) have less carrot and stick tools in their belt to deal with the MNCs than they used to. It is simply too easy for MNCs to shift operations (or at least legitimately threaten to shift operations) or finances from one country to the next. And at a basic level, the culture of nationalist fealty that used to be status quo in major corporations has been diluted down to a What-Have-You-Done-For-Me-Lately attitude.

Once upon a time privatization was a tool of fiscally conservative NAGs trying to rid themselves of the moral responsibility for the general welfare of the population placed upon them after World War II. This viewpoint (Acronym Game: Reagan-Thatcher-IMF...go!) was founded in a world where corporations were, at the most, representations of the power of their respective countries. Not so far off from the days of the East India Trading Co. Those days are gone. And now we pay. Literally. The BP oil spill will drive up prices, which we have no choice but to pay, and then the increased profits will go to...well, you get the picture. The Danish taxpayers will help foot the bill to set Greece right again, and in paying those debts, their taxpayers dollars will go to Novo Nordisk and Leo Pharma...who will continue to withhold their products from the Greek market, fostering a black market in those drugs where prices for sick Greek consumers will most likely be significantly higher than they were before. And Asgaard will send its former Bundeswehr soldiers into Somalia, where some day they may be contractually obligated to fire on other Bundeswehr soldiers training Somalian security forces under EU auspices...all because a rich businessman with web access and a Napoleon-complex thought that calling a tail a leg makes it one.

OFF INTO THE SUNSET

But the argument here is not one which fulminates blindly against all increases in MNC power. The NAGs had a go at running the world, and the results have been severely mixed. There's no way of knowing whether the next century -- assuredly a century where the scales will tip towards MNCs -- will leave us better or worse off.

What is important to realize is that this new era will be different. In giving greater freedom to the MNCs we have removed some important democratic controls over how the world is run. We will continue to run into situations like the three demonstrated above -- and the NAGs will look (furtively) for ways to pull back on the reins on this runaway train. There simply isn't enough space for the primacy of profit AND nationalist fealty. Your money or your country.

Crash, Collapse, Spill: Whither Corporate Responsibility?

2010-05-22T06:12:00.000-07:00

Dear Citizen,

In your blessed and tranquil day-to-day, you may have heard some whisperings about terrible accidents. Accidents, being a natural function of our ever more complicated world, happen all too often these days. We, the Corporations, feel terribly about these accidents and do whatever we can to aid the victims and prevent future accidents -- so long as those efforts do not affect our bottom line. "What's that?" say the faux-populist talkings heads, "So you DO only care about your profits. You are all terrible people and will go straight to hell upon your deaths -- which will all hopefully come about as a result of your own malfeasance!" Well, ratings lap-dogs, you do have one bit right: We do care about our profits. Our purpose is to make money for our stockholders, and we have few qualms about doing what is necessary to increase those profits and prolong our own corporate lives. It is through centuries of our profit-seeking actions that the economies of the developed world have grown so substantially and provided you all with the comforts and resources that you heedlessly enjoy today.
The personal computer and air-conditioning? Us.
AIDS treatment medications and witty greeting cards? Us.
Planes, trains, automobiles, and plastic tricycles? Take a wild guess.

And yet when something does go wrong, when an ACCIDENT does happens -- a commercial airplane with faulty, past-repair-date wiring crashes and incinerates a few hundred passengers, a coal mine originally dug by the light of oil lamps collapses and traps a few dozen underpaid, cancer-ridden miners, or an offshore oil rig pops a massive leak and wipes out a few hundred square miles of aquatic ecosystem -- the spotlight of blame always lands on us.

Now, if you've read this far already then you are unfortunately not among the 95.3% of society that seeks happiness in ignorance [percentage based on the most recent Nielsen research], and it might be that you actually want to know how the world works. And therefore there is less than a 0.02% likelihood that you will ever willingly buy our stock. So we'll give it to you straight: Fuck you and your moral obfuscations about corporate responsibility. You can't have your cake, eat it too, and then complain that you wanted pie. The rich of the world -- and no equivocating; if you are reading this on your own computer, then that means you -- love to reap the benefits of the world we created. Non-Germans and Japanese: How do you think the Allies won World War II? Because despite all the difficulties, we redirected all of our factories to war material output and massively out-produced the Axis. And Germans and Japanese: How do you think you recovered from World War II? It certainly wasn't through socialism. And speaking of that, don't worry about the whole "defeating communism and saving the non-gulag-interred population of the world from being interred in gulags" thing -- that one's on us. By any chance are you living longer and healthier than your grandparents? For that you can thank pharmaceutical companies, corporate agriculture, supermarkets, pharmacies, and the transportation and oil companies that allow all of those goodies to travel across the globe -- not to mention the modern financial and communication networks that provide the foundation for it all.

Your left-wing talking- and typing-heads will tell you that corporations were created in the public domain, originally to serve the crown and later the democratic "common good". They yearn for that halcyon epoch where the economy utilized the country's resources to power growth and the democratic government made sure that every citizen's needs were provided for. Problem is, that epoch never existed and it never will. Every government, even the most "representative", is ruled by the power of money -- just as much so as any corporation. At least we are honest about our methods of operation; democratic politicians always spend an inordinate amount of time denying the truth of how greatly they are influenced by money. The world has always been ruled by the rich, and it always will be. Any attempt to deny this is at the very least foolish, if not outright dangerous.

It's a corporate world: a world you created for us to rule. You created it when you asked for MORE and decided not to care too much about how we got that pair of sneakers, that bunch of bananas, or that gallon of gasoline to you. And sorry bleeding-hearts, but it's far too late to start caring now. We've got the good shit, and you and all of your neighbors are just as hooked as any frothy-mouthed, skin-scratching addict. Did someone say regulation? We dare you -- double-doggy dare you -- to try and regulate us. And when we say "regulate", we don't mean "pass laws which contain regulations". We mean "actually use the legal system to change our behavior". The former is simple, and to be honest, we only put up cursory resistance to regulatory laws because passing these laws takes pressure off us and our political allies. Even the most stringent regulations can be easily outmaneuvered with a good team of lawyers, some offshore accounts, and a few well-placed bribes to government-salary regulators.

If all this talk is depressing your sappy liberal brain, by all means go and work for a charity or a non-profit. Help those people left behind in our free market economy, God knows there are plenty of them. We might even send you a donation every once and a while -- we want poor people to be happy too! Unhappy poor people can start riots and fuel anti-oligarchic movements, and those kind of things are bad for business.

So next time you read a story about some accident caused by the lack of corporate responsibility, don't get angry and certainly don't ask us to sacrifice our profit margins to run maintenance checks more often than necessary or provide counseling to widows. These accidents are part of an unpredictable world, collateral damages resulting from the economic growth. The reality is that billions more people will benefit from what this system of economic growth produces than will suffer from the occasional accident. Our focus-group-tested advice: Don't worry, be happy. Just let us take care of things. Remember, it's our world. You just live in it.

Sincerely,

The Corporations

Outsourced!

2010-05-01T06:42:00.000-07:00

by Alfred P. Loafward IX
President pro tempore, Erratum Terrium Board of Directors

Today is a sad day for me, and a happy day, I must imagine, for Hernando de Soto. When I inherited the post of President pro tempore of the Erratum Terrium Board of Directors from my late uncle-in-law, who also happened to be an oft-needed tax attorney, I never imagined a day like this might come. To lay this narrative more squarely in the vein of honesty, this inheritance fell to me several weeks before my emergence from the womb, and my imagination was limited to the sequencing of kicks I delivered to the inside of my mother's swollen midsection. One such kick disturbed her so that she spilled her cup of tea all over her conversation companion, her suitor-of-the-moment, A. Mitchell Palmer. I have been made to believe that this incident, and the ensuing cloth-napkin intervention debacle, led almost directly to the First Red Scare.

Current international affairs have been with me all my life, and so, as previously stated, today is a sad day for me. Just hours ago I dispatched a courier with a parcel of signed papers, with the result of my signature on said papers being the final sale of all Erratum Terrium assets and properties to an international consortium of nose-hair-trimmer salesmen (very popular in Turkey, I understand). This consortium, in turn, transferred everything to a shell company in the the Bahamas, who in turn collateralized our substantial debt into securities backed solely by the mortgage on my third cousin Debbie's St. Augustine, Florida BBQ restaurant -- which, to remain in the vein of honesty, was run out of business and burned down in 1964 after she attempted solve race relations by refusing to serve both whites and blacks equally. These collateralized debt obligations were passed like hepatitis C from one investment banker to the next. To the best of my information Lloyd Blankfein used them accidentally as toilet paper on a restroom break from sworn testimony in front of the U.S. Senate, and then, upon realizing his error, tweeted "...using crap to wipe up crap". This was 30 minutes ago.

The papers, now covered in Blankfein crap, were found in the unflushed toilet 3 minutes later by Justo Rufino Estrada Cabrera, a Guatemalan national employed under a false Social Security number to clean restrooms in the Capitol building. Not speaking more than a few choice words in English, Mr. Estrada Cabrera immediately understood the value of the papers he held in his wisely-gloved hands, wiped off the Blankfein crap, and faxed a copy to his third cousin, a lawyer in Guatemala.

And so, as of May 1st, 2010, Erratum Terrium has been outsourced to Guatemala. I can only hope they continue the same worthy journalistic tradition. After all, neighboring El Salvador was the first country in the world to elect a former CNN anchor as its head of state! And what higher tradition of journalism is there than that found at CNN!

Please excuse the sarcasm. I get cranky when I don't take my daily fish oil supplement. Last night, in the midst of my anxious decision-making process, I went to see my speech therapist (my late mother, spurned in her youth by a haughty Carl Jung, forbid anyone in my family from seeing psychiatrists, speech therapy is the closest I can get) for some advice. "Erratum Terrium is like my child," I told him, "I have put my whole life into it, and I don't want to see it changed." The good doctor took a few long pulls from his thick, dark cigar, removed his sunglasses to reveal his bloodshot blue eyes, and asked the topless masseuse to leave the room. Exhaling smoke dramatically, he said: "If there is anything that we wish to change in the child, we should first examine it and see whether it is not something that could better be changed in ourselves." He then leaned towards the glass table and, using a rolled-up $100 bill, snorted a line of cocaine from South America imported by Mexican cartels through Guatemala. The significance of which, lost at the time in the contemplance of the good doctor's wise words, is clear to me only now.

Dictated, not read
May 1st, 2010
Location undisclosed

A Clearing in the Jungle

2010-02-28T12:44:00.001-08:00

On the day in question, a wet heat had already settled on the jungle, portending the arrival of the rains after an especially difficult dry season. Not even the slightest of winds drifted through the yellow-frayed leaves. Bird calls and monkey shrieks echoed, growing closer. All the animals were gathered in the clearing, milling around, clustered in quietly whispering groups, eyes glancing ever so often towards the great ceiba tree.

The howler monkeys finally arrived, swinging into the great ceiba. Their piercing cries called all attention, whispers ceasing, and necks turned towards the tree. The great owl sat perched on a thick low branch. He ruffled his feathers calmly, and then began.

"It is time for us to choose once again. For four years now Snake has been our leader. His time has come to a close. We must choose a new leader. In this time of great crisis, we must choose wisely. First, we will hear from each of the candidates. Then the voting will commence. First to speak will be Wolf."

Wolf approached the great tree slowly. For those who were not close enough to see his wide slimy grin, it might have seemed that he was nervous.

"Thank you, Wise Owl. Animals of the jungle, under my rule you can look forward to four years of stability. We must come together to defeat Fear. Over the past four years, who among us has felt fear simply walking through the forest? Who among us has had terrible nightmares about our family members when they have not returned by nightfall? We would not feel this fear if I had been chosen four years ago. We can now correct that mistake. Feel safe again. Choose Wolf."

A thunderous applause erupted among a few animals. A few more booed, while most stayed silent. Wolf bowed slightly, slimy grin never leaving his face.

"Now we will hear from Vulture."

Vulture floated softly onto a high branch of the ceiba. She looked down at Snake, one of her biggest supporters, and smiled.

"Thank you, Wise Owl. We must continue the great work of Snake. We must make sure that no animal goes hungry in the jungle. We must make sure that every animal in the jungle has a place to live and can go to school. We must have pride in our heritage. My opponent, although his words are so smooth, cannot make you forget the atrocities of the past. He does not want to get rid of fear, but merely replace the fear of the criminals with the fear of the government. We cannot allow his type to take control again. We must build a better government, and a better jungle. Unity is our shield, and love is our weapon. Choose Vulture. Thank you."

The large majority of animals applauded quietly. A few of Wolf's supporters booed loudly and one threw a small volcanic rock at Vulture, missing by several meters.

"Thank you, Vulture," said Owl, "now you have heard the candidates speak. It is is time for you to make your voices heard..."
"Wait!" cried a small voice from the back of the crowd, "There is one candidate who has not had a chance to speak yet!"
"There are only two real candidates, Worm," said Owl sternly, "it is time to vote."
"Ant must be allowed to speak," said Worm, summoning as much courage as a worm can summon.
"There is no time," said Vulture, "we still have much to do."
"Ant has no right to speak here," added Wolf, "his views are backwards and dangerous."
Owl paused a moment and appeared to be thinking deeply.
"We will give Ant a voice," said Owl finally, "as our custom has always been to allow free speech."

A narrow crease appeared in the crowd as Ant made his way to the front. Animals began to grumble in low voices. Shouts rang out from Wolf's supporters:
"Stomp him!"
"Crush him!"
"Get a magnifying glass!"
Laughter followed. Ant crawled up to the base of the great ceiba tree, took a deep breath, and began to speak.

"Thank you, brothers and sisters. I stand before you not because I want to be your leader, but because I want you all to be leaders. Our jungle has suffered for too long under the yoke of a government bent on dominating our minds, chipping away at our heritage and our dreams until we are no more than dry leaves felled by the autumn winds. We should be gathering here not to choose the next oppressor, but instead to take back what was once ours. But we cannot stand alone against the oppression and inequality rendered by the forces of history. Only through true unity -- not unity under a flag or political party, but unity as brother and sisters in the same struggle -- can we reclaim our history and take hold of our future. Do not choose Vulture or Wolf. Choose your neighbors, your brothers and sisters. Choose yourself. Thank you."

Ant stopped and looked out at the animals. There was no applause, no boos, no response at all. The animals had not been paying attention. Vulture and Snake and Wolf and their powerful supporters were talking quietly together, smiling comfortable smiles and laughing at re-told jokes. The majority of the animals, not powerful enough to be in this inner circle were standing in small groups, distracted, looking over often at the inner circle trying to understand why they were smiling and what the jokes were and why they were funny. Beyond them were even more animals, mostly the smaller ones, who had to stand on each other's shoulders or help each other climb trees just to see what was going on. No one who could hear Ant had listened, and no one who wanted to listen could hear. Ant let out a familiar deep sigh. He looked up at Owl, hoping at least one animal had heard him. Owl had been listening. He smiled curtly, perfunctorily, at Ant, and then turned his attention back to the crowd.

"Now it is time to choose. Those who would choose Vulture, move to the left side of the clearing. Those who would choose Wolf, to the right."

No one moved.

"Now," said Owl with finality.

About half of the animals moved immediately to one side or the other. The supporters of Wolf and Vulture began to move through the animals that had not already chosen. Wolf's supporters brandished weapons and formed threatening circles around a group of animals until they moved towards Wolf's side. Vulture's supporters moved through the crowd, reminding the animals of all the delicious food they had received from Snake and would continue to receive under Vulture. And they showed them black list -- the list of Wolf's supporters who would receive nothing if Vulture won.

Eventually all the animals either chose a side or left the clearing confused as to why they had come in the first place. Owl set out to count the sides and name the new leader. Ant and Worm stayed for a while, hiding under some leaves near the edge of the clearing. Worm became impatient as the sun started to set.

"Let's leave," she said.
"No," said Ant, "I want to see who wins. Owl is almost finished. It looks like Wolf will win. I think people are tired of Snake's corruption and they don't remember so well the atrocities under Wolf's cousins. They fear Fear more than they love Love, I guess," he finished with a wry chuckle.
"Don't you see?" whispered Worm, "don't you see that it doesn't matter who wins? Nothing will ever change here in the jungle."
They were both silent for a long minute. A slight drizzle began to fall, tap-tapping on the yellow-frayed leaves above them.
"You're right, but" said Ant with determination, "if we stop believing that change is possible, then it will certainly become impossible. I will die with my delusions before submitting to that despair."
There was another silence, cut short this time by a mass of whooping and shouting from the clearing. Someone had won, again.

Such Nice Young Men...

2010-01-02T13:52:00.000-08:00

The two young men pictured above are both from sub-Saharan Africa, and both traveled to the United States in their twenties -- with different reasons and different results.

On the right: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a young Nigerian who, holding a valid U.S. visa, attempted to murder over 200 civilians on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, apparently on behalf of an extremist Al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen. He now sits in jail, subject to federal interrogation but spared federal torture by the results of the 2008 Presidential election.

On the left: Deogratias Niyizonkiza, a now middle-aged Burudian who, in 1993 immigrated illegally to the U.S. to escape ethnic cleansing in his home country -- and has now returned to Burundi to open up medical clinics with the non-profit organization he helped to found. He is the subject of "Strength in What Remains", a new book by Tracy Kidder.

What drives people to do the things they do? Can we possibly know where someone, even ourselves, will end up? We have been a self-aware species for millions of years now. Are we close to any answers? Physical laws give us fairly reliable and accurate predictions about the path of matter through its environment. These are crucial to understanding and improving our world, but give us little help to understand and improve ourselves. Social science attempts to use the proven scientific logic of physical laws to predict how the large mass of matter which makes up a human will act in its environment. Yet despite all of its academic and statistical rigor, social science has often been wrong and sometimes twisted to justify terrible things. Religious laws aim not to predict, but to guide. They do not tell us what we will do (as only the divine can know that), but instead what we should do. These as well have been twisted into justification. In short: we cannot predict ourselves or others, and attempts to predict have often been mutated into attempts to control.

Let us fall back to a real-world situation, and take this discussion out of the theoretical and into the practical. An immigration official reviews the two young men upon their arrival to the United States and must decide whether to allow them entrance. There is no room for intellectual vacillation here, there is only a Yes or a No, a friendly "Go Ahead" or a call to airport security. And let us imagine this official has all the information we have. How do they decide who to let in?

Desgratias is first. He steps up to the official's booth and presents his letter which introduces him as the agent for a coffee company in Burundi. The official knows Burundi has just broken out in civil war (late 1993: Hutu militas vs. Tutsi army -- Rwanda will erupt several months later along the same ethnic lines). Desgratias grew up in a very poor family herding cows, and was only allowed to attend school because his grades were the very top in his class and he happened to be classified as a Tutsi, and not a Hutu. The official can guess that this letter is a forgery, but also that this disheveled young man standing at the booth is in real need of a safe place. In 1993 Desgratias is granted a business visa. Would that still be the decision made today?

Umar steps up to the booth. He is from a wealthy, well-connected Nigerian family. He has the proper credentials. He looks a little shabby for the son of the former head of Nigeria's Central Bank, but he was educated in the poshest British schools available. Umar is granted entrance to the United States. Is that decision defensible?

Okay, okay, point taken. Desgratias is poor and needy -- he should be given as much support as possible. Umar shouldn't be treated any better just because his family is wealthy and well-connected -- his associations should be examined just like a poor Yemeni student's would be. And Desgratias, despite having legitimate grievances with Burundi's colonizers in Belgium or the Hutu militias which tried to kill him, never strapped a bomb to himself to try to exact revenge. Meanwhile, Umar strapped a bomb to himself to try and kill Americans and Europeans -- the same people who had funded his own high-class education and lifestyle. People are unpredictable, we need to do a better job of trying to understand them and not judge them based on superficialities. Point taken.

What then, can we do? We know that we don't understand everything about people, that we can't reliably guide one person -- let alone hundreds, thousands, millions -- to some certain outcome through a logical, scientific process. Nor can we rely on the moral guidance of religion to assure peace, prosperity, or predictability. The world will keep spinning. There will be a thousand more Desgratiases and Umars at our door tomorrow. What can we do?

And now, the long-awaited, extra-mildly wise answer...

We must engage with globalization not only as a market transformation, but as an opportunity to effectively utilize resources to create a better world. there is no doubt that the current trend towards hyper-capitalism is dangerous. There is no doubt that indigenous societies lived, and to some extent, live, a simpler life which represent an antidote to the risk-taking and consumerism which fuels hyper-capitalism. However to phrase the conflict as globalization/future versus simplicity/past solves nothing. Clocks only go in one direction. Denying the future will not help us create a better one. We must engage with the world -- and I don't mean "we" as in the U.S. government, I mean "we" as in "all of us" -- on every level, in every city, every remote mountaintop village, and every social networking site. Borders are irrelevant -- the stories of Desgratias and Umar demonstrate this.

And we must stop assuming that "rich" = "better" or "happy". Sure, we know it in our own personal lives. But we still believe that a country is improving when its economic growth rate goes up. And we believe that angry poor people are the most likely to become terrorists. The truth of the matter, especially in a ever more complex world, rarely stands up and declares itself in the media.

We must search it out, the truth. Each one of us a technological-age Indiana Jones, metaphorical whip and scepticism at the ready. Desgratias and Umar and all of the world's migrants and travelers will keep moving, growing, shifting, cross borders, bumping into each other. And we certainly can't "beat" them. So join'em!

Hiatus!

2009-06-07T10:00:00.000-07:00

And you thought it would never happen...

As the Great Economic Machine formerly known as America quivers, Erratum Terrium's pigeons have come home to roost. Literally, in some cases.

Having brought you geologically instantaneous analysis and commentary on world events for the past two and one-half years, we, the shadowy cabal formerly known as the Erratum Terrium Board of Directors, announce a hiatus from the news-publishing industry. This hiatus is, as of yet, undefined in length. We are searching for, as of yet, an unrecognized destination. Supposedly there are several other sources for world events analysis and commentary. You may peruse the links on the right side of your computer screen -- but do so at your own great risk, corporeal and ideological.

For the time being there is only one website we consider safe. It is that of our multi-talented paper boy / part-time gaffer / sculpture model Gabriel. He has eloped on a world-conquering mission, and remains in contact with the real world via the Internet. More specifically, his so-called "travel blog", which can be found at:
lastierrasdesconocidas.blogspot.com

Please oblige his regrettably dillusional rantings. He was the only Erratum Terrium employee not to quit outright when we proposed shifting our compensation system from "hourly and salaried" to "totalitarian digital work camps".

May God(s) bless you, Faithful Readers, and May you wander forth in quixotic ignorance.

Sincerely,

The Board

No Justice, No Peace?

2009-03-03T09:59:00.000-08:00

The International Criminal Court is expected to issue an arrest warrant tomorrow for Omar Al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, in connection with his involvement in the ongoing violence in Darfur. This would be the first arrest warrant ever issued by the ICC for a sitting head of state, and this precedent has been accompanied by a maelstrom of controversy. The issue is not, as is often the case in the justice system, one of guilt versus innocence. The debate over the arrest warrant has taken the shape of justice versus peace.

These two positions are argued eloquently in two editorials in today's New York Times. Archbishop Desmond Tutu takes the side of justice, while Franklin Graham, a champion of evangelical charity work in Sudan, takes the side of peace. It is no easy task arguing against Archbishop Tutu, but Mr. Graham makes some compelling arguments. To summarize briefly, he argues that because President Al-Bashir is a key figure in ongoing peace talks, removing or antagonising him would be detrimental to those peace talks. It is a utilitarian argument, that more lives will be saved and improved by the success of those peace talks than will be helped by Mr. Al-Bashir being brought to justice -- not to mention that any real judicial punishment is highly unlikely, at least until after Al-Bashir is no longer in power in Sudan (the ICC has no power to physically extradite defendants and relies instead on the state in which that defendant resides to hand them over voluntarily).

Archbishop Tutu argues that Africa must call Al-Bashir to account for his crimes because to not do so would be setting a terrible precedent for justice worldwide. There cannot be real peace without justice, he says. The Erratum Terrium editorial board endorses Archbishop Tutu on this issue, and not solely to curry favor with the Nobel Committee.

At this point we will unleash the analogy of all analogies. Please take two steps back and cover the eyes and ears of any children in the vicinity.

Imagine if the ICC had been functioning in 1943. In this alternate history Hitler has ceased aggression because the Allied military has shown massive superiority while his own armed forces are weakened and demoralized. Hitler is negotiating limited autonomy for the conquered territories as part of a cease fire with Britain and America. Meanwhile the Nazi regime continues to murderously and mechanically purge millions of Jews, gays, gypsies, the disabled, and any political opponents -- all with the full knowledge of the outside world. Should the ICC issue an arrest warrant for Adolf Hitler and other responsible members of the Nazi regime? Or should we be satisfied with a world at peace, an olive wreath resting on a pile of burnt corpses?

This example is not meant to be a dramatization. Mr. Graham can argue until the coming of the Rapture about setting priorities, but to not pursue justice against Mr. Al-Bashir is to avert our eyes from the genocide in Darfur. If there is such a thing as common humanity, let it be heard now. Genocide will continue as long as its perpetrators do not fear justice. Peace and justice in Sudan are not mutually exclusive. We can have both, and we must have both. The people of Sudan, the victims of genocide, past, present, and future, deserve no less than our full efforts and our loudest voices.

On the Good Foot in Iran?

2009-02-10T08:46:00.000-08:00

There are some increasingly louder hints that relations between the US and Iran are approaching a thaw. A few moments to note:

First, US President Obama says (on al-Arabiya, no less) that "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us." So is Obama offering Supreme Leader Khamenei a low-five? Couldn't Obama just clench his fist and give Khamenei a "terrorist fist-jab"? Somehow it seems more appropriate.

Then, reformist former president Seyed Mohammad Khatami throws his hat in the ring for this year's upcoming Presidential election (TiVo alert: June 12). Khatami was the President from 1997 until 2005, when he was unseated by current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khatami was twice elected by a large majority on reformist platform, but lost support as his reformist policies wilted under pressure from conservative theocrats. Khatami is himself a high-level cleric, and traces his lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). Khatami sought to break down Iran's isolation during his term, but US-Iran relations were monopolized by radicals on both sides -- Iran's Revolutionary Guards pushed nuclear development and funded Hezbollah (among others), and Bush shot down any chance of dialogue when he cast parts for Axis of Evil: The Good, the Bad, and the Insane.

Ahmadinejad came to power on a populist platform fueled by anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments. He often brought out this fiery rhetoric (America=Satan, Wipe Israel Off the Map, etc.) during his term, partially as an attempt to distract from his failing economic policies. So with the economy still sputtering, and his primary opponent a well-known Americaphile, we prepared for another outburst of bombastic nuttiness. But it never came.

Instead, on the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, Ahmadinejad said that he was ready to engage with the Great Satan (video). While this is not the first time Ahmadinejad has said he is open to dialogue, it is incredible, given the situation (remember he was speaking to a crowd of thousands of mostly hard-core revolutionaries yelling anti-Western slogans and playing Knock-The-Head-Off-The-Decadent-Western-Leader) that he made a point to show this openness. This says that Ahmadinejad no longer sees anti-Americanism as the political wedge issue it was in the past. And it may mean that dialogue will happen regardless of who prevails in the June election.

There are several reasons for this shift. Top of the list is the new US President. Obama may not guarantee successful dialogue, but under Bush it would have been impossible. The US withdrawal in Iraq, even in the planning stages as it is, helps reassure Iran that the US does not mean to be an imperialist power in the Middle East. Economic concerns also factor in, with Iran's economy suffering and in need of investment. Reuters reports that Royal Dutch Shell and Total have interests in developing Iranian natural gas deposits, and Iran would be sure to benefit if the US embargo were lifted.

Dialogue with Iran, even if eventually successful enough to allow full inspection of Iranian nuclear capabilities, establish formal diplomatic relations, and reduce or eliminate trade embargoes, will be slow and difficult. Hard-line elements in the US and Iran will continue to militate against restoration of full relations. For the US hard-liners, the issue is Iranian support of Islamic militants in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq. For the Iranian hard-liners, the issue is US support for Israel. As long as these issues have pull in their respective countries, progress towards full relations will be difficult to achieve. Diplomacy cannot be carried out piece-meal, and it cannot be carried out if politicians on either side are too preoccupied with their opinion polls.

Here's some advice for President Obama: when greeting Iranian leaders, feel free to shake hands, offer a low-five, or give a fist jab. Just don't try the traditional George W. Bush man-greeting.

March 16 Update: Khatami has thrown in the towel, seemingly bowing out in favor of Mir-Hossein Moussavi. The Reformist camp now has two candidates for June's presidential election:

Mir-Hossein Moussavi -- Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, current member of the Expediency Council (Iran's highest non-elected political body), and head of Iran's Academy of Arts. Moussavi is seen as a honest and centrist politician, drawing support from the reformists and some conversatives. He flip-flopped on a decision to enter the race, finally throwing his hat in March 10.
Mehdi Karroubi -- Speaker of Parliament until 2004, founder of reformist Assocaition of Combatant Clerics, and 3rd place Presidential candidate in 2005. Karroubi is seen as farther to the left than Moussavi, and has drawn support from leftists like Gholamhossein Karbaschi, formerly mayor of Tehran and influential in Khatami's previous presidential runs.

Some observers say that the Reformists will eventually narrow their camp to one candidate; clearly two candidates will make it more difficult to defeat Ahmadinejad. There are real differences between Moussavi and Karroubi, but both put economic issues at the top of their agenda. Moussavi is promoting his strategic "20-Year Outlook Plan", while Karroubi has promoted quasi-socialist policies such as distributing shares in Iranian oil companies and making substantial monthly payments to Iranian families.

Overall, Moussavi is seen as the favorite to become the sole Reformist candidate. He has a wider base of support among the political elite, and enough Reformist credentials to pull in the left wing vote. Karroubi's former organization, the Association of Combatant Clerics, has already endorsed Moussavi. However it is yet to be seen whether Ahmadinejad will be able to convince conservatives and tradionalists that he can fully represent their interests -- the addition of another centrist or right-wing candidate would make the road to victory much smoother for the Reformist camp.

Episode IV in Somalia?

2009-02-07T17:26:00.000-08:00

Practice Question #1
Claude Monet :: Impressionist painter
Somalia :: _______

a) Octuplet-bearing California woman
b) Locale for new Johnny Depp movie, Pirates of the Gulf of Aden
c) The not-as-cute Jonas Brother
d) Failed state

Remember to show your work!

.........................

Please read Erratum Terrium's previous article on Somalia for background on the current situation (or if you need a study guide for Practice Question #1).

Last week Sharif Sheikh Ahmed was elected "President"* of Somalia, replacing the departed "President"*, Abdullahi Yusuf. Ahmed, as loyal Erratum Terrium readers may remember, was the political leader of the ICU (Union of Islamic Courts) -- which as its name suggests, is a loose confederation of sharia advocates. The ICU created a militia, which was able to wrest control of much of southern and central Somalia from various warlords during 2005 and 2006. They were able, for a short time, to bring a semblance of order to this land wracked by constant turmoil and disaster since 1991 (if not longer). Ethiopia invaded shortly after this order was established, suffered through an Iraqesque occupation, and have just finished withdrawing their troops in the past few weeks**.

Ahmed, an English-speaking former schoolteacher, is the country's best chance for peace. This is unfortunate for him. Men of peace do not have a long life span in this part of the world. According to the BBC, the presidential palace was hit by mortars on his first day there. The Al-Shabab militia, an off-shoot of ICU resistance to Yusuf's transitional government, has expressed no desire to work with Ahmed despite shared Islamist values. International reaction to Ahmed has been cool, despite his urgent appeals for aid.

A few days ago US Vice President Biden outlined a "new tone" for foreign policy under the Obama Administration***. Part of this new tone must be a reconsideration of the Bush Administration's blind opposition to Islamist politics. Political Islam contains a wide spectrum of beliefs and goals, and we can not continue to put any Muslim who speaks ill of the United States or advocates sharia into the same category as Osama Bin Laden. This mentality creates unnecessary enemies and wastes opportunities for our democracy-loving country to foster positive political developments in Muslim countries. To be sure, there are many Islamist groups who support terrorist acts and encourage abuse of women, children, and ethnic minorities. We cannot become blind to their reprehensible actions in our effort to legitimize Islamist politics. It is a delicate balancing act. Some would suggest that it is naive to think we can win over these hard-core America-haters with some sacks of rice. And they are right to be critical. But it is far more naive to believe that we can expand our circle of allies when we refuse to deal with political groups who don't already fit our narrow prerequisites. Metaphorized version: You will not win any converts preaching to the choir.

Somalia would be a great place to listen to Biden's "new tone" in US foreign policy music. Ahmed's new government needs international support, and it would not cost us much geopolitical capital to provide that support. We cannot guarantee success by acting, but not acting may guarantee failure. I need not quote Gandhi here. Instead I will offer this quote:

"...Today everyone thinks he or she is right and doesn't want to dialogue. We must abandon this culture. We must sit together, talk and come up with solutions to our problems. That is the best way forward."

Well said, Mr. President-Elect.

....................................

* The "President" of Somalia rarely exercises control over most of the country, most notably in the northern autonomous regions of Somaliland and Puntland.
** Withdrawal subject to further considerations (see Platt Amendment).
*** It is still a little exciting to say, type, read, or think the words: "the Obama Administration".

Reflections on the Eve of the Inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the President of the United States of America

2009-01-19T09:58:00.000-08:00

Today is a day of celebration for Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr.

Tomorrow we will bear witness to the soft and wise words of our next President, a man who has already become a symbol of hope, though the dark skin of his hand has yet to brush the Bible or guide a pen across a new piece of legislation. As a stranded traveler watches a pair of distant headlights growing closer in the fog, our eyes are fixed on this man as he assumes the Office. And yet we cannot help but be shook out of this fixation long enough to feel the portend of gloom; layoffs and salary cuts, foreclosure and evictions, stock crashes and bank failures. There is hope, but with it fear. There is joy, but it can barely mask the anger.

We are angry that despite our hard work and unyielding belief in the holy fairness of our great country, things are not as they should be. We are giving more and getting less than past generations. We are finding our roads to success and self-improvement blocked by higher costs and burdensome debts. "What have we done to deserve such a mess!", we wail, and "Why when the profiteers ride the market too hard does the hoof always hit us in the mouth?". We did not revolt when corporate crooks were refashioned into government hacks, or when thousands of our sons and daughters in uniform fell in battle with an enemy with whom we had no quarrel! No, we did not march on Frankenstein's castle for these crimes! We went shopping online for iPods, we watched our fellow Americans sing and dance their way to embarrassment on prime-time television, and we voted for Democrats (eventually). We thought long and hard about buying a hybrid car. We asked God to get us that big promotion, or help us make that big sale. We whined about the decline of our culture and the decadence of our youth. We erupted in anger when young children saw a black woman's breast bared on national television in between beer commercials.

And somewhere in there, the corporate rush to profit overwhelmed rationality, and we were too distracted to make sure someone was looking over the shoulders of the number-crunchers. And now the house of cards built to reach the golden apple has collapsed, all too predictably, and we are all left holding the proverbial bag. There are great villains in this game, to be certain, but their deeds do not, and will never, absolve us of responsibility for the state of our nation or the state of our world.

We must remember this as we watch the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama. He is certainly a remarkable man, both for who he is personally and what he represents culturally. In all worthwhile estimations, he has the tools and the dedication to be a great leader, ideal for the challenges and opportunities that present themselves at this moment in our history. However -- and I intend this to provide no humor -- he is not a racing horse. We cannot afford, literally or figuratively, to simply put our faith in him and his administration. We cannot stand idly by and simply hope that he is who we think he is. Obama is a great symbol, but symbols only acquire their meaning through the actions of their bearers: army grunts planting the American flag on Iwo Jima, or waving the two-fingered 'victory' -- now 'peace' -- sign as they return from liberating Nazi concentration camps. We must be those grunts, working hard to make sure our families and communities stay strong. We must not give this moment up to historical chance, we must fight to craft our nation and our world to suit us. We will tame the wild stallion that is the free market. We will demand and if necessary, supply, equal rights and equal access for all. We will raise our children in a better world. Some day, the face of President Barack Hussein Obama may grace our mountains and our currency, but in that carving will be contained our faces as well -- the faces of those who, starting tomorrow, will fortify their belief and their hope with passion and commitment.

Military Juntas of the Twenty-First Century: Guinea

2008-12-30T12:57:00.000-08:00

The leaders of the coup in the West African nation of Guinea plan to hold elections in 2010. A group of junior officers, led by Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, took power after the death of "President" Lansana Conte on December 22. Camara's junta has moved to consolidate power, "demoting" 22 generals, using force to intimidate powerful allies of the old regime, and threatening to execute anyone engaged in corruption. Guinea under Conte was named one of the ten most corrupt countries by Transparency International. Despite widespread support for the coup within Guinea, the new government was immediately shunned by the African Union and regional West African groups ECOWAS and the Mano River Union.

So there's a military coup in some little African country named after a flightless bird, or perhaps a unit of British currency...so what?

So... Guinea has the world's largest deposits of bauxite, the ore used to make alumina, which is then processed into aluminum. To illustrate the importance of Guinea to the international alumina market: during disturbances in 2007, the price of alumina jumped 76%. The country also has large deposits of iron ore, gold, and diamonds. Several multi-national corporations have multi-billion dollar extraction and processing projects planned, and other projects are already operating. There is a lot riding on control over these resources.

Gasps of horror as the junta announces, soon after seizing power, that it will be "cancelling all mining contracts". Interested parties include:

-Rio Tinto (British and Australian, world's 2nd or 3rd largest mining company), interested in building a $6 billion dollar iron ore project at Simandou (video). Their license to mine there, granted in 2006, was rescinded in August 2008, most likely because they were unwilling to pay additional bribes demanded by the Conte regime. Rio Tinto also owns Canadian aluminum company Alcan (the world's largest aluminum company) who has a stake in the Guinean national bauxite mining company (CBG), and is exploring its own alumina refinery. Rio Tinto has said the Simandou project, undertaken in concert with World Bank, has the potential to generate $10 billion dollars per year, and they had already spent more than $300 million to develop it. The value of this project was essential to Rio Tinto resisting a hostile takeover by BHP Billiton -- which leads us to our next interested party.

-BHP Billiton (Australian and British, world's largest mining company), co-majority stakeholder (33.3%) in the Guinea Alumina Corporation (which is 100% foreign-owned), as well as several other bauxite opertions. They had plans to build a $4.8 billion dollar alumina refinery. As noted above, they are attempted a takeover of Rio Tinto which would make their dominance of the mining industry unparalleled.

-United Company Rusal (Russian, world's second largest aluminum company), owns the Friguia Alumina Refinery, the purchase of which it was forced to renegotiate earlier this year by the Conte regime. The company is owned by Russian billionaire magnate Oleg Deripaska, who has faced some recent financial difficulties after being sued in British court by former Russian/Israeli business partner Mikhail Chernoy/Michael Cherney over shares in UC Rusal. Deripaska also had his visa revoked by the US State Department, and had ties to former Presidential candidate John McCain.

-Alcoa ( American, world's third largest aluminum company), owns a large stake in CBG (Rio Tinto Alcan and Alcoa both have a 45% stake in the Halco consortium, which in turn owns 51% of CBG - the Guinean government owns 49%). In July 2008, just before they extorted Rio Tinto over Simandou, the Conte regime replaced the existing Alcoa management of CBG.

-AngloGold Ashanti (British, South African, Ghanaian, large international gold miner), owns the Siguiri gold mine. The company was accused by Human Rights Watch of supporting a murderous group in the DR Congo in order to access a gold-rich area in that turbulent country.

-Benny Steinmetz (Israeli billionaire, invested in diamonds, real estate, and mining engineering projects through Bateman Engineering), several weeks before the coup claimed to have been granted half of Rio Tinto's Simandou area by the Conte regime.

check back for more later...

Military Juntas of the Twenty-First Century: Bangladesh

2008-12-30T09:02:00.000-08:00

The secular Awami League, led by Sheikh Hasina, has won the recent Bangladeshi parliamentary elections in a landslide. Although the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Khaleda Zia, has challenged the election, the results seem clear and the elections were declared free and fair by international obeservers. This new parliament is set to take control of the impoverished nation from the military junta which had ruled for two years. The military junta (benignly known as the "caretaker government") began in early 2007, after the previous electoral battle between the Awami League and the BNP turned into a bloody and chaotic street war.

The results of 2008 are a big shift from the results of the last standing election in 2001. That election saw the right-wing BNP win 193 seats to Awami's 62, and the main Islamist party take 17 seats. In contrast, the 2008 elections see the Awami-led coalition take more than 260 to BNP's 31, and the Islamist party "almost wiped out". Note that there are 300 seats in the Bangladeshi parliament.

Between floods, poverty, cyclones, and military intrusions into politics, it seems unlikely that Bangladesh would be able to sustain democracy. And there certainly remains a possibility that the opposition parties will cause a ruckus and incite more violence. Hopefully the will of the people will be respected, and the "caretakers" will step aside as planned.

Hot off the presses: Uh-oh.

Bangladeshis line up to vote (courtesy of the CBC)

Ecuador Drops the D-Bomb

2008-12-15T12:25:00.000-08:00

Ecuadorean President Rafael "The Mentalist" Correa announced Saturday that his country will be defaulting on an upcoming payment for "illegitimate" loans made by previous administrations. Ecuador was supposed to be making a $30 million dollar interest payment (and you thought your API was bad!), mostly to international banks and foreign governments. The power to default on foreign loans was given to El Presidente by the massive, Chavez-style referendum which was approved (64%) by the voters back in September. Correa made it clear that despite the global economic ice storm, Ecuador retained enough capital to make these payments -- but that it chose not to, based on a recent internal audit which found that these loans were illegitimate under Ecuadorean law.

This was a minor story carried by most MSM under the auspices of the global economic ice storm. However a story from everyone's favorite journalistic go-getter, McClatchy Newspapers, points out that this is the first time a country has defaulted on foreign debt simply out of choice. This is certainly a significant step towards a more level playing field in international debt financing. I believe Correa's action here fits under the general theme of the Great Financial Finger-Pointing of 2009. In this economic crisis, villains are easy to cast, and Correa has cast his finger, rightly so, at the Global South loan-peddlers and their financial enablers. Other countries and foreign affairs blog editors may also take this time to default on loans. It's like karaoke Thursday at the local bar -- everyone's already drunk and singing Marvin Gaye songs off-key, so what the hell, give me the microphone and shot of cheap whiskey.

Correa is already pretty popular, and this D-bomb can only add to his appeal. He will encounter problems if the price of oil keeps dropping, as this industry represents a good chunk (around 40%) of his economy. For now foreign investors will probably resort to some pushy lawsuits and threats to cut off foreign financing. These tactics are nearly moot. Correa has already contracted the massive Boston law firm of Foley & Hoag (Fox News "expert" talking point #1: Foley & Hoag also represents some detainees at Guantanamo Bay) to sue some of the original investors in the "illegitimate" loans. Threats to cut off foreign financing are basically toothless at a time when insolvency is the new black for practically every international financial institution -- the money's not coming, whether it's "cut off" or not.

Interesting soap-opera side note: The same day Correa made his announcement, his foreign minister resigned. Maria Isabel Salvador had only been in office for a year. Are these events related, or is her family just that cool?

Super-exclusive Erratum Terrium merchandising announcement below!

Are you a big fan of Rafael Correa? Do you support Global South debt relief? Will you buy a T-shirt, regardless of content, just because it is new and nobody else has it? If you answered "yes" to one or more of these questions, then pass 'GO', collect $14.99 from your parents' wallet, and go directly HERE.

Addendum (12/16/08)

The collective mouth of the Western financial world opens in shock and horror. A Third World country defaulting on foreign loans -- and this time it's not because their coffers have been licked dry by a corrupt banana dictator! A puny wanna-be socialist telling Wall Street bankers he's got better things to do with his money then pay them exorbitant interest rates! What nerve! We must teach him a lesson!

The Fitch Rating Agency slaps Ecuador with an across-the-board investment downgrade. Portfolio.com declares Correa "idiotic". Seeking Alpha ties the decision to an anti-imperialist 'Bolivarian' ideology. So this default decision was short-sighted and lacked pragmatism...right?

Wrong. Rafael Correa is no short-sighted populist. He has a PhD in Economics from the University of Illinois. His new foreign minister, Fander Falconi, has a doctorate in economics from la Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona. These are not men who lack awareness of the consequences of their actions. Correa's administration has been threatening to default on this "illegitimate" debt for over a year, and specifically included the power to do so in their September referendum. Everyone agrees the country retained, and retains, the ability to make these payments, as they have been doing for decades under both leftists and military juntas.

The debt default is part of a well-planned and forward-thinking economic policy. One goal of this policy seems to be the end of dollarization in Ecuador. Ecuador has used the dollar since 2000, when its local currency, the sucre, spiralled out of control. The dollar is no longer the monetary heavyweight it once was, and Ecuador is not alone in trying to escape the Dollar Zone. Another part of this policy is the assertion of a precedent in international North-South lending: Don't make deals with illegitimate governments, because those deals can be thrown out later.

I think Correa is also betting on a lot of the investors to bite on debt renegotiation. This debt has already been renegotiated twice before. However many of these investors are short on capital given the current climate, and Ecuador's ability to pay make renegotiation, even on very pro-Ecuador terms, much more attractive than any attempt to seize assets through the courts. So in this way Correa can take advantage of the economic glo-pocalypse to rid himself of burdensome debt servicing, set a strong precedent for poor debtor nations weaning themselves off the Washington Consensus, and all the while increase his local and regional popularity.

Progressive Challenge for the 21st Century, Part I

2008-11-20T10:22:00.000-08:00

We won! We ended eight years of tyrannical idiocy, we elected the nation's first African-American president, we organized a tremendous grassroots effort and overcame the two most powerful political machines in recent history and by doing so turned a new, brighter page in our history. Yes we could and Yes we did! Now what?

There are many challenges that lie ahead -- the ultimate over-stated understatement for this last leg of 2008. As a progressive, I look at how our current economic crisis intersects with our longer-lasting crises in health care, education, and affordable housing to cause and portend ruin for masses of working families. I shudder when I see unemployment rates rising, and can only imagine how many desperate people aren't even included in the already horrific figures because they have either stopped trying to find work, or are stringing enough out of part-time minimum wage jobs so that the ends of their economic belt might occasionally meet before rent is due. I burn to hear of top CEOs flying corporate jets to Washington to beg for bailout money, blaming unions for their troubles while laid-off autoworkers sit down with their spouses late at night, forced to choose between heating their homes and buying Christmas presents for their kids. And after I think of these things, I tend to remember who our next President is, and it gives me some relief from my anxiety. But I am not satisfied, because I am a progressive, and it is not in our nature to be satisfied.

The progressive movement stands for decency and fairness above all. It stands for a government which protects all its people, not just from military attack, but as well from hunger and illness. Progressives believe that government can serve as a force for good in society when it is led by those who will fight for the common good. We believe that a rising tide lifts all boats, and not that bigger boats will somehow lift the tide. The progressive movement has a vital role to play in this new century, not only to counter the influence of those jet-setting beggar executives and their pocket politicians, but to craft a whole new vision for how the world economy should function.

To do that we need passion, intelligence, and unity. But we also need honesty. It is easy to criticize the profit-idolaters and religious zealots. It is more difficult to point that same lens back at our own history and ideas. The progressive movement may have lofty ideals, but we have not always chosen the best means to reach them.

For nearly a century many progressives pushed Communism and Socialism as the answer to the problems of modern society. We advocated for Stalin and Mao even when we knew, or should have known, about their totalitarian madness. As an interlude, I urge readers to resist becoming defensive at this point. We must admit our weaknesses in order to understand them, and to not repeat the mistakes of the past. We celebrate(d) Castro and Che, Lenin and Trotsky, and countless Third World revolutionaries for their gall to fight against evil capitalists. We decided that governments, well-run, could fix all of our problems through legislation. We danced in the streets for the New Deal and the Great Society programs. When a problem arose, we applied our magic cure: more government spending. We demonized globalization and Wall Street. Now, wait just one second, you say -- this author calls himself a "progressive"? Sounds more like a Fox News pundit! The point I am trying to make here is that we were wrong to believe that government could solve our problems, and we were wrong to believe that the capitalist system is inherently evil. Government should be limited and capitalism is okay...Rush Limbaugh is popping pills and nodding his head. What is this madness?

TWTW Episode 3 -- August 26, 2008

2008-08-26T15:40:00.000-07:00

TWTW Episode 2!

2008-08-12T23:08:00.000-07:00

TWTW Episode 1

2008-07-25T14:19:00.000-07:00

Behold the Mighty Erratum Terrium Empire!

2008-07-13T12:24:00.000-07:00

As you may or may not know, Erratum Terrium has recently undergone a change in ownership. The new owners are, of course, much, much better than the old ones. As a result, Erratum Terrium is proud to announce the upcoming development of a weekly inter-tube news programme to be called "The Week That Was" -- or for those of us prone to brevity, "TWTW". We hope to bring our message of hope and change to the masses, so that they may bask in the richness of our news reporting and analysis. Failing that, we hope to edutain the masses into submission.

Please view the test intro:

Syria and North Korea: It's Getting Nuclear Up In Here

2008-04-25T12:21:00.000-07:00

On September 6, 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a romantically isolated building in the eastern deserts of Syria. There was an unusually muted public reaction by all parties involved, and much speculation fed by a cornucopia of conspiracy theories. Some eight months later, the US hands over information to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) which "proves" that Israel had bombed a nearly-completed atomic plant, constructed with the help of the North Koreans. This had been one of the original conspiracy theories in September 2006, with some (but not all) US officials forwarding this nuclear cooperation theory. Both US Congressmen (including Republican Pete Hoekstra) and the IAEA expressed great anger that this intelligence had been withheld from them for so long.

This whole incident clearly shows the complete and dangerous lack of foreign policy consensus within the Bush Administration, within the US government, and between the US and Israel. And let's be clear: this incident has much more to do with ongoing diplomatic negotiations than it does with the issue of non-proliferation. US intelligence officials have been quoted as saying they have "low confidence" that the Syrian facility was intended to produce material for nuclear weapons.

The Six-Party talks (US, China, North Korea, Russia, Japan, and South Korea) are aimed at buying off the North Koreans to dismantle their nuclear program. Some believe that the public presentation of these allegations are an attempt by some in the Bush Administration (and perhaps their Israeli allies) to damage the Six Party talks, and perhaps focus US [military?] attention on Syria -- and by proxy its ally Iran. Setting backs the talks would also give the Bush Administration's neo-con hawks (Cheney and Stephen "Where's Tibet?" Hadley) a big victory over their enemies at the State Department (Rice and Six-Party lead negotiator and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher "Asian People Love Me" Hill. However the White House has made no statements to the effect that the Six Party talks would be negatively affected by these allegations. Only Japan, a long-time opponent of concessions to North Korea, has signaled any kind of change coming.

Danger alert: It seems very possible that the public presentation of these allegations were instigated by Cheney, Hadley, and their underlings in the Pentagon -- with a clear intention to bypass not only Congressional oversight but Executive oversight as well. The idea that evidence of this importance was not given to the House Intelligence Committee is incredible. Republican Pete "Don't Stop Believin" Hoekstra, the ranking member on the committee and long-time WMD hunter went as far as to say that "...they [the administration] have really damaged the relationship between Congress and the administration." But this is not the first time the neo-cons have lied to Congress or the American people (see: US History, 2001-present). However this time it seems they have made the end-run around the Executive Branch itself. Let's take a closer look:

-According to the administration, Syria (state sponsor of terrorism) has been secretly constructing a nuclear facility for non-peaceful purposes with the help of North Korea (also a state sponsor of terrorism). I mean, at least one of them is gonna get invaded, right?! Lace up your boots and strap on those laser-guided missiles! Here's the White House Press Secretary:
"If Syria wants better relations with the international community, it should put an end to these activities...We have long been seriously concerned about North Korea's nuclear weapons program and its proliferation activities...through this process [the Six Part talks] we are working with our partners to achieve the verifiable de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula."
Now wait just one second! What happened to "You're either with us, or against us"? The White House is sounding like...I never thought I would say this...like diplomats.

The CIA, relying as usual on foreign (in this case Israeli) human intelligence, is a pawn in this political game. This is not a new role for them -- read Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner.

Rogue Nation

2008-03-23T20:17:00.000-07:00

In this week's edition we will explore the history of an anonymous foreign country. We must be unbiased to properly judge them, and what it means to be a "rogue nation". This country might be in Africa, or Asia. Or it might not. Let us call this country Koreastan.

Early on in its history Koreastan invaded and stole a great deal of territory from its neighbor. It instigated several incidents and marched regular and paramilitary armies into nearby territories, claiming them for its own. This would not be the last time Koreastan invaded nearby countries. It's military became dominant in the region, and it used threats of violence, and often actual invasions, to gain control of economically valuable resources in the region. Koreastan is ruled by an ethnic minority who continue to control a vast majority of the country's economic resources. They have regular elections which usually meet basic international standards -- however, it is only very recently that anyone outside the narrow ethnic and ideological minority has been allowed to hold high office. The dominant minority have often used the state apparatus to repress ideological opponents and ethnic minorities demanding greater rights. There have been several times in their history where the army has been used for this purpose, including one sustained campaign against one minority group which lasted several decades and nearly wiped out all members of that ethnicity. Although they have experiences relatively high economic growth rates at times, severe poverty remains a serious problem, with many families unable to meet their basic health and shelter needs. Despite growing populist rhetoric from its leaders, Koreastan remains a nation where the economic resources largely benefit a small privileged minority. And despite a lack of serious external threats, Koreastan continues to use force, or the threat of force, to solve disputes with neighboring countries.

What should the international community do with Koreastan? Do we introduce economic sanctions to encourage better behavior? Do we limit the military equipment they are allowed to acquire? Do we send in mediators to arrange power sharing deals between the ruling minority and oppressed ethnic groups?

Oh, and a side note to the short history of 'Koreastan': they were the first and only country to use nuclear weapons against another country.

Feel free to re-read this post. A little snack for thought.

Weekly Round-Up

2008-03-04T16:32:00.000-08:00

ErrTerr was going to be broadcasting an incredibly revelatory and incendiary political piece guaranteed to send beepers flying off the pants of Dick Cheney's doctors. But there were "technical difficulties". We "sincerely" apologize.

And now for a Weekly Round-Up! Off we go!

RUSSIA
Dmitry "Putin Jr." Medvedev wins the presidential "election" in Russia. Widely understood that his victory was assured back in December when Putin announced that he would be United Russia's candidate. Junior's relations with Putin go back to the early 1990s, when both were working at St. Petersburg State University. They have worked closely together since, with Junior managing Daddy's presidential campaign in 2000 before becoming the chairman of Gazprom in 2002. Speaking of Gazprom, a few days after the election they cut gas shipments to Ukraine by 50%, citing $600 million in unpaid bills.
"But we never got any notices!"
"We sent three."
"But where did you send them to? Maybe you had the wrong address. I swear we never got them. Maybe it got stuck in with the junk mail. Oh man, where am I gonna get six hundred mil? Maybe I could ask my parents...no, they would just ask what I doing with all that gas. This blows."

CAUCASUS
Armenia erupts in violent protests over the results of recent election. Armenia and Azerbaijan re-ignite Nagorno-Karabakh dispute -- and who started it this time? Armenian gov't looking to refocus the anger of its citizens, or Azerbaijani gov't looking to exploit temporary Armenian weakness?

SUDAN
Violence on the border between North and South Sudan. The battle was between the SPLM, a Southern Sudanese remnant from the two-decade long civil war, and the local Misseriya tribe in Abyei, an oil-rich region. The 2005 peace agreement seems to be holding, but many are saying its demise is only a matter of time.

AMAZONIAN JUGLE
Colombian forces strike into Ecuador, killing a senior FARC commander and others. Ecuador mobilizes its troops to the border, as do Colombia and Venezuela. All diplomatic connections are severed. War of words erupts between Colombian President Uribe and Venezuelan President Chavez. No shots fired as of yet. Bet on Colombia and Venezuela stepping up support for dissident and rebel groups within each other's borders. However, real war is unlikely as commercial trade ties between the three countries continue unabated.

KURDISTAN*
Turkish forces enter, and a few days later, exit Northern Iraq. They strike at Kurdish rebel organizations -- but, of course, mostly kill innocent civilians. The US mutters some light condemnations, but overall seems to have given its assent.

UNITED STATES
More primary elections for the Democratic Party. According to the media, the media loves Obama, and the media now thinks that perhaps it has loved him too much. So the media will now hold round tables and talk shows to decide exactly how much it should love him. John McCain has yet to embarrass himself publicly. But there's no time like the first time to...
ErrTerr's odd-makers say:
744-1: Make out with his wife on stage a la Al and Tipper
55-1: Make out on stage with someone who he thought was his wife
54-1: Turns out that person was Karl Rove
15-1: Back up over a shopping cart while driving the Straight Talk Express
8-1: Get caught stocking up on Metamucil at Costco
1-1: Run first TV ad of general election with endorsement from Andy Griffith

*Erratum Terrium does not, we repeat, does not recognize Kurdistan as an independent state. We also do not recognize the cultural and culinary merits of Jamba Juice. It is overrated in our opinion. Please send Kurdistan and Jamba Juice-related death threats to our regular email address. Death threats must be typed into the body of the email. We will not read attachments.

Reflections on the day of remembrance for Dr. Martin Luther King, 2008

2008-01-21T09:51:00.000-08:00

We often find ourselves looking back, into history, for tried solutions to modern problems and an experienced guide towards the future. We wrap ourselves in the words of the heroes on headstones, weaving their bold triumphs into the fabric and strength of our identities. And yet these exercises in continuity are rarely pure; quotations given new meanings by new orators, symbols of peace re-appropriated onto flags of war, and ancient history twisted to justify modern inhumanity. The leaders of our world are professionals in this dance of national identity and pride. They gather up their symbols and their heroes and say "This is what it means to be Kenyan" and "This is what it means to be American". These leaders are our leaders, and so we, the people, are just as guilty as they, our eyes and souls willing partners in this dance of manipulation.

What does it mean, then, to have a national holiday for a man who was an opponent of the national government? And what does it mean to celebrate a man whose vision, now forty years old, is barely closer to fruition than it was on the day he was assassinated? These questions, I believe, point to the great strengths and to the great weaknesses of our society. We must take pride in those strengths, but at the same time acknowledge our weaknesses -- not as unnecessary grime due to the "others" in our society, but as a real part of our identity.

Dr. King was fought and feared, not just by stereotypical racist segregationists, but by the 'liberal' establishment as well. Robert Kennedy himself signed the order to begin FBI wiretapping of King. King's Riverside Church speech against the war in Vietnam earned him the ire of the 'liberal media' Washington Post, Time Magazine, and New York Times. Lyndon Johnson once referred to him as a "hypocrite preacher". Dr. King advocated for democratic socialism and serious social and economic reform. It took fifteen years to pass a bill in Congress creating a national holiday, and it was only in 1999 that the last state (way to go, New Hampshire) joined recognition of the holiday. Senator Jesse Helms, the strongest opponent of the holiday, publicly called Dr. King a Communist and a sexual predator and still went on to win three more terms (thank you, North Carolina). And here lies one great social strength: our ability to function despite polarizing differences, allowing all sides to speak their mind and receive recognition. We did not choose to forget such a polarizing figure; we simply debated, peacefully, until one side got its way. Having a holiday for Dr. King is only one example. Here free speech is not a right begrudged by a wary elite, but instead a celebrated pillar of our national identity. We are able to subsume our hatred for the Other's opinion, religion, or values, under this blanket of freedom. Diversity does not threaten our national identity, rather it fortifies our belief that we are special for being able to accept these differences. This is no small achievement. One need not look far in the foreign headlines to find countries torn to shreds by diversity.

And yet despite the stability of our progress over the last few decades, we have done little to erase the social and economic problems that racked the days of Dr. King. Despite the efforts of thousands of well-intentioned bureaucrats and activists, we still live in a country where class mobility is shrinking, the income gap is growing, health care and higher education are inaccessible to the poor, and great gleaming walls of prejudice still stand between racial and ethnic minorities and their dreams. Poor people, seduced by the military with rarely-heard promises of a better life, are still dying in unnecessary wars -- fighting for a country in which, no matter how many 'gooks' or 'towelheads' they killed, they will still be judged based on the color of their skin and the content of their wallet.

So this is America: Freedom and Inequality for all. A land where you are free to speak your mind, just so long as you understand that your opinions are worth less than they would be if you were wearing a more expensive suit and a lighter tone of skin. A land where theft and exploitation are accepted, as long as you do it with a pen instead of with a gun. This is America. So where do Dr. King and his legacy fit in? We must struggle to not let our history define us; we must instead seek to define its place in our struggle for self- and national improvement. Dr. King fought for social equality, but he would not want to see a nation of people yoked to the beam balance. Improvement isn't about getting rid of the "bad" elements, because that divide is never clear. The "good" and the "bad" are part and parcel. It is because of our insistence on freedom that inequality persists. And it is because of how secure the elite feel that they allow such freedom among the masses. We should not rid ourselves of the racists or the corporate raiders, because all of us are prejudiced and all of us would exploit the "other" if it sufficiently benefited ourselves and our families. We, personally and nationally, are all responsible for everything "good" or "bad" that goes on in our society.

Where, then, do we go from here? Do we accept the status quo, the permanence and necessity of the Yin and the Yang, and go about our business? Or is there a path to action without anger, to change without destruction? In lieu of any futile answers, I will quote the eloquence of Dr. King:

"We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world -- a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now let us begin. Now let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter -- but beautiful -- struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise we must choose in this crucial moment of human history."

(Another blog's take on MLK Day here.)

Hotspot: Kenya

2008-01-01T10:08:00.000-08:00

Kenya is seen by many as a stable democratic stronghold in an otherwise chaotic and despotic area of Africa. Neighbored by Somalia, Ethiopia, and Sudan, its political and economic progress over the past years has been remarkable. It was the country that housed refugees, not created them. It was a country that rose from the ashes of harsh British rule and decades of dictatorship to become the favored nation of the West; its aid dollars and its tourism. However this status is at serious risk as a result of violence sweeping the country following the December 27 presidential and parliamentary elections.

Over 300 people have been killed so far in post-election violence. Much of this violence seems to have an ethnic basis, pitting the politically advantaged Kikuyu tribe against the Luo and other minorities. Violent attacks, looting, militia roadblocks, and police clashes with protesters have swept through the country. In one particularly horrific incident, 89 people were burned alive in a church in Eldoret. According to the UN, there are now over 180,000 IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) in Kenya, and thousands more have fled to neighboring Uganda.

What are the causes of this sudden and terrible transformation? Let us take a look at Kenyan history, both past and present.

The area now called Kenya has a human history dating back millions of years, to the days of homo habilis and homo erectus. It has since played host to a variety of homo sapiens ethnic groups, including the Cushitic, Nilotic, Bantu, and Arab peoples. The Swahili language developed as a result of this linguistic amalgam; a need for a common language among merchants and prospective husbands. At various points the region suffered from colonization attempts by the Portugese, Germans, and British. It was the British who finally surrendered to local rule in 1963, whereupon Jomo Kenyatta became the new nation's first president. The years preceding independence had seen great bloodshed with the British exerting full military pressure to crush the Mau Mau rebellion from 1952-1960. Out of this chaos came the strongman Kenyatta and his Kenyan African National Union party. One party rule lasted from 1963 until 2002, through the reigns of Kenyatta and Daniel Arap Moi (1978-2002). In 2002 Arap Moi was defeated by current president Mwai Kibaki, a former economist, and his National Rainbow Coalition. 2002 marked the first time in nearly forty years that power had changed hands in Kenya. Despite the lack of political freedom, the Kenyan economy had flourished, becoming a huge tourist destination and recipient of Western aid. The second economy, made up of unofficial and undocumented employment, grew as well, providing jobs for the masses in Kenya's teeming urban centers. Corruption remains entrenched -- but in this part of Africa, if corruption is your biggest problem, then you are quite lucky.

Which brings us to the December 27 election. Raila Odinga, leader of the opposition Orange Democratic Movement, was challenging Kibaki for the presidency. Raila seemed to have momentum going into the election, and the initial vote counts were going his way. But then the counts shifted, and on December 30 Kibaki was declared the winner. Within an hour he had himself sworn in for a second term. EU election monitors began murmuring about fraudulent vote counts and, as word got out, protests by Raila's supporters began. Raila declared himself the winner of the election and demanded a recount. Within days the international community was convinced that the vote counts were false, and Kibaki's own people began deserting him. His election commission chief said that he was not sure if Kibaki had won. His attorney general called for an independent investigation. Meanwhile violence sweeps the country, and neither Kibaki nor Raila makes a move to bring about reconciliation. The BBC has an excellent break-down of recent political events here.

What seems to be appearing here is a choice between democracy and stability. Kibaki obviously has a strong desire to stay in power, and he is probably still the candidate favored by the U.S. and Britain. It seems that Kibaki's strategy is to clamp down on major protests, and wait until people decide that they would rather have stability than democracy. Raila benefits from continued unrest, as it brings the attention of international observers who lend substance to his claim of election fraud and puts pressure on Kibaki's government. Herein lies the problem: Both leaders think they will benefit by waiting. Meanwhile the Kenyan people are being chased from their homes, killed in the street, starved by lack of supplies or employment, and ethnic rivalries are bursting with rage through the seams of a once-peaceful nation.

Putin Wins? / Chavez Loses?

2007-12-03T10:33:00.000-08:00

In Russia, Putin's Parties (aka United Russia, Liberal Democrats, and A Just Russia) "sweep" to a huge victory in parliamentary elections, garnering 64.1%, 8.2%, and 7.8% respectively. The only other party to clear the 7% hurdle (recently raised from 5%) required for representation in parliament was the Communists, with 11.6%.

Especially noteworthy was the turnout percentage in war-torn Chechnya: 99.2%. And over 99% of those voters apparently voted for United Russia. This is terrible news for Ramzan "I've already killed them" Kadyrov, the murderer-in-chief of Chechnya -- falling well short of the 100% support he had previously promised for Putin. Interesting though, how killing and torturing a people makes them vote for you. Bush for Iraqi Prime Minister, anyone?

The Western media was filled with words like "fraud", "fraudulent", and "frauderrific". (Editor's note: Frauderrific is not a real word. Our corporate sponsors have been pushing the 25-to-35 age group, and according to our latest focus-groupings, they really likes words that end in "errific". Apologies to those not in the correct age group.) But what's more concerning than the accusations of fraud was the lack of Russian response. Here was the most vigorous defense from a Kremlin spokesperson:
"What we faced here was a free and democratic election campaign, and the fact that we now, according to preliminary results, are expecting a three- or four-party parliament shows that this was really a race. The unique characteristic of that race was the leadership of one party, the front-runner, United Russia."

But Putin said nothing of the sort. He spoke of domestic stability and a moral mandate. After the elections, a group of protesters was arrested in Saint Petersburg holding 'funeral services for democracy'. I imagine they were referring to democracy specifically in Russia -- and it is most certainly dead. Is there still hope in the rest of the world?

..............................................................

Something democracy-ish seems to still to be kicking around in Venezuela. President Hugo "Why Don't You Shut Up!" Chavez barely lost his bid (51 to 49%) to a pass a referendum that would have ended presidential term limits, extended social security benefits, consolidated monetary powers, shortened the working week, changed administrative boundaries, allowed media censorship in times of crisis, and lowered the voting age to 16. This rejection seemed to surprise many in the Western press, who apparently believed that Chavez had complete control of the country.

Yes, he has exercised dictatorial rule over much of Venezuela's political and media spheres. He is unabashed in his desire for the creation of a socialist state with himself as El Jefe. But this referendum must be considered proof that his hand only extends so far. The opposition is obviously well-organized and well-funded. Chavez's popularity rests, ironically, with his populism.

Interesting to note that despite how close the vote was, Chavez has not called for a recount. One imagines that would be well in his power. The reason for this is probably two-fold: one, he has reliable information from within the vote-counters that the count is reliable and not apt to change on recount; and two, he has legitimate fears that a call for a recount will bring about large street demonstrations by the opposition.

There has been speculation that he will seek the same changes by decree of the National Assembly, a legal sidestep of the constitutional process. He certainly retains enough power to do so.

.......................................................

What do these two counties share? (besides a few major arms deals, a hatred of the USA, and the letter "u") Hint: It begins deep in the earth and ends in "oleum". No, not linoleum.

Venezuela and Russia are the two countries who have arguably benefited most from the oil boom of the recent years. Putin and Chavez have been able to consolidate power and build popularity based largely on the largess of their oil profits.

The political left often says that our addiction to oil supports terrorism. They refer, of course, to the madrassas and charity-funnels funded by rich Saudis who get a large percentage of their profits from selling oil to the West. It is more than likely that at least some of Bin Laden's funding for 9/11 came from Saudi oil profits. But more of this money actually has gone straight back to the US in the form of construction, infrastructure, and defense contracts. The real beneficiaries of Western oil over-consumption are the petrogarchs. Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela -- just to name some of the bigger fish (sorry Sweden, but Norway doesn't count...yes, I remember Quisling...no, my mind is made up).

Basically our obsession with petroleum products (that means you too, petroleum jelly) supports the decline of democracy. Stop by any university library and look for books on rentier states -- that is, if you're one of those "intellectual-types" (Read: communist). And next time you drive by a gas station and see me filling up the Erratum Terrium corporate Hummer with $4/gallon gas, make sure to slow down and ask me why I hate freedom.

.....................................................................

Editor's note #2: The New York Times has spies in the Erratum Terrium corporate offices! I began this post yesterday, and low and behold I stumble across this "editorial" on their website today. The ErrTerr Board of Directors/Secret Cabal has hereby decided to blacklist the NYT...never again will they be linked to from this website! Take that, Bill "No Original Ideas" Keller!

.......................................................................

Editor's note #3: The words "petrogarch" and "petrogarchy" are sole property of Erratum Terrium. Please, no unauthorized use. I said please. We can't afford lawyers.

What Went Bump in the Night?

2007-09-19T05:13:00.000-07:00

In the first dark hours of September 6, Israeli war planes scream in over the desert of Eastern Syria. On their way out they leave some presents -- fuel tanks -- right over the border in Turkey. It is not the first time since the hostilities of last summer that Israeli pilots have flown over Syrian territory, but this time is different. This time the fly-over went public, exploding in a complex stream of misinformation, puzzling silence, and, of course, conspiracy theories. But what was it that went bump in the Syrian night?

In the post below you can find a poorly written and partially complete time line of the events surrounding what we will call "the Bump". This time line focuses on newspaper sources and extraneous happenings that may relate to the Spin around the Bump. You can read this, and many other accounts and analyses, and draw your own conclusions. Or read on and let me Etch-a-Sketch my conclusions for you. You can be the Watson to my Holmes, or if it suits you better, the Hutch to my Starsky.

Background information:
Syria and Israel having been dancing around peace talks for months. Relations have been bumpy, but generally better since the end of the Second Lebanon War last summer. However Israel is very worried about Iran, an ally of Syria. Israel has stated it cannot allow a nuclear Iran, and would likely take military action to prevent this from happening. Syria recently purchased 50 units of the Pantsyr air defense system from Russia, 10 of which will eventually go to Iran. Turkey is on good terms with both Israel and Syria, but is nervous about the region resulting from recent internal instability and movements of the Kurds in Iraq towards independence. Russia is trying to make inroads in the Middle East, and former Soviet allies like Syria are prime targets. The US bogged down militarily in Iraq, but still tries to throw its weight around against any country not in line with it's anti-Islamist, pro-cheap oil, pro-Israel policies.

Now let us consider some of the oddities which draw attention to the Bump:

-There has yet to be a public statement by Israel or the US on this incident

-Israeli actions pre- (telling Damascus of draw-down of troops from Golan) and post- (calling for peace talks) Bump seem to be peaceful

-Starting on Sept. 11, a variety of American sources are quoted saying very different things (including first mention of nuclear cooperation with N. Korea)

-Despite nuclear gossip, US goes ahead with 6-party talks in Beijing -- talks which are then delayed by N. Korea

-Someone named Ronen Solomon discovered the mystery of the N. Korean ship the Al-Hamad, which was carrying "cement" and landed at Tartous in Syria 3 days before the Bump. The ship changed flags several times, and it's online records were doctored after the report came out. But who is Ronen Solomon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is certainly a very interesting series of events. By looking deeper we may gain insight into the foreign and domestic policies of the countries involved. However there is a lot of what Dick Cheney would call fucking bull**** swirling around this incident, and it is through that fucking bull**** that we will wade. Ladies and gentlemen, strap on your galoshes.

What we know + What we can fairly deduce:

a. Neither Israel nor Syria acted like this was a hostile attack.
-Israel made moves towards peace, both before and after. They never offered any sort of official proof that Syria was doing something wrong. They never responded to Syria's mobilization of its reserves a few days after the Bump.
-Syria did, at one point, call it a "deliberate and hostile attack". But their outrage, if indeed genuine, was otherwise muted. Their official story remained that Israeli planes entered Syrian airspace, were targeted by their air defense systems, and fled, dropping the munitions and fuel tanks on the way out. Their official statements remained committed to peace and stability. Their biggest priority continued to be their international outreach campaign.
- Three possible conclusions:
1) That there was no real attack, that everything was blown way out of proportion, or
2) That there was a strike in Syria, but it was not hostile to the Syrian government, or
3) That there was a hostile attack, but both Syria and Israel had reasons to not talk about it or treat it that way

b. Neither US nor Israeli officials made public comments, and their private comments were all over the map
1) This makes it very unlikely that there was a successful strike against Syria, or anyone inside of Syria (unless there was a deal with Syria to keep it quiet)
2) The fact that newspaper sources were so disparate in their analyses means that: a) high-level sources to the top newspapers in the world did not know what was going on -- even a week afterwards, or b) those high-level sources were making things up to fit a political agenda.
It was probably some combination, but when NYT and Reuters stories are naming 3 or 4 different sources with 3 or 4 different stories, then it starts to smell a little fishy. Then throw the mysterious Ronen Solomon into the mix. Who does mass confusion help? Who is helped by nuclear rumors about the Syrians and North Koreans?

c. It is highly unlikely that the Israelis attacked a site of nuclear cooperation between Syria and North Korea
-First of all, it makes little sense that the Syrians would try to develop nuclear capabilities secretly. They have little to gain, and a lot to lose. Assad seems to legitimately desire peace with Israel and modernization for his country. While nuclear weapons are leverage against attack, developing them secretly is like walking around Israel with a swastika T-shirt: You're gonna get noticed, and you're gonna get your ass beat.
-Secondly, it makes little sense for North Korea to risk the six-party talks by sending nuclear material to Syria, especially with the ship landing while they were meeting with the US in Geneva. They have, admittedly, pulled some crazy shit in the past, but this just doesn't make sense. If they do have equipment or material they need to get rid of, it makes more sense to declare that stuff and use it as bargaining chips in the negotiations (as they have been doing for more than fifteen years).
-Lastly, it doesn't make sense that Israel and the US would know about this nuclear cooperation, never make a single public accusation, and then continue to act as if this cooperation did not effect their relations in any significant way. Even if the strike on this facility failed, you would think it would have some impact on relations between the two pairs of countries. And you wouldn't think the US would allow the nuclear accusation to get lost in the haystack of the rest of the theories.
- This theory also has a problem of guilt by association. Namely, John Bolton, Stephen Hadley, and Ronen Solomon. Bolton is publicly and vigorously against negotiating with North Korea, and he would not be beyond making wild accusations to scuttle the six-party talks. Hadley was associated with the same people who cooked the books on the Iraq nuclear intelligence, so he certainly is capable, and the neocons have always been suspicious of Syria. Solomon is simply an enigma. The timing and significance of his report are very suspect, as is the "I swear it said something different yesterday" excuse. I may not be his mother, but I am heretofore bestowing the nickname of "Yellowcake" on Mr. Solomon. Let's just hope he doesn't get mentioned in the State of the Union.

What does this leave us with? If there was indeed a deliberate bombing by Israel, it was probably with done with the knowledge, if not the support, of the Syrian government. This was a remote, unpopulated desert area on the border with Iraq -- perhaps it was some sort of Muslim Brotherhood-related terrorist group that Syria also wanted gone. I know it sounds crazy, but realpolitik has made similar "here today-gone tomorrow" Frankenstein alliances in the past. This would explain why no one made a big deal out of it -- except for the US and Israeli warmongers who jumped at the chance to make a huge deal out of it by dropping the N-bomb.

The other possibility, much less crazy, is that Israel was testing the Syrian Pantsyr air defense systems as practice for a possible strike on Iran. They may have bombed something, but it was of no real military importance. Everyone was then quiet because there was nothing much to say.
Perhaps in the coming days we will find out the real story. But don't count on it, my dear Watson.

The Timeline that Went Bump in the Night

2007-09-18T10:05:00.000-07:00

Sept 3
-mtg btw FM Moallem and Ahmadinejad in Tehran
-Al-Hamad docks at Tartous in Syria under N Korea flag carrying cement

Sept 5
-Kucinich meets w Assad in Damascus
-talks held this week btw US and Nkoreans to stabilize relations in Geneva
-Olmert tells Solana to tell Assad that Israel will withdraw troops from Golan Hts

Sept 6
-Assad does interview with Katie Couric on stability in Iraq
-Syria: before dawn Israeli planes break sound barrier over N. Syria and drop "munitions" in unpopulated areas, no casualties -- complain but do not make a big deal
-Israel calls it Operation Orchard, israeli pilots not told of target until en route
-Syrian official says they "fired heavily" at Israeli planes, SANA says planes only "confronted"
-Min. of Info Bilal: "Syria retains the right to determine the quality, type and nature of its response."
Russia: "extreme concern"
Iran: support for Syria
US: not enough details
Israel: no comment on military operations

Sept 7
-israeli officials do not deny that they have flown over syria before
-worries by all that tensions may escalate, but no indication from higher up
-all seems to be silent on this day
Syrian VP Al-Shara: "I can say now that in Damascus a series of responses is being examined at the highest political and military levels. The results will not take long in coming."

Sept 8
Al-Arabiya: israeli official says strike aimed at russian-made missile system
hezbollah MP: strike aimed at putting pressue on Iran
Syrian minister Shaaban: when asked if israel attacked, responded only that airspace was violated
-israeli fuel tanks found in turkey near border, pictures on front page of Hurriyet newspaper, turkey says: "we have asked israel to explain"

Sept 9
powerful Syrian MP Habash: Israeli attacked failed, because if it had been successful (like 1981 Osirak), they would have said so
Syrian FM Moallem in turkey for talks: "We are prepared to defend ourselves against any attack that Israel may plan, but our basic priority is a comprehensive peace."
Israeli PM olmert: "I want to express my appreciation of the security forces's courageous and unusual operations that are aimed at impeding the activities of terror groups,"
Israeli minister Rafi Eitan: "The Syrians cannot say that they want peace and encourage terrorism,"
former IDF chief of staff uzi dayan: "The Israeli silence has started to exhaust itself,"
-Assad visits Tartous

Sept 10
Turkish FM Babacan: israeli actions "unacceptable development"
Syrian FM Moallem in Turkey: "Israel used live ammunition in a deliberate and hostile attack," "dropped bombs over Syria, they dropped fuel tanks on Syrian soil.", said that three Israeli planes fired four missiles at targets on the ground in the Dayr al-Zur district in eastern Syria
-Moallem does not demand that EU condemn attack, EU diplomats say they think Syria does not want to escalate incident
AL-Hayat: Olmert relayed message day before Sept 6 strike to damascus through EU's Javier Solana that israel will cut troops in golan hts.
-lack of arab support for syria
-hezbollah repeats that israeli strike practice for iran

Sept 11
CNN: American source says that israeli strike may have targeted weapons from iran to hezbollah, used group troops, "left a big hole in the desert" in

Syria

-Syria makes formal complaint to UN
AFP: US offical says strike a warning to Syria not to rearm hezbollah
Al-Sinara(w. bank): Israeli source says strike targeted joint syrian-iranian missile base, razed it to the ground
"DoD official": at least one target struck, target and damage unclear
"officials in Washington": most likely target was weapons caches for hezbollah
"bush admin official": israel has been doing recon on possible nuclear sites supplied by n. korea, “The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left,”
Al Mustakbal (lebanon): since attack there have been major communication disturbances in lebanon
-N. Korea denounces attack, support for Assad (on his 42nd b-day)
Telegraph: another US confirmation of strike, also theory that strike was aimed at russian Pantsyr air defense system, which may also be used by iran

Sept 12
BBC: israeli military censorship very tight on this subject, "no perceptible mood of satisfaction in Israel"
John Bolton in Wall st. journal: israel going after NK nuclear facilities
Reuters: "political source in region" says bombs were diversion for commando operations
Reuters: "US diplomatic source" says region where syria say bombs fell focus of suspected nuclear cooperation w NKorea
Reuters: "In Vienna, two senior diplomats familiar with the International Atomic Energy Agency said they knew of no serious suspicions of nuclear links between Syria and North Korea."
Reuters: "us official source" says unlikely NKorea would jeopardize talks w US by sending material to syria
WaPo: "sources" say new US intelligence, primarily from israel, says Nkorea and syria collaborating on nuclear weapons, with "dramatic satellite imagery" -- this intelligence restricted under direction of NSA Hadley

Sept 13
Al-Jarida (kuwait): turkey gave israel intel on syria for strike, turkish army allowed use of airspace -- but turkish govt did not know about this
-Assad and Moallem meet Putin's special envoy Alexander Sultanov

Sept 14
Turkish govt calls Al-Jarida claims "ridiculous"
US nuclear envoy Chris Hill: 6 party talks will go on as scheduled, does not address syria
"Senior US nuclear official" Andrew Semmel: N koreans are in syria, and damascus may have had contact with "secret suppliers" for nuclear equipment
Rice: also does not address syria directly, expresses need for anti-proliferation
-Iran announces Memorandum of UNderstanding to invest $10 billion in Syria in next 5 yrs, also mentions cement production plants undertaken in syria by iranian experts

Sept 15
Guardian: israeli operation involved high-tech israeli airplanes, up to 8, and an ELINT (electronic intelligence gathering plane)
Hezbollah Dep. Chief Kassem: war not likely btw Israel and Syria, Hezbollah won't get involved
Haaretz: Ronen Solomon says ship Al-Hamad, docked in lebanon and syria (nkorea flag) and egypt (s korea flag), carried cement to syria tartous port -- records on this ship changed after report comes out, tartous port website goes offline for several hours
Turkish Weekly: allegations that Turkey Ok'ed israeli strike, and that it was a practice run for iran

Sept 16
Times of London: "Israeli sources" say strike targeted nuclear-related material or equipment, involved israeli commandos, planned since spring, target agricultural facility at Deir Az Zor, only Olmert, Barak, Lipni, and US admin knew about it

Sept 17
-Olmert says he respects Assad and is willing to hold peace talks with him
-Meretz party MP Zehava Gal-On demands explanation of strike, but Meretz leader Yossi Beilin says no need for disclosure or criticism

Sept 18
-poll says 78% of israelis support strike, Olmert popularity rises 10%
-N Korea postpones 6 party talks, thought to be due to syria issue
-China makes first shipment of oil to N Korea
-Moallem in Kazakhstan mtg w Nazarbaev
-Joeseph Cirincione at Center for American Progress says whole story is an attempt to sabotage N Korea talks

Putin and Bush

2007-07-03T08:55:00.000-07:00

The "Lobster Summit" has come to a close at the Bush Estate North. I cannot say it was a complete failure because it was not meant to achieve anything. It does, however, add to the long list of diplomatic engagements the US has had in the recent years which showcase its severely declining power. Two others come to mind: the visit to China by Sec. Paulson which resulted in no agreement on currency devaluation, and the embarrassing visit by Bush to Jordan to build a regional consensus on Iraq -- not to mention the entire idiotically murderous debacle of the Iraq invasion (I only wish there were enough adverbs and adjectives to express my frustration). Instead of cornering Putin about his harsh suppression of democracy, human rights, and free markets, Bush spent his energy trying to "repair the relationship". A former KGB agent traveling to the US to get his ass kissed by the son of a former CIA chief -- a lot of people are spinning in their graves right now. Experts in both countries were surprised at how easily Bush puckered up.

But what actually went on at this crustacean junta? Everyone wanted an ear on the wall at Kennebunkport -- but only Erratum Terrium got one. Don't ask how. Seriously, don't. Here are some excerpts:

(Text in bold is an actual quote)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: Pootie-Poot! How ya doin!
Putin: Honestly, I'm a little shook up. Someone was protesting in my country! -- wearing a mask which looked like my face! Hopefully the police are beating them senseless right now.
Bush: I love your honesty. Like I told 'em: "This is the kind of fellow who, when he says, yes, he means, yes, and when he says, no, he means, no."
Putin: They taught me the importance of honesty in the KGB.
Bush: You've got something in your eye.
Putin: Is it a tear for the dead children in Chechnya?
(Laughter)
Bush: Okay, it's gone now. You know, while I was looking into your eye, I really got a sense of your soul.
Putin: I thought you stopped drinking.
Bush: It's been a long week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush: That was a good fishing trip. I think we really bonded.
Putin: Sure. Where's the lobster?
Bush: Listen Pootie-Poot, I think we should really talk about some of the things going on in your country. I've got some concerns and...Condi said that I should say something about...you should get more democracy...like Iraq, where there's a free press and free religion
Putin: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.
Bush: Just wait. We're gonna concentrate real hard and fix it. If we win in Iraq, we win the War on Terror.
Putin: What about Afghanistan?
Bush: What-istan? Look, this is about democracy...
Putin (raising voice): It has nothing to do with democracy!...the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law...The almost uncontained, hyper use of force in international relations...Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem: they have become a hotbed of further conflicts.
Bush: You know, I think it's in the US interest to keep close relations with Russia...Russia is a good, solid partner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Putin: It's really a shame that we both have to leave office in 2008. We have accomplished so much together: the increased militarization of ethnic and national conflict zones, the relegation of international organizations to starving lap-dogs with no real peacemaking or peacekeeping power, the promotion of might-makes-right rules in the international economy, the decimation of independent journalism, and the vicious stripping of human rights and civil liberties in the name of protection from the Potemkin scourge of 'terrorism'.
Bush: Not to mention that fish we caught together.
Lobster: You guys are ruining the world.
Bush: Did you hear something?
Putin: It was just the wind.
---------------------------------END TRANSCRIPT--------------------------------------

Reflections on Memorial Day 2007

2007-05-28T13:33:00.000-07:00

Today we are told to remember the sacrifice of Americans who fought and died for their country. Remembrance of dead warriors is not a new or unique ceremony; the Ancient Greeks did it, and many more recent societies as well. Most social organizations who willfully engage in violence have a special ceremony for the death of their members in combat -- from street gangs to nation-states. In one sense these ceremonies are mass funerals: the reading of names, visiting of graves or battlefields, gatherings of family and friends. But they are also affirmations by the ruling elite of that organization that those who died did not do so in vain. They died fighting for our freedom. They died so that we could live.

This year in particular Memorial Day is shaded by strong political sentiments. The public has turned fully against the Iraq War, and against the people and policies which created it. The end of our military involvement, and with it a de facto admission of the failure of our supposed mission, is now inevitable. The timing of this fin de siècle depends more on the courage of a few key Democratic members of Congress than on anything going on outside of the Beltway. Guilt and anger pervade the national psyche. Those who supported the war feel guilty for the pain it has caused for families in the US military and anger at the Executive Branch for its multitude of mistakes. Those who were against the war from the beginning feel guilty for allowing their country to create such a dismal mess and anger at those who were supposed to represent them for not having the backbone to stand up for their beliefs. The political mood of the country is at a low. The economy, stuck in the doldrums for years, has failed to generate any positive momentum. The vast majority are working more hours for low wages, and paying more to provide basic necessities to their families with rapidly shrinking hopes that their children's lives will be better than theirs. It is not a new phenomenon for people to think that the country is headed in the wrong direction; you can't make everybody happy all of the time. But it is new for this opinion to be held by such a large number of people. It is a smoggy dusk in America.

Memorial Day descends from an event held on May 1, 1865 in Charleston, South Carolina. Thousands of newly freed slaves - men, women, and children - paraded through the city, joined by local Union army soldiers and white abolitionists. They marched around the site of a former prison camp and mass grave for Union soldiers known as the "Planter's Race Course". Just previous to the march, several black residents had reburied all of the soldiers in proper graves and built a tall fence and archway around the site. On the archway they inscribed the words 'Martyrs of the Race Course'.

The Charleston march celebrated the end of slavery by remembering those who had died during the long and bloody war which resulted in emancipation. The Civil War was the first instance of the government using humanitarian impulses to support its military action. This image of America as the 'protector of the downtrodden and repressed' fit well with the religiously-infused idea of 'American exceptionalism'. It is America as the political missionary, spreading democracy and capitalism to the needy peoples of the world. We fight for their own good. Every war since the the Civil War has utilized this rationale in some way. This ideology is the cornerstone of the American Empire. One hundred and thirty-eight years after the Charleston march another Republican president invokes the same rationale, blindly expecting the same parades and admiration for freeing another society of non-white people.

Comparing the Iraq War to the Civil War and George Bush to Abraham Lincoln? Before you either castrate me or nominate me for US Attorney (depending on your affiliation), please allow an explanation. It seems all too possible that the Iraq War will be the last time the government will be able to use humanitarian impulses to persuade the American public into supporting military intervention. The trend towards Empire which started with the Civil War ends here. Many of those on both the Left and the Right may cheer; good riddance, they say, empire never did anybody any good. The Right says we have enough problems at home, and it is not our duty to be the policeman of the world. The Left scorns the 'American exceptionalism' empire, pointing to human rights abuses, support for dictators, and big business reaping the rewards of our brand of globalization. And they are both right.

The world is rapidly moving towards a highly militarized international system of rigid alliances and dependencies all too reminiscent of that preceded both World Wars -- except with the added element of nuclear proliferation. Democracies and respect for human rights are on the decline, and terrorism is on the rise. The stupendous advances in technology in the past half-century have failed to significantly alleviate the serious social and health problems faced by the vast majority of the world's population. Wealth is more stratified than it has ever been in human history. Human-caused climate change threatens to overturn our entire way of life. To be sure, American imperialists have largely ignored, if not facilitated, the development of these threats. Our hands are bloody. We are not God's gift to Earth, not a shining city on the hill. As a people, as a nation-state, we are not exceptional.

These threats, however, are very exceptional. And it will take exceptional international will and cooperation to confront them and take us off the path towards rising oceans, rising poverty, and a nuclear World War III. And it cannot be disputed that if Americans are not part of that international will and cooperation, then it will certainly fail. This dismal future is not a certainty, but it gets closer to one every day. What can we do?

Everything: Get involved. Volunteer. Travel. Vote. Donate to charity. Use energy more efficiently. Question authority. Question yourself. Learn a language. Talk to someone you hate. Talk to someone you love. Educate yourself. Dream big. Solving our problems is not the sovereign occupation of the government. Building a better world requires us all to play a part. In reality we are not special. But sometimes perception becomes reality. Perhaps if we believe we are special, we can accomplish special things.

On Memorial Day we are supposed to remember those who died so that we could live. But why should this honor be extended to soldiers only? Perhaps this day should also be to remember those whose lives were committed to bettering the world. Being murdered should not be the only qualification for honor. Let us honor those who took to the streets in Charleston on May 1, 1865 to celebrate freedom. And let us commit ourselves to using that same freedom to make the world better for everyone.

The Widening Gyre

2007-01-22T10:40:00.000-08:00

Somalia in Hindsight

January 25 -- The US Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger, has apparently met with Sheik Ahmed about reconciling with the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). Stratfor's analysis suggests that Ahmed does not have the ability to curb the insurgency because he was only the political chief of the Union of Islamic Courts (ICU). Sheik Aweys, the military leaders, is more radical than Ahmed and is still in hiding. Stratfor says that if Ahmed does make a deal with the TFG, it will fracture the remnants of the ICU and drive the radical elements into a deeper insurgency. While this may be true, I think a reconciliation between Ahmed and other moderates in the ICU with the TFG will be a positive step for Somalia. The most important thing is that the TFG can convince both Somalia and the international community that it is moving towards stability and reconciliation. The EU and the AU are depending on the semblance of reconciliation to send their financial aid and peacekeeping troops, respectively. Inside of Somalia this will limit the strength of the Islamist insurgency and some of the unrelated tribal violence. I would argue that perception is much more important than reality here -- if people believe that conditions will improve in Somalia, they will be much less inclined to let the country slip back into anarchy. So far the TFG has been cool to negotiations with Ahmed: Prime Minister Gedi has said that he will talk to Ahmed, but only in Somalia. Gedi refused to meet with Ahmed when the two were in Nairobi. Coincidentally, Kenya, no friend of the ICU, will not send Ahmed back to Somalia because they believe he will be killed there.
January 22 -- A top leader of Somalia's Islamists handed himself in to Kenyan authorities. Sheik Ahmed has always been something of a moderate, and there is some hope that his taking part in a unity government will bring an end to the budding Islamist insurgency. However this assumes two things: one, that he still has a good deal of influence with the insurgents, and two, that the TFG will offer him a role that he would accept. I would say that the first assumption is likely true. Even if some of the insurgents are more radical than him, having the leader of the ICC either in the TFG or publicly allied with the TFG would take a lot of steam out of the insurgency and the likelihood of other moderates to support it. However the TFG has so far been opposed to the idea of reconciliation. The EU has attempted to push the TFG towards reconciliation by tying their redevelopment funds to the creation of a broad-based government which would include Islamists.
January 9th -- The US attacked positions in southern Somalia near the Kenyan border, hoping to kill suspected Al-Qaeda members who they believe were responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings and who they thought were in the area. Right now I'm sure the high school English teacher inside of you is screaming "run-on sentence!". But where my error was only minor and grammatical, the error by the US was serious and geopolitical. If anyone had doubts about the tryst between Ethiopia, the TFG leadership, and the US, those doubts are now removed. Reuters reported that the US air strike killed between 22 and 27 people, and I think if one of them was an Al-Qaeda terrorist we would have heard something. TFG President Yusuf, who arrived in Mogadishu yesterday in a convoy of invading Ethiopian troops, said the US had a right to launch the strikes. The TFG Deputy Prime Minister Hussein Aideed, who recently called for Ethiopia and Somalia to merge into one country, said that the US had the Somali government's "full support". Minister Aideed is the son of former anti-US warlord Mohammad Farah Aideed. According to the BBC, the idea behind the raid is to support the TFG and scare the Islamists into abandoning their plans for an insurgency. If these Islamists are as radically anti-Western as the US says, don't you think an attack by the US would only strengthen their resolve and draw more recruits? And if they aren't that radically anti-Western, why risk inflaming tensions by sending the US military to a country which is already on the edge of chaos? This attack is especially strange considering that US envoy Jendayi Frazer recently called for moderate Islamists to be included in the TFG -- a proposal which was rejected by President Yusuf. American helicopter gunships are welcome, but their political advice is not. What happened to soft power and public diplomacy? What has the American Empire become?
January 7 -- Violence has continued to flare across the country, especially in Mogadishu. Residents are protesting against the Ethiopian presence and have refused to give in their weapons to the forcible disarmament drive announced by the TFG. This drive was then abruptly "postponed" by the TFG Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi. Thousands of refugees have fled the country, adding to already large refugee camps(PDF map) in the neighboring countries. The remnants of the ICU have vowed to heed Al-Qaeda's call for jihad. Good News? Sheik Sharif Hassan Aden, the leader of the TFG parliament who also has ties to the ICU, has called for peaceful cooperation and reconciliation. He seems to think that Sheik Ahmed, the somewhat-moderate leader of the ICU will heed his call. (Update: Speaker Aden was dismissed by the Parliament on January 17th). Jendayi Frazer, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, has been busy trying to get African nations to pledge troops to a peacekeeping force; so far Uganda has pledged 1000 towards a projected 8000 necessary. The International Contact Group for Somalia, made up of the US, the EU, and several African countries, met in Nairobi on Friday to find a way to create and finance a joint African Union/Inter-Governmental Authority on Development peacekeeping force.

Unions of the World, Unite!

2007-01-08T14:10:00.000-08:00

Unions of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your shrinking memberships and declining political significances...The British trade union Amicus announced it has signed solidarity agreements with two unions in the US and one in Germany -- the United Steelworkers, the International Association of Machinists, and IG-Metall. Amicus is already preparing to merge with the British Transport and General Workers Union in May 2007.

The Amicus General Secretary Derek "Blame British Dentistry" Simpson had this to say:
"Our aim is to create a powerful single union that can transcend borders to challenge the global forces of capital and I envisage a functioning, if loosely federal, multinational trade union organisation within the next decade."

I don't care that Simpson is a former Communist and a self-described "lieutenant of the left". But if he wants to do business here, he better start spelling 'organization' properly.

To my knowledge this is the first major step towards a significant multi-national union. It seems only logical that unions would begin to expand globally; they're already pretty far behind the corporations. Are we going to be seeing multi-national strikes in the near future? Probably not, because national economies are still fairly autonomous and so spreading a strike across borders would serve little purpose. But the globalization of unions could affect outsourcing, as unions will be able to apply more pressure on corporations and governments to keep jobs from going overseas.

Interesting to me that this story isn't mentioned in the US media at all. There's a sprinkling of British and Australian stories. And yet at the time of publish there are two hundred and seventy one articles on Google News about Marilyn Manson's divorce. C'mon now, when was the last time he even made a record? Jeez.

What's Happening In Not-USA (Somalia Edition)

2007-01-07T08:18:00.000-08:00

If You Missed It: Somalia's Transitional Federal Government (TFG), a loose arrangement of warlords based on the Transitional Federal Charter adopted in Nairobi in February 2004, has re-taken control of the country backed by the US-trained Ethiopian military. Most of the country (excluding the northern autonomous regions of Puntland and Somaliland) had been under control of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). The ICU militias have mostly vanished, and may be preparing for an insurgency. The African Union, with support pledges from the EU and the US, is trying to put together a peacekeeping force.

A Little History: Somalia has been without a functioning government since 1991, when Dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown. The country has been torn apart by clan-based strife and warlordism, disastrous for a region already among the poorest in Africa and victimized by many floods and droughts. There were several interventions by outside forces. The UN, backed by the US, put together several operations beginning in 1992 to help feed starving Somalis and end the civil war which had resulted from Siad Barre's removal. However these operations were ended in 1995 after the US pulled its support following the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident in the Battle of Mogadishu. The Ethiopians also intervened in 1993 and 1996 to defeat Islamists trying to establish regional religious governments. The two countries have a history of bad relations relating to territorial claims and religious differences (Somalia is Sunni Muslim, Ethiopia is Christian).

Back to the Now: Violence has continued to flare across the country, especially in Mogadishu. Residents are protesting against the Ethiopian presence and have refused to give in their weapons to the forcible disarmament drive announced by the TFG. This drive was then abruptly "postponed" by the TFG Prime Minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi. Thousands of refugees have fled the country, adding to already large refugee camps(PDF map) in the neighboring countries. The remnants of the ICU have vowed to heed Al-Qaeda's call for jihad.

Ayman Al-Zawahiri gets my vote for "Euphemiser of the Week": suicide bombings are now "martyrdom-seeking raids".

Good News? Sheik Sharif Hassan Aden, the leader of the TFG parliament who also has ties to the ICU, has called for peaceful cooperation and reconciliation. He seems to think that Sheik
Ahmed, the somewhat-moderate leader of the ICU will heed his call. Jendayi Frazer, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, has been busy trying to get African nations to pledge troops to a peacekeeping force; so far Uganda has pledged 1000 towards a projected 8000 necessary. The International Contact Group for Somalia, made up of the US, the EU, and several African countries, met in Nairobi on Friday to find a way to create and finance a joint African Union/Inter-Governmental Authority on Development peacekeeping force.

Best Case Scenario: The international community is able to get a substantial peacekeeping force ready within a few weeks and the Ethiopians agree to withdraw all of their troops. The major leaders of the ICU agree to cooperate with the TFG in exchange for amnesty. The security situation can be stabilized enough that people are willing to disarm. Redevelopment money begins to flow into the country and can be effectively used to rebuild the infrastructure and supply the population with basic necessities. In time, the refugees will be able to return.

Will It Happen? I'll take the easy way out and say it's too early to tell. The withdrawal of Ethiopian troops is a prerequisite for a real legitimate government to be established. However if there are no peace keepers, one, the Ethiopians may not withdraw, and two, if they do withdraw it may lead to a resurgence of some powerful warlords. The Catch-22 is that a lot of the support for the peacekeeping operation will be dependent on progress towards political reconciliation. In addition the US will be very displeased if elements of the ICU are allowed back into politics and may withdraw their support. There is also no telling how successful a peacekeeping operation will be even with international support -- the theory is that an African-led operation will be more welcome than a UN-led operation, but in Somalia this is no guarantee.

The two major problems are the lack of resolve by the international community and the lack of a broad appeal to unity within Somalia. There are bound to be hiccups in any attempt at bringing peace to Somalia, and these two problems may tip the scales towards a return to anarchy. I believe that peace is achievable if these two deficiencies are rectified. The international community, both the US/EU and the African nations, need to commit themselves to helping Somalia even if the price is high and their national interests are unconcerned. The leaders of the TFG and the ICU need to find common ground to which they can draw popular support and prevent another spiral into anarchy.

Bush Admin Musical Chairs

2007-01-05T15:07:00.000-08:00

And the music never stops...It looks like I was off on the next administration official to step down. Harriet Miers beat my odds and has resigned as White House counsel. I'm surprised she stayed on after that aborted Supreme Court nomination. I still say Snow is next to lay his badge and gun on the captain's desk. Zalmay Khalilzad is going to be nominated replace John Bolton as UN Ambassador. Laura Rozen and Cutler have more on the new appointees.

It appears as if Bush is trying to make his Last Stand in Iraq. Juan Cole is very positive on the new team members, but I'm not sure that even the best and brightest can do much as long as Bush & Cheney Co. are running the show.

Speaking of the Prez, I think he may have been reading Erratum Terrium yesterday and saw the IM convo between Merkel and Rice. Today, after a joint press conference with Merkel, he said: "no back rubs". I wonder if shes softening her "creep" stance on Dubya.

Politics in Not-USA: Why would the IDF launch an raid on the West Bank town of Ramallah on the same day as Israeli PM Olmert was meeting with Egyptian President Mubarak to discuss the peace process? Apparently the general in charge, General Naveh, did not inform Defense Minister Peretz before the raid took place. If this is true, there is either strong internal dissent in the IDF or in the Israeli cabinet. Also, new UN Secretary General Ban described the raid as "an act of violence". At least he said something.

Roundup of the Global Triumvirate

2007-01-04T09:30:00.000-08:00

IN CHINA...

The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology just released their first report on global climate change. Their conclusion: it exists and it is being caused by human activity. China is also the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases (A gold star for anyone who can guess who Numero Uno is). China is expected to take the top spot sometime in the next twenty years. They signed the Kyoto Protocols in 2002, but their status as a "developing country" means they are not required to reduce emissions immediately. Is this report a sign that the Chinese leadership is preparing to take some serious steps in the green direction? At least their leaders admit that global warming is taking place.
One major problem that the world faces is the dilemma between producing energy cleanly and producing energy cheaply. The high prices of oil and gas exacerbate this dilemma; because more money has to be spent to buy these resources, less can be spent on finding cleaner alternatives. A major problem in the energy market is that demand is inelastic - slow to respond to price changes, especially increases. At the same time, the politics of producer nations and the position of oil and gas resources in volatile areas causes the prices to change rapidly. The clean versus cheap dilemma can only be solved through a broad coalition of producer and consumer nations. What we need is a new Kyoto, or at the very least for everyone to sign onto the old one.

IN RUSSIA...

President Putin signed an order putting all arms exports under the control of one state-owned company, Rosoboroneksport. The CEO of this company is, surprise, surprise, another ex-KGB officer who served with Putin in Dresden during the Cold War. This is another example of Putin bringing all major enterprises under state control, his version of "de-privatization". Russia is a major arms exporter to Africa and Latin America. To tie this in with other recent events, the CEO of Rosoboroneksport, while head of a different arms exporter, supplied the Ethiopian military with the planes and helicopters that they used to take over Somalia this past week.

IN THE US OF A...

We have a shifty Director of National Intelligence. John "Case Closed" Negroponte, former ambassador to the UN and to Iraq, is reportedly leaving his top intelligence post to become Deputy Secretary of State. That position was vacated in July by Robert "Cool 'Stache" Zoellick, who left to work for Goldman Sachs. This has been another in a long line of shifts and resignations in the Bush Administration since the occupation of Iraq began -- not to mention the indictment of Scooter Libby. The only question is: who's next? I would put 2-1 on Tony "I Don't Know" Snow (courtesy of WaPo's Dana Milbank), and 4-1 on Condoleezza Rice.
And we have a shy Secretary of State. She has been asked in several interviews why the US will not talk to Iran, and has given the same lame excuses. She says that going to the table with Iran would be no more than pleading for help. Is she implying that we have no leverage over the Iranians? When given the Soviet Union analogy for negotiating with enemies, she says that "I don't ever remember sitting down and talking to the Soviet Union about how they could help us secure stability in Western Europe". Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think she's comparing Western Europe during the Cold War to Iraq in the present day. Funny because I don't remember the West Germans attacking our troops stationed there with mortars and roadside bombs. And I seem to recall that there were functioning, democratic governments in Western Europe. I hope this comparison doesn't really reflect how Secretary Rice sees Iraq. But back to Iran: why not talk to them? In the interest of humor, I've prepared a hypothetical instant messaging conversation to represent the situation as accurately as possible:

doctorleeza81: hey
theMerkelator: hey
doctorleeza81: hows things?
theMerkelator: fine
theMerkelator: OMG, i have to tell u something
doctorleeza81: OMG what is it?
theMerkelator: you remember that guy i was talking to at lunch yesterday?
doctorleeza81: u mean the qt with the beard?
theMerkelator: yeah, his name is Ali Larijani. he totally asked me about you
theMerkelator: he wants to talk to you condi
doctorleeza81: what did u say?
theMerkelator: i gave him ur number
doctorleeza81: but what about george? hell kill me if he finds out
theMerkelator: you totally deserve better than george
theMerkelator: remember when he tried to give me a back rub? what a creep
doctorleeza81: i dont know. ive heard a lot of bad stuff about that Ali guy
doctorleeza81: Ehud told me hes friends with that weirdo Mahmoud
theMerkelator: no way they just have homeroom together
theMerkelator: condi u should just talk to him, it cant hurt
doctorleeza81: maybe
doctorleeza81: sorry gtg george is calling me. bye angie!
theMerkelator: c u lata!

And readers, c u lata 2!

Peace (if everything else fails)

Happy New Year!

2007-01-03T08:51:00.000-08:00

I could write a lengthy post about all that went wrong in 2006: the current debacles in Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Israel/Palestine, or the use of energy as a weapon by Russia, or the failed idiot-perialism of the Bush Administration, or the backwards and repressive steps taken by supposed democracies around the world, or the increasing cross-cultural preponderance of apocalyptic beliefs, or the break-up of Britney Spears' marriage, or the increasing rigidity of international alliances, or the decreasing confidence in the United Nations, or the continuing willful obliviousness by both states and corporations to the dangers of global warming.

But instead here's a kitty.

Happy 2007 to everyone, may this year fulfill all of our wishes.

Plus: The French are against the movement of time.

Oh No, Not More Energy Politics!

2006-12-23T13:05:00.000-08:00

revised 7pm Pacific

Yes, more energy politics! Let's recap. Turkmenbashi died early Thursday, and the possibility of a succession struggle (which as far as we can tell is not occurring) made Europe nervous about its supply of natural gas. Most of this natural gas comes from Turkmenistan through Russia under the control of Gazprom. On the same day Gazprom signed deals with the foreign majors (Shell, Mitsui, and Mitusbishi) in the Sakhalin II oil-gas project to take a 50%+1 majority stake in the project. The project had been under threat of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit relating to environmental damages.

Now the updates. Turkmenistan is stable, although the consensus is that acting President Berdymukhamedov is not a permanent choice. Possibilities include top military and intelligence officials as well as Niyazov's son Murat. The continuing supply of Turkmen gas seems assured. Europeans can breathe a sigh of relief.

Under Turkmenbashi, the country's official foreign policy was neutrality. In terms of energy, this meant waffling back and forth between exports to Russia and support for the EU/US Trans-Caspian pipeline, part of a long string of pipelines which would bring natural gas from the east side of the Caspian Sea into Europe and avoid Russia and Iran. Here is a map, the design of which was outsourced to several resourceful third-graders:

Russia was obviously against this idea, and used the ambiguous legal status of the Caspian Sea (It has yet to be decided which of the five coastal countries controls which area, and that decision will depend in large part on whether the Caspian is classified as a sea or as a lake) to delay its development. While the new emerging order in Turkmenistan has pledged to continue the neutrality of Turkmenbashi, it remains to be seen whether the next regime will find it prudent to ally with Russia in the hopes of gaining a powerful regional friend. Keep your eye on the news wire on this one.

Just minutes after Gazprom signed the agreement to take a majority stake in the Sakhalin II project, Putin announced that the environmental issues which has threatened the project were "as good as solved". There is certainly no doubt now that the threat of a lawsuit was no more than a wedge for Gazprom to force its way into the project. The responses of the foreign majors say as much. A Shell spokesman said that "it is an acceptable outcome ending a period of uncertainty for Sakhalin-II". The Mitsubishi president said that although Russia was still an attractive place to invest, the company faces “difficult and incomprehensible aspects” there. While one might expect a Western company to be confused by heavy government-industry cooperation, the Japanese are used to this kind of activity. The fact they find Russia "difficult and incomprehensible" says a lot, especially considering the Japanese are also not known for making negative opinions like this known to the press. There was also no attempt by Putin to hide how politically motivated the threat of a lawsuit was. The Kremlin is sending the same message it sent with the destruction of Yukos: You're either with us or you're against us. And you don't want to be against us. Funny, those words sound so familiar...

Now we move our attention to the Caucasus region. On Friday Georgia signed an agreement with Gazprom to buy gas at $235 per 1000 cubic meters in 2007. The current price is $110. Russia and Georgia have, to put it mildly, not been getting along recently. On October 2 Georgia detained four Russian soldiers on suspicion of espionage. In response Russia cut postal, rail, and air links with Georgia and deported thousands of ethnic Georgians. Gazprom threatened to cut off gas supplies if Georgia did not agree to a higher price, only $230 at the time. However Georgia had two aces up its sleeve which seemed to prevent Russia from completely exploiting them. One was membership in the WTO, which Russia sought. Georgia said that it would allow Russia in if the sanctions were ended. The other ace was the ability of neighboring Azerbaijan to provide most of the gas Georgia needed through its huge Shah-Deniz field. However where Georgia only had a high pair, Russia had a full house. Putin was able to get a pledge from Bush to support Russian accession to the WTO in exchange for Russia's UN Security Council vote for sanctions on Iran. Clear US support for Russia joining the WTO makes Georgian opposition basically a moot point. The Azerbaijan gas supply also became a problem as "technical difficulties" pushed back the beginning of gas flow to Geogia, which was supposed to begin on Friday. Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli said it may take weeks to fix the problem. Therefore Georgia was faced with a winter without gas and no way to get Gazprom to lower the price. The effects of this price increase will be a weaker Georgian economy and thus a loss of support for the pro-Western, anti-Russian Georgian government. Is it possible that Russian agents are responsible for the "technical difficulties" at the Shah-Deniz facility? I would say that considering Gazprom's obvious Kremlin connections it is a strong possibility.

Another hint at this possibility is in the announcement by the Azeri president that they may not buy gas from Gazprom anymore. Gazprom is demanding the same $235 price from Azerbaijan. The Azeris are hoping they can meet their energy needs locally. However this will mean that they will have much less to export to Georgia and through the BTC pipeline to Western Europe and the US. This pipeline was seen as a strategic victory for the West over Russian dominance of Caspian energy reserves. However if the Azeris are going to stop buying Russian gas (which is actually Turkmen gas, to tie everything together), this multi-billion dollar pipeline may find itself as empty as Bush's presidential library.

And if we needed another reminder of Gazprom's growing power in the Eurasian energy market, they signed a contract with Europe's largest gas provider Gaz de France extending the two companies' gas supply contract until 2030. For the first time Gazprom will now provide gas directly to some European consumers.

Update: According to Georgian TV, there was a "terrorist attack" on the Azerbaijan-Georgia pipeline on Wednesday. This has not been confirmed by Georgian or Azeri officials. Is this the cause of the "technical difficulties" at the Shah-Deniz field? Or are there two separate problems?

Correction: The BTC pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey's Mediterranean coast through Georgia only transports oil. The gas pipeline runs through the same countries but currently ends in Central-Eastern Turkey in a city called Erzurum. The hope is that this pipeline will be connected to Europe through the Nabucco pipeline.

Peace (if everything else fails)

Energy Politics Round-Up

2006-12-21T12:16:00.000-08:00

Two big events: Turmenistan "President" Niyazov dies and Gazprom gains control over the Sakhalin-II project. Niyazov is a relic of the Soviet era, an absolute dictator whose reign makes Kim Jong-Il look like Thomas Jefferson. He completely closed his country and created a cult of personality that extended to renaming months and meteorites after himself and his family. He wrote a book, the 'Rukhnama', which was made required reading in schools. He had a huge gold statue made of himself in the capital Ashgabat which rotated to face the Sun. He renamed himself 'Turkembashi', which means "the artist formerly known as Niyazov". Well, actually it means "Father/Head of the Turkmen people", but he's so wacky that I would believe just about anything. But this Daffy Duck Dictator did have one thing going for him. His country happens to be sitting on top of a smörgåsbord of natural resources, especially natural gas. Which is unfortunately why his death is so important.

Right now Turkmenistan only supplies gas directly to Russia (through Gazprom) and its southern neighbor Iran. The US tried to get Turkmenistan to sell its very cheap gas to them through two routes - one south through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, and the other across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan where there is now a pipeline running through Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean (the BTC pipeline). However it seems Gazprom channeled its inner Nancy Reagan to convince Niyazov to 'just say no' to the American offers. Russia sees Central Asia, especially any part of it with oil or gas, as part of its 'sphere of influence'. They don't seem particularly worried about the power vacuum left in Turmenistan, and I'm sure the new president Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov (anagrams anyone?) will be making a trip to Moscow in the near future. However no one really knows what is going on inside Turkmenistan. The lack of foreign media presence makes it hard to know if there are any problems. Any instability or civil conflict could draw the US and Russia into direct confrontation.
The presence of radical Islamic groups in the region only complicates matters further. If Turkmenistan does enter a chaotic period, gas supplies to all of Europe could be seriously interrupted.

The Sakhalin-II project, located at the eastern edge of Russia (just north of Japan), was the last major energy project without Russian representation. There are now none, as Gazprom bought fifty percent plus one share from the consortium of Shell, Mitsui, and Mitsubishi for 7.45 billion dollars. This was after the Kremlin threatened to sue the foreign majors for up to 30 billion dollars for environmental damages. Gazprom is the Russian state gas company which has become a behemoth corporation in the past few years. Its chairman of the board, Dmitri Medvedev, is also Putin's first deputy prime minister. Alexei Miller, the deputy chairman, is also an old ally of Putin. The signal the Kremlin sends with these strong-arm tactics is this: we welcome foreign companies to invest in Russia, but you are not to make big profits by selling our natural resources.

Both of these events are part of rising tensions between the US and Russia. Points of agreement are rapidly vanishing. I would be surprised if Russia votes for any sanctions on Iran, no matter how much the Europeans water down the resolution. I am worried that we are entering a stage similar to the one preceding World War I in Europe, with the US playing England and Russia playing Germany. And who benefits from US-Russian conflict? China.

Welcome Back Ortega!

2006-12-18T10:13:00.000-08:00

I know this would have been better a few weeks ago, but I just thought of it now. Sorry about the square Ortega, thats the best my high-tech imaging software (go...Paint!) could do.

Iran's Elections

2006-12-17T14:16:00.000-08:00

In all this hullabaloo about Iran's role in Iraq and the pros and cons of engaging the Islamic Republic, something slipped everyone's attention. Iran held some very significant elections on Friday, and the results surprised a lot of people. All the attention was focused on Ahmadinejad (who has not, by the way, sent an RSVP to the Erratum Terrium Hanukkah party. Mahmoud, if you're reading this, we're still saving a seat for you next to the latkes.) Apparently no one asked the people of Iran if they supported his extremist posturings -- and apparently they don't. Ahmadinejad and his mentor/Supreme Leader-aspirant Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi did not fare well. The old-school conservatives, led by Rafsanjani, seemed to be the big winners. Rafsanjani , the former President who lost in the 2005 presidential election, was in first place at last count in the election for a seat on the powerful Assembly of Experts. Mesbah Yazdi was in sixth place at last count, enough votes to stay in the Assembly but not the result which would catapult him into a position to become the Supreme Leader upon the passing of the elderly Ayatollah Khamenei. The conservatives were able to re-establish control over Iranian political trends which had been swinging towards the Ahmadinejad/Mezbah Yazdi fundamentalist camp ever since the 2005 Presidential elections where Ahmadinejad won a surprising victory based largely on populist appeal and connections to hard-line militias.

There were two bodies being elected Friday, one being the very important Assembly of Experts, and the other the an election for local council seats. The Assembly of Experts is a group of high clerics who select (and can remove) the Supreme Leader and have strong control over the legislative and appointment process. The other top clerical group, the Council of Guardians, has control over who is able to run in these elections. The Council of Guardians removed many of the fundamentalist candidates (as well as the reformist candidates) before the election. Nonetheless, the success of Rafsanjani and the low finishing of Mezbah Yazdi are genuinely representative of the Iranian's preference for the former over the latter. The local councils are relatively unimportant (at least in terms of foreign policy), but the elections are fairly democratic and therefore serve as a political barometer. Mezbah Yazdi's list also did poorly in these elections in many places, although it seems his group still retains popularity in some of the more rural provinces.

One can make a comparison between this Friday's elections in Iran and the November elections in the US. There is also a striking and surprising similarity between the leaders. Both Ahmadinejad and Bush have conducted provocative foreign policies (to say the least) bringing international rebuke and have failed to reduce threats to the national security of their respective countries. They have done so while promising reforms to bring economic growth. Growth in both countries has been modest at best, and many of the lower classes they promised to help have only sunk deeper into poverty. Both have worked hard to increase the power of the executive at the expense of all other political bodies. Both have significantly furthered the agendas of the religious fundamentalists in their respective countries. Both also were elected with the aid of populist appeal, portraying themselves as "men of the people" running against political insiders: Ahmadinejad as the poor son of a blacksmith, Bush as the "regular guy" from Texas.

It must also be noted with irony that Iran appears now to be one of the most democratic countries in the region. This is not to say that Iran is a paragon of liberal democracy, but unlike most countries in the Middle East and the world they have a functioning mechanism for peaceful political competition and for the voters to regularly choose between a limited number of those competing groups. And personally I find it a little embarrassing that while it took the American people six years to turn against Bush, it only took the Iranian people a year and a half to catch onto Ahmadinejad.

A little more Iranophilia: How cool is it that the candidates for the Assembly of Experts have to pass rigorous tests just to qualify for the election? I would love to make candidates for the US Congress pass the Foreign Service test. I think I'm salivating a little just thinking about it.

My point in all this about democracy in Iran is that this country is not our enemy. This is a country with a beautiful culture and a rich history that they are rightfully very proud of. When Bush goes out of his way to call them "evil", they take it personally. Anyone would. Especially when, despite the US-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1953, our continued support for the repressive Shah, and our supply of arms (including chemical weapons) to Iraq during their eight-year war, the Iranian people have continued to express goodwill towards the US. After 9/11 they did not dance in the streets, they held a solemn candlelight vigil. Read the accounts of numerous American and Western journalist who have traveled through the country.

I am not saying we should simply not attack Iran and try to engage them "constructively" on Iraq. I am saying we should go out of our way to make Iran our newest friend. And not just so they'll bring over some delicious Iranian cuisine. There are three main reasons why forging close links with Iran is good for the US strategically. One, we need to make it clear that we are not against Islam and that we support the coexistence of Islam and democracy. We cannot continue to insist that the only good democracy is one which doesn't produce Islamist governments. Our continued vociferous opposition to Islamists of all types only adds fuel to the anti-US/anti-Israel radicals' fire. Good relations with Iran would not only set a good example of our openness to Islamism, but it would help with relations with their clients in Iraq, Lebanon, Western Afghanistan, Palestine, and possibly Somalia (at least according the recent UN report). Second, good relations with Iran will help us economically, relating mostly to their enormous stores of oil and natural gas. Lower (but relatively stable) energy prices brought on the introduction of Iranian supplies into the regular (non-sanctioned) market would be very helpful for our economy and would also act against attempts by Russia to corner the Eurasian energy supply market. Third, a stable and responsible Iran on the world stage could be very helpful for solving regional problems and act as a counterweight against other aggressive powers. Again, Iran has its finger in the pot of almost every country in the vicinity. It certainly can't be in our interests to antagonize them any further, especially considering the results of this election.

One last diatribe: Why isn't the Iranian election mentioned more often in the news? I've barely heard or seen anything about it. What, the media, lazy? Can't be. I guess the recent issue of TIME has put them all in a self-indulgent tizzy.

Peace (if everything else fails)

Sectarian Violence Engulfs Erratum Terrium!

2006-12-15T16:46:00.000-08:00

The wave of sectarian violence has caused major changes to Erratum Terrium. The three sects can no longer live with each other, and thus a federalized website has been established. It can only be hoped this will bring peace to this unstable and unreadable region of the blogosphere. The reactions from the sectarian leaders has been described as "schizophrenic". The leader of the northern Humorist sect praised the agreement, saying everything would be fine as long as no one bothered him. He then went on to tell several bad jokes. He promised that the Humorist sect will continue to deliver low-quality mockeries of the news to Erratum Terrium. The leader of the centrally-based Journalist sect was more guarded in his response, wary of inflaming tensions with his southern Blogger neighbors. The two sects have been at war over the future of Erratum Terrium, with the Journalists demanding more in-depth studies of global affairs and the Bloggers wanting more irascible rants and bull-headed pronouncements (or 'fatwas', as they call them). It can only be hoped that the new federalized format will allow the fulfillment of the official December 2006 'Doubling of Readership' goal (from two to four!)

In this chaotic environment, a radical and possibly foreign group in the Blogger sect was allowed to access the website and post the following:

Attention Conspiracy Nuts!
In past few years several prominent international figures have been the target of assassination attempts: Rafik Hariri, Viktor Yushchenko, Hassan Nasrallah, Pierre Gemayel, Alexander Litvinenko, and possibly Ismail Haniyeh. Based on this and absolutely nothing more, we would like the be the first to propose the theory that Senator Tim Johnson, Democrat of South Dakota, was also the target of a recent assassination attempt. Senator Johnson recently had intensive brain surgery after suffering "stroke-like symptoms". If he was unable to serve, a replacement would be appointed by Michael Rounds, the Republican governor of South Dakota -- thereby giving control of the Senate back to the Republicans through the tie-breaking vote of Dick "Dick" Cheney. To quote Gov. Rounds completely out of context: "Tim Johnson...is...not a lawmaker, not a...friend...I thought about his wife..." Not very gubernatorial language, if you ask me! The cover-up attempts have been widespread, attributing Senator Johnson's illness to a condition called Arteriovenous Malformation (AVM), which apparently afflicts 300,000 other Americans. According to the purported right-wing smear rag Medical News Today [Note to the MNT legal department: Don't even think of suing me, I'm not worth anything] most of them "don't know they have the condition". Oh, how convenient! Would the Republicans really go that far to regain control of the Senate? The crystal ball (one of those black plastic ones that you shake) says that I should ask again later, which I will. Until then, keep (conspiracy) nutting it up!

I am very sorry for that breach of security. According to the Erratum Terrium security department, the laptop with the ultra-super-secret Blogger ID and password was lost. Luckily the laptop did not contain the personal information of hundreds of thousands of trusting citizens. That information is on a different Erratum Terrium laptop.

Before we end this broadcast, the editors of Erratum Terrium would like to wish a very Happy Hanukkah to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You are cordially invited to celebrate the holiday with us. Make love, not war. Wipe latke grease off your face, not countries off the map.

Peace (if everything else fails)

First (1st) Edition - December 3, 2006

2006-12-03T17:34:00.000-08:00

We wish to welcome you to the first edition of Erratum Terrium, an online foreign affairs review devoted to providing the masses with a superior tool in the search for truth in the murky waters of international relations. The world has become a very complicated place where political, social, and economic trends spread with ease across national and continental boundaries. Globalization has exceeded the boundaries of free trade agreements to become a total social force, bringing people of very different cultures together. It is more important than ever that the citizens of the world understand what forces shape this new world order; how it can affect them, and more importantly, how they can affect it. We hope that this project can assist in creating that understanding. We welcome the full spectrum of humanity to join us - whatever languages you speak (as long as one of them is English), whatever amount of knowledge you have about foreign affairs, whatever your political opinions are - in this quest for knowledge and understanding, and hopefully through that, a chance at a better world.

We regret that this first edition is not as meaty as was planned.* There are only three sections: one on the uprising in Oaxaca, one on Russian President Putin, and one an op-ed by a famous historical figure. Each edition, published weekly, will usually consist of several thematic sections, two in-depth studies - one of a state, one of a non-state (a world leader, important organization or movement, etc.), and some special sections consisting of merciless tactical strikes on the funny bone. This edition, regrettably, does not include any of the thematic sections. Look forward to those in the Second (2nd) Edition. Please feel free to comment on any and everything you find on this site. Do not spare us your wrath. Wrath is the hamster which spins the wheel of Erratum Terrium. Also please visit the links you will find on your right (-->). Those sites are run by experts and professionals, while this one is run by those who can only be accurately described as illiterate peasants. How did we write all of this, you ask? Come back for the Second (2nd) Edition for the answer to that question, and much, much more. Until next time...

Peace (If everything else fails)

*The relative meatlessness of this edition is due to an illness which struck the editor this weekend. This illness is suspicious because of its rarity in the climate in which he lives. Therefore it can only be assumed that he was poisoned by certain elements who do not want us to expose what we know. What makes the poisoning even more puzzling is the fact that we don't know anything. Except for the fact that we don't know anything. As of yet the investigation into who poisoned the editor has stretched into seven continents, under several oceans, and, on several occasions, into another dimension. If you think you have any pertinent information, do not hesitate to call random numbers and tell whoever answers the phone what you know. One of those people might be us. Sound as crazy as possible. That will prevent the information from falling into the wrong hands.

State: Mexico - Oaxaca

2006-12-03T16:02:00.000-08:00

Protesters join hands at the Women's March on November 19
in Oaxaca City

Mexican Government Crushes Resistance in Oaxaca

This week incoming Mexican President Felipe Calderon was sworn in amidst turmoil in the Mexican Congress as members of opposition party tried to block his inauguration. The leader of the opposition PRD party, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, lost in the July 2 election but continues to assert that the election was fraudulent despite many fairly objective reports to the contrary from groups inside and outside of Mexico. Lopez Obrador held his own shadow inauguration a few days before Calderon. All of this chaos in the Mexican government is representative of the fractured state of Mexican society. Antipathy runs deep between different regions of the country, between different socio-economic classes, and between different racial/ethnic groups. Compounding the difficulties is that many of these divides lie along the same lines. These troubles are no more apparent than in the southern state of Oaxaca.

Oaxaca has long been known as a top tourist destination. It combines a rich indigenous culture with beautiful geography. Americans and Europeans poured in, hoping for a taste of "authentic" Mexico. But this romantic image of Oaxaca covered over a much harsher political reality. The state's residents are very poor compared with other regions of Mexico. There is a small group of powerful Oaxacans who control most of the wealth and benefit most from the tourism. The poor, largely indigenous (having Zapotec or Mixtec heritage) population is underrepresented and underemployed. The state government is ruled by the old dictatorial PRI party and Governor Ulises Ruiz.

In May 2006 the Oaxaca section of the national teachers' union (SNTE) began a strike demanding that their paltry salaries be increased. This strike, small at first, became a lightning rod for popular discontent with the poor economic situation and especially with Governor Ruiz. His re-election was widely considered fraudulent. He attempted to end the strike by sending in state police to evict the strikers from the central Zocalo plaza. Many student and other union protesters responded by joining the teachers and fighting off the state police. Then together they seized most of Oaxaca City under the banner of the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO).

This was unacceptable to both Governor Ruiz and former President Fox. They moved, separately, to send troops into the city. Fox sends in the Federal Police (PFP), who manage to retake the city by the end of October. They are aided by Oaxacan police and paramilitary groups operating in plainclothes. This is accomplished through armed intimidation and violent repression of protesters. There were widespread accusations of human rights abuses by the PFP and the other agents of repression. Many opposition members have "disappeared", some reputed to be held in prisons near Mexico City. While not all of these reports can be confirmed, there have been well-documented human rights abuses in the past by the Mexican government in Oaxaca as well as its neighbor state Chiapas where the Zapatista rebellion continues. This past abuse lends a great deal of weight to the many claims of current abuse.

The events in Oaxaca have great significance for Mexico, but also shed some light on the political situation in the Americas as a whole. The Calderon administration must find a way to deal with the growing wealth disparity in Mexico, otherwise it will most certainly face both more uprisings like the one in Oaxaca and additional support for the Zapatistas. The regional and economic divide between the south and the more affluent north must also be addressed. There is certainly a potential for government opponents in the south to ally with the growing leftist political shift in South America. Addressing this divide will also be important for the U.S.-Mexican relationship, as many immigrants to the U.S. come from the southern states. Improving the economic situation there will be important to solving immigration issues between the two countries.

In our opinion, the Oaxacan uprising reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the neoliberal economic policies promoted by the U.S. and its allies, most notably the free trade agreements NAFTA and CAFTA. Mexico has no choice but to interact with the U.S. But the countries which to not share a border seem to be moving as far as they can from the U.S., short of physically leaving the continent. Recent elections in Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, and Chile have brought to power leaders who share two major characteristics. They are all leftists who have moderated their socialist policies to please moderate elements in their countries. They are also all moving towards eliminating permanent economic and political links with the U.S. The wide success of all candidates who possess these characteristics shows the popular support throughout Central and South America for this new pragmatic political doctrine. It is the rejection of the Monroe Doctrine by the very people it is supposed to be protecting. The people of Central and South America see self-reliance as the only way forward - no more dependence on the U.S. or Russia. Whether these new leaders will be able to sustain economic growth and heal ethnic divides within their countries remains to be seen.

Non-State: Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation (Part I)

2006-12-03T15:23:00.000-08:00

Putin as a youth

PART I: The Rise to Power

Fifteen years ago Vladimir Putin was a rector at Leningrad State University in St. Petersburg, living in the city he had grown up in and working at the university which had given him his law degree in 1975. He had just quit the KGB a few months earlier during their ill-advised support for the 1991 putsch against Gorbachev which brought an end to seven decades of Communist rule in Russia. The Soviet system was in chaos; old guard elites were desperately trying to hold onto whatever influence they had left and a new generation of young entrepreneurs was licking their lips in anticipation of feasting on the carcass of the USSR. Vladimir Putin was afloat in this mess, politically ambitious and well connected in the KGB but with no means of advancement. One can imagine he watched on TV with his wife, Lyudmila, and his two young daughters, Maria and Katya, as Gorbachev resigned on Christmas Day 1991 and Yeltin was sworn in. Fifteen years later Putin is no longer a spectator on the world stage. He has become the singular most powerful person in Russia. He has brought stability through autocracy and made Russia a genuine Eurasian power again. Part I of the study of this key world figure will go briefly into his biography to understand how he became so powerful and what forces drove his remarkable rise to power. The upcoming Part II will look at how he consolidated power within Russia and how his reign impacts the rest of the world.

Putin was born in 1952, the only child of a factory foreman. He was a good student, graduating from the law faculty at Leningrad State University at only twenty-three, and was also an excellent martial artist, practicing judo and sambo (a distinct Russian martial art). It was in his studies at Leningrad State University where he first met Anatoly Sobchak, a professor there who was (mildly) critical of the Soviet state. Sobchak had his doctoral thesis rejected for “ideological reasons”. However Sobchak had caught the eye of one up-and-coming Soviet apparatchik: Mikhail Gorbachev. This relationship was to help Sobchak, and consequently Putin, in later years. Putin was recruited into the KGB after finishing his degree, serving in the 1980s in Dresden, East Germany. This, he admitted, had been his dream job ever since watching spy movies as a child. He quit the KGB during their support for the 1991 coup, a politically savvy move in uncertain times. However he continued doing intelligence work while at Leningrad State University. He had evidently not lost touch with some important people in the security services.

Putin’s ambition soon took him away from the rector position and into the administration of Anatoly Sobchak, the new post-Soviet mayor of St. Petersburg. Sobchak had, probably with Gorbachev’s support, become a member of the People’s Congress of Deputies between 1989 and 1991. He became a leading pro-Gorbachev figure and grew to great national prominence during the 1991 coup. He led protests against the coup plotters and persuaded the army not to enter St. Petersburg. After the resignation of Gorbachev, Sobchak was arguably only behind Yeltsin in national popularity. Putin was in a remarkable position, both working for a popular anti-coup leader while retaining his contacts with the security services which had planned the coup. There were also two other ex-KGB agents who Putin brought into the Sobchak administration: Viktor Ivanov and Igor Sechin. These two would stay with him through his rise to power and now form the main part of the powerful group inside of the Kremlin known as the siloviki – originally only members of the security services, but has come to include many allies who were never security agents. Unfortunately Sobchak was caught up in some inappropriate financial transactions and lost his 1996 re-election campaign. Putin and his aides went to work in Moscow for Pavel Borodin, a top-ranking member of Yeltsin’s presidential administration. This appointment is somewhat mysterious; Russian politics at the time point to the conclusion that this was not a meritocratic appointment – someone with some leverage must have wanted Putin to get that job.

Whatever the case may be, Putin soon gained the trust of President Yeltsin. This also must have increased his power within the security service community as one of the only ex-KGB agents at that level of government. In July 1998 he was named deputy head of the presidential administration, and a few weeks later he became the head of the FSB, the successor to the KGB. Again he found himself in a remarkable position with support from Yeltsin and his billionaire backers as well as the shadowy siloviki network. In August 1999 Yeltsin made Putin the Prime Minister. It may not have seemed significant at the time, as Yeltsin had shuffled many bureaucrats through that position, but Putin’s move to Prime Minister was the last major jump in his career. It was Putin’s running of the war in Chechnya that won him support from both Yeltsin and the Russian people. There have been allegations, notably by the recently deceased Alexander Litvinenko, that the FSB was responsible for apartment bombings which precipitated the escalation in Chechnya (Chechen rebels were blamed for the bombs).

A tired Boris Yeltsin resigned on December 31, 1999, leaving Putin as the acting President. Putin barely needed this political boost. His allies in the Duma had just made strong gains in the recent election. He enjoyed the backing of Boris Berezovsky, the billionaire tycoon who had also backed Yeltsin. He easily won the election on March 26, 2000. One of his main opponents, Yevgeny Primakov, another former Prime Minister, dropped out in February and became an ally and advisor to Putin. He was able to easily defeat Communist leader Gennady Zhuganov; Zhuganov had done very well in the 1996 election but his party weakened as Russia stabilized somewhat in the late 1990's. The Communists had done badly in the same 1999 Duma elections that had seen Putin's allies gain seats.

No one knew what to expect from Vladimir Putin when he assumed the office in 2000. To many he seemed to be just another faceless bureaucrat, in the right place at the right time. Russians hoped he could bring stability to a country still recovering from the violent economic shocks of the 1990s. His powerful supporters, the billionaires and the siloviki, were both sure he was on their side -- that he was their front man who could assure that their vision for Russia would emerge in the new century. But it was only one vision that would matter -- the soberly ambitious vision of Vladimir Putin. He had been an ambitious child who wanted to become an intelligence agent, then an ambitious intelligence agent who wanted to make a place for himself in politics, and finally an ambitious politician who knew his place lay at the top. To fulfill ambitions for himself and for his country Putin would have to consolidate power by crafting political alliances on his terms -- and eliminating anyone who would not join him.

Voices from the Past

2006-12-03T15:13:00.000-08:00

The author, with his mother and wife, displaying
his considerable diplomatic skills

“I Know How to Get the U.S. Out of Iraq”

By Harry Houdini (deceased)

It seems everyone these days has a plan for how to get the U.S. out of Iraq. Pull everyone out immediately, say some. No, say others, we’ve got to stay the course. We’ve got to talk to Iran and Syria, say some. No, say others, those guys support terror. Let’s back the Shiites, say some. No, the Sunnis are the key, say others. Idiots and nincompoops, the lot of them. They don’t know the first thing about escaping from dangerous situations. I bet Stephen Hadley couldn’t even get out of a pair of handcuffs on dry land, let alone suspended by the feet in a Chinese Water Torture Cell. I am the one with the greatest experience in these kinds of escapes. I know how to get the U.S. out of Iraq.

You might be asking yourself: “Didn’t that guy die, like, a long time ago? What help could he possibly offer us in this difficult modern geopolitical quagmire?” I would suggest you take a look at the people trying to solve this problem right now. Have you seen Henry Kissinger lately? Or James Baker, for that matter? They’re both one subpoena away from kicking the bucket. Those guys probably came to see me perform back in the Twenties – with their grandchildren. Alright, you’re saying, but what does Harry Houdini know about Iraq? It was just a three-part British mandate broken off of the Ottoman Empire after World War I when he died in 1926. For goodness sake the Hashemite Kingdom of Faisal, which was eventually overthrown by the army in 1958 leading to a period of chaotic leadership resolved by Saddam Hussein’s seizure of total power in 1979, wouldn’t even be established for another six years! What could the old Houdini know about Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, insurgent attacks, theocratic politics and oil revenue? Well I’ll tell you what I do know about: getting out of tough jams. In that spirit, I present these three points of advice for today’s leaders.

Number One: It’s All in the Name. You’ve got to distract everyone with fancy names. Do you know what my real name was? Ehrich Weiss. A lot of Jew, not very much magician. So I changed it to Harry Houdini. And thus a brilliant career ensued. We need to show the world what we’re really trying to do there. The “U.S. Army” doesn’t really emphasize the reason why we have all those troops there -- to liberate the people of Iraq, and with the “U.S.” stuck in there it sounds too imperialist. It should be renamed the “People’s Liberation Army”. I think that really covers all the bases.

Number Two: Maximize your Strengths and Minimize your Weaknesses. Ask yourself, what is the U.S. good at? Showmanship. Americans are the ultimate entertainers. We should bring all the local and regional leaders to a huge international conference where they will be inundated with live stage shows, talking-picture movies with beautiful women, and a smorgasbord of American culinary delicacies. Then they will be so satiated that they will agree to whatever we offer. And as for our weakness? We are obviously not very good at military occupation, so we should end that as soon as possible.

Number Three: Always Have a Fail-safe Exit Strategy. I guess it’s a little late for that one. But I hope you have all taken what I’ve said to heart. I do have to end this session now as my spirit is being called into a séance with a certain desperate high-ranking government official whose name may or may not rhyme with Gondoleeza Mice. Just remember this: the United States of America is a great country which stands up for all that is decent and democratic in this world of chaos. Or at least it was.

In The Beginning...

2006-11-20T12:50:00.000-08:00

This website will, in sickness and in health, be devoted to analyzing events around the world, making fun of world leaders and other somewhat respected figures, and generally mixing a dazzling array of images and wit with serious analysis of aforementioned events and leaders into a totally unrecognizable and gelatinous soup of words and pictures similar, if only in its delicious aroma, to shrimp gumbo.

The First (1st) Edition is scheduled to debut on December the Second, 2006. Until then, Happy Thanksgiving. May Bush spare us all.