cerebrate

John Perkins has written three books that revolve around the ideas of corporatocracy: “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, “The Secret of the American Empire” and his latest, “Hoodwinked.” If you ever have the opportunity to read any of these, I highly recommend that you do, at least the first two cause I haven’t read his third book yet. Nonetheless, John’s an excellent writer and he’ll keep you engaged throughout the pages but most importantly, you’ll end up being enlightened (and astonished) on how the world works.

The world is full of problems: poverty, wars, diseases, global warming and traffic jams just to name a few. In our pursuit for a Utopia, we are always looking for ways to solve them all. But this it seems, is just impossible. And so we would resolve to at least make the world a better place, by reducing the number of problems that currently plague us all. But which problems do we need to seriously look at and try to solve if not minimize? Lomborg argues that by using economic calculations and analysis, it is actually possible for us to identify the problems that need to be given priorities.

In his book How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, he admitted at the outset, that ranking of problems based on its severity is indeed “unpleasant.” Nonetheless, he argues that it is necessary, so that money may be spent effectively, improving the most number of human lives and not spent on a problem that is merely popular. He argues that one such popular problem is climate change.

He argues that the threat of climate change is actually minimal and affects only a few. This problem has thus been given too much of our attention and energy (no pun intended) and he seems to suggest that this is injustice to the many people who are facing other immediate and high-impact problems. He argues instead, that the problems that need to be solved first are HIV/AIDS, Malnutrition and hunger and Trade liberalization, in that order. The list goes beyond these three and throughout the book, Lomborg makes a cost and benefit analysis of solving each of these problems. Now herein lies Lomborg’s flawed arguments.

Lomborg’s main flaw is in his assumption that each problem may be isolated and analyzed individually. This however, is not the case. The world’s problems are complexly interconnected with one another and they all occur within specific cultural and ideological frameworks. For example, the problem of depleted water sources in India by Coca Cola shows how flawed policies give rise to environmental injustice and exacerbate poverty. We cannot just therefore attempt to solve the problem by merely giving new water sources to these population. The problem of AIDS too, cannot be isolated on its own. Significantly, it is linked with political concerns regardless whether the solution is either treatment or prevention. The former concerns patent rights of medicine and healthcare technologies. Only the rich would end up being able to afford effective treatment where the prices are set by pharmaceutical corporations. The latter is of political concerns – not all political actors are willing to endorse the free distribution of condoms because such endorsement would also mean the endorsement of casual sex. And this could tarnish their political image. There might also be movements against such free distribution of condoms by religious groups as well, especially in countries where its population are highly religious.

On another note, we only need to look at the wars going on in the Gulf region. Here we can see how political, economical, environmental and health issues are all part of one huge mess. The depleted Uranium being used by American military, for example, have toxicated the environment and there is just no way of detoxicating the region. This inevitably leads to polluted natural resources, birth defects and adverse health conditions not just for existing generation, but also the future. Isolating health issues on its own by just providing healthcare infrastructures are just not enough. They have to go together with solutions that addresses environmental problems (e.g polluted agricultural land and water sources) as well as poverty issues.

On another point, the problems listed by Lomborg are problems that concern only the human population. He did however listed climate change, albeit the last (and least significant) on his list of problems. But he has failed to see that climate change affects not just the human population, but the entire world’s ecosystem. Plants and animals all included. And he has not in fact, factored these non-human beings into his arguments. Sure, we all want to make the world a better place. But for who? For ourselves alone? This is simply human-centric and such mentality is what have caused this world to be in the mess it is in right now.

In sum, Lomborg have failed to realize that problems do not occur in isolation. Some of these problems are connected with one another and that political and cultural factors play a huge factor. I would think that Lomborg’s failure to understand this complexity is from his lack of understanding on why the various problems exist in the first place. In any case, I have to say that I am not arguing against solving problems individually or locally. In fact that is what we should do – to act locally and also to think globally, so that we may understand how global forces have given rise to cultural and political specific problems. It is only then can we come up with effective solutions that are not merely of temporary good. Merely pumping money into a problem will not make it go away.

To Lomborg’s credit, his ideas and arguments are based on the noble idea of making the world a better place by solving the most dire problems first. The world however, is not the sum of its parts.

More Web knick-knacks? Go to www.happeepill.com

For fellow non-Singaporean viewers, the language contained in this animation is homegrown Singlish!

Too bad Ron Paul isn’t the incoming/current US President.

Ok, so Obama is the US President now. And we are going to see a “change” right? Yeh. A black guy as the US president is a change in itself. A monumental one no doubt. But what else will change? I don’t know. Even if things do get better, I think it will only be temporary.

Changes in laws and policies will at best, help ease the pain. Take for example Obama’s plan to give tax reliefs to middle class. A US$1,000 annual grant to middle class families so they can pay their bills. But, the usual taxes remain. Little will change in this scheme.

How about Foreign policy? Get out of Iraq? Yeh. Ok. But Obama doesn’t rule out a military attack on Iran. And then there’s the fact that he got Biden for his VP and Rahm as his chief of staff – both are pro-war politicians. They may appear to be interested in “getting out of iraq” but do not be deluded. “getting out of iraq” does not mean “peace, no war.” Ok honestly, I don’t think US will be invading Iran (unless they are really stupid and crazy). But, I do think that current turmoils in middle-east is that has been perpetuated by US directly or indirectly will most likely remain.

Changes? I don’t see anything else. Nonetheless, the fact that a black President has become a President is not to be undermined. Obama is already a historical figure regardless of whether he’ll make a change or not.

Obama picks pro-Israel hardliner for top post

Sorry for not posting anything new for a long while now. And so, in this video, we’ll see a small group of anti-Islam McCain supporters pwned by other McCain supporters. Amusing I think.

Ron Paul may be out of the presidential race, but the campaign for individual liberty continues.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com

———————–
Notes:

The philosophy of Libertarianism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzTozC3PCF4

In case you are wondering, no I am not a supporter of libertarianism. Especially because I do not think the many oppressed people around the world can actually survive on their own without the obligatory support from others. Social libertarianism sounds attractive though.

How about Islam? Well, Islam does have its own set of institutions, but there is no real blueprint as to what type of political system is ideal.

Women from UMNO are declaring Jihad against Anwar. They claimed that Anwar is trying his best to disrupt the political stability of the country. And for this, there should be a Jihad against him. Wow! I thought only angry bearded mullahs like to declare Jihad.

May UMNO and the bumiputra policy crumble and may a true leader emerge for the good of Malaysians and her neighbours.

Read full news report

I knew Obama was pro-Zionist, but I thought he was much better than this. Guess I was wrong. Now I just hope magic happens and all Republican candidates would die of heart attack except Ron Paul. He then inevitably gets elected to be the Republican candidate and eventually, wins the Presidential seat.

yeh…..

For those of us who are not familiar with the word “AIPAC”, they are the biggest Zionist lobby group in the U.S. Cheers to that huh?

There’s the saying that we should not bite the hand that feed us. Well, how about kissing the hand that slaps us?

There has been a proposal for the former head of Guantanamo Prison (2004-06), to lead a military envoy in Pakistan. How whack is this?

Fortunately, Pakistan officials have rejected the proposal and U.S has withdrawn.

BBC: Pakistan opposes US military aide

Pakistan says it has asked the United States not to appoint the former head of the US prison at Guantanamo as military envoy in Islamabad.

In recent weeks, a number of reports in the Pakistani media have been highly critical of Gen Hood’s proposed posting.

What: Pangea Day

When: 10th May

About: People in local communities all over the world will gather together, to watch films that have been produced by independents. There will be a total of 24 short films and they have been chosen based on their ability to inspire and help us see the world through another person’s eyes.

More Information: http://www.pangeaday.org/index.php

ABC news network and those who criticised Obama for being “whiney” must be the dumbest creatures on the planet. They are saying that if Obama cannot stand up to harsh questions, then he would have trouble facing hostile republicans.

Sheesh! They just don’t get it do they?

Obama is not whining because he was asked harsh questions. He is just angry because stupid questions are being asked! The moderators were supposed to scrutinize the candidates’ policies. And not questions such as why is your friend a short-tempred person.

U.S is in a mess right now. And the next U.S President is supposed to lead the damned country out of this mess, not someone who has the highest tolerance for mess!!

Arrrghh… I guess this is the reason why Ron Paul is being ignored. Americans just don’t realise that their country needs a credible person to help fix the country.

The infamous film ‘Fitna’ by Dutch politician Wilders is one that has been widely ridiculed for its lack or artistry and the fact that is is sheer amateurish.

The ‘film’ is basically a presentation of 5 Qur’anic verses linked together with scenes from terrorists acts and rhetorical speeches of Muslims. The point of this is to show that the Qur’an tells the Muslims to kill all non-Muslims. Of course, no one wants to see this happen. Therefore, Islam must be stopped – at least in the Netherlands.

Admittedly, the talk on Fitna is probably getting stale by now. Nonetheless, I feel the urge to to debunk the claims that verses in the Qur’an incite hatred.

And so, here goes…

Quoted verse #1
(8:60) And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy…

My comments:
In times of war it is only logical that the army should be well prepared. Additionally, soldiers should not be coward bastards who run and hide. This is true for every army that has existed throughout the history of the human race. Even war scenes in fictional films like Lord of the Rings have such concerns.

In any case, the ‘enemy’ mentioned in this verse is referring to those who have agitated fightings. This is evident in the verses that come before the (8:60). This therefore shows that Muslims should not be waging wars against others simply because they are non-Muslims!

The earlier verses

(8:56) Those with whom you make an agreement, then they break their agreement every time and they do not guard (against punishment).

(8:60) And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah’s way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.

My comments: But this is not all. If the enemy decides to surrender or to offer peace treaty instead of coninuing with the war, then peace is indeed preferable. Even if the peace treaty is merely a plot to deceive the Muslim army, the Muslims should not reject the peace treaty. This is clearly stated in the verses after the verse 60.

(8:61) And if they incline to peace, then incline to it and trust in Allah; surely He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

(8:62) And if they intend to deceive you– then surely Allah is sufficient for you; He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the believers.

Quoted verse #2

(4:56) Those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

My comments: This is not an order for the Muslims to burn the skins of the non-Muslims. So, no issue on that. However, this verse do indeed seem to demonize the non-Muslims into creatures that are worth being tortured. But this is not true.

The verse is not referring to all non-Muslims. It is referring to pagan political leaders who are irresponsible and corrupt. This is clearly seen in the verse that came before the verse 56.

(4:51) Have you noted those received a portion of the scripture(Taurat and Gospel), and how they believe in idolatry and false doctrine, then say, “The disbelievers are better guided than the believers?!”

(4:56) Those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Quoted verse #3

(47:4) So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners…

My comments: Take notice of the first few words… “when you meet in battle.” The verse is not asking Muslims to go to the streets and slice off the throats of non-Muslims as and when they please!

In addition to this, when a war is over, the Muslims should set the captives free with no strings attached or they may demand ransom for their release. This is evident from the actual full verse.

(47:4) So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Quoted verse #4

(4:89) They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends… but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

My comments: The verse is talking about hypocrites who only pretend to be Muslims but actually have resentments against the Muslim community. This may be observed from the verses that came before the said verse 89.

(4:88) Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, you shall by no means find a way for him.

(4:89) They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

My comments: The verse that comes after this also shows us that this “kill them wherever you find them” is in the context of wartime. Those who continue to fight from within the Muslim community should be dealt with. But those who are afraid to fight, then the Muslims should not engage battle with them.

(4:90) Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.

Quoted verse #5

(8:39) And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah

My comments: Again, as with the previous quoted verse, this is in the context of wartime.

(8:38) Tell those who disbelieve that if they cease (from persecution of believers) that which is past will be forgiven them;

(8:40) And if they turn back, then know that Allah is your Patron; most excellent is the Patron and most excellent the Helper.

Additional comments: The whole chapter “deals with the problems of the “Spoils of War”. The Quran says that these are not the spoils of war but the “Bounties of Allah” and proves this by showing that the victory at Badr (and in all other battles, too,) was won by His succour and not by the efforts of the Muslims. It also declares (in v. 40) that the war aim of the Muslims should be to eliminate all unfavourable conditions for the establishment of Islam and not to gain spoils.” (USC-MSA)

——————
See also:

1. A comment by iblog4islam at The Observers

2. ABC News: Quran Expert Interviewed by ABC News Reveals the Meanings Behind the Quranic Verses in the Film (ABC News should have provided a background profile of this expert to give the report credibility.)

The problem of food shortage is no longer a threat exclusive to developing countries. In the future, it may be a problem that concerns every country on the planet.

Throughout known history, the number of agricultural products have always outweighed world population. Undeniably, some people are unintentionally undernourished and many have actually died of hunger. However, the problem has always been about lack of opportunities and unequal distribution of food and resources.

However, by 2050, humanity may unfortunately face the real threat of food shortage. With a forecasted population of over 9 billion, experts are concerned that the agricultural industry would not be able to produce enough food for everyone.

But the booming world population is just one issue. The problem also probably lies in the fact that in this modern world, people are consuming more than needed. And with the population of China and India being modernised, there will definitely be a spike in the demand of food product.

Some experts believe that the only way to prevent a real shortage of food is to embrace genetic engineering within the agricultural industry.

However, Genetic Engineering does have its own sets of problems. The main ones being the fact that it is under the oligopoly of big corporations with no moral obligations.

Whether or not we will be able to prevent a serious food crisis from happening remains to be seen.

————-
International Herald Tribune: Tensions rise as world faces short rations

Globe and Mail: The Crisis Felt Around the World

Seattle Times: Rice shortages spur producers to limit exports

———

Narrated Abu Huraira:

A man came to the Prophet. The Prophet sent a messenger to his wives (to bring something for that man to eat) but they said that they had nothing except water. Then Allah’s Apostle said, “Who will take this (person) or entertain him as a guest?” An Ansar man said, “I.” So he took him to his wife and said to her, “Entertain generously the guest of Allah’s Apostle ” She said, “We have got nothing except the meals of my children.” He said, “Prepare your meal, light your lamp and let your children sleep if they ask for supper.” So she prepared her meal, lighted her lamp and made her children sleep, and then stood up pretending to mend her lamp, but she put it off. Then both of them pretended to be eating, but they really went to bed hungry. In the morning the Ansari went to Allah’s Apostle who said, “Tonight Allah laughed or wondered at your action.” Then Allah revealed:

“But give them (emigrants) preference over themselves even though they were in need of that And whosoever is saved from the covetousness Such are they who will be successful.” (59.9)

- Sahih Bukhari

Karen Armstrong’s TED wish

———–
Related: Karen Armstrong’s Lecture in Singapore

My friends had a quick chat on their favourite U.S president candidates. Two of them favoured Obama and another supported Hillary. I was dissapointed that they based their preferences mainly on minority issues. I hope they were joking, bur I kept quiet in dissapointment anyway.

As a non-American, the only concern I have with whoever the next US President is, is his/her take on foreign policy. And Obama and Hillary’s take on foreign policy is not beneficial for global politics.

Allow me to elaborate by starting off from the basics,

Basically, for the U.S president, there are two broad issues that the leader must be concerned with.
1. Domestic issues
2. Foreign Policy

Domestic issues concerns only the country’s own problems and issues. For example, housing, education and health issues. These issues concern largely, the U.S citizens. And whatever decisions the U.S undertake on their domestic issues, it does not significantly concern any other country.

Foreign Policy on the other hand, concerns (almost) every other country in the world. U.S Foreign Policy basically revolves around the question,
“How should we behave ourselves in relation to other countries?”

The Republican candidates typical answer to this is, “Screw everyone else. We are mighty. We’ll take from others what we want.”

The Democrats typical answer is this, “We have a reponsibility to take care of the world and protect the world from evil.”

The Republican’s reponse is apparantly problematic. It boasts of tyranny which no one likes. The Democrats reponse on the other hand, seems noble enough. However, a second thought would make us realise that this reponse is also problematic for two main reasons.

Firstly, no one is asking the U.S to become a hero. And this is problematic because this hero may just mess up countries that don’t need saving in the first place.

Secondly, who should the U.S be a hero to? To every country in need? This is definitely not possible because as mighty the U.S may be, it still is limited in resources. So, who gets to be saved? Only those that can give U.S economic and political gains?

We can thus say that the Democrat’s idea of U.S being a World Police is as problematic as the Republican’s ‘screw every one else’ attitude. Middle-East for instance, will continue to be screwed up and politically imbalanced with Israel, dominating the region. Because as a World Police, it will continue helping Israel to maintain security and keep terrorists out. It will also take military action against Iran just as with Iraq – all in the name of world peace. The Police’s job is to maintain peace after all, isn’t it?

So with that, I hope we’ll refrain ourselves from endorsing a president (albeit an informal one) simply because of his/her political affiliation. And certainly, we should not simply endorse a candidate simply because of racial/gender profile.

The only candidate that seems to hold a different take on foreign policy is Ron Paul, a lesser known candidate from the Republican Party. He’s answer to the question of foriegn policy is something like this, “We should not be a hero, neither should we trouble others. We keep our hands in our own pocket and let other countries manage themselves.”

Now, imagine the possibilities that can emerge within the Middle East region if U.S leaves Israel on its own.

Ron’s policy however, is not to say that U.S should not come to the aid of any country that really needs help. It could still position itself diplomatically as, a member of the United Nations and not as a Big Brother or as a rogue.

So…. as a Muslim who would want to see the ending of Israel’s tyrany and U.S roguery, I hope Ron Paul will take up the presidential office.

Ron Paul!

The following was originally published last year for my school’s Current Affairs Club magazine called ‘VOICE’.

At the point of writing this article, it’s noon. My stomach is now grumbling, begging for my hands to throw a couple of cheeseburgers in to my mouth. Alas, I cannot do that. It is Ramadan, and as a Muslim, I am obliged to fast. That means among others, no eating or drinking, for about thirteen hours, from dawn to dusk.

Gladly enough, I know my stoamaching is a temporary affair. In a few hours, I will dine in with my family and have a sizeable meal. My stomach will be filled and the grumblings will stop.

But across the globe, not all those who are hungry are willing. They are deprived of food, shelter and healthcare. They live on the edge. Any small shortcomings such as flu can cost them their lives. Today, many of them can be found in Darfur.

One of the largest countries in Africa, Sudan can be divided into three regions. The North housing the Arab government, the South populated by Christians and Animists, and the West, Darfur is home to African Muslims.

2005 saw the agreement of a permanent ceasefire between the Government and southeren rebels, who opposed a nationwide Islamic law. Over twenty years of fighting finally ended. However, conflicts between the government and the African Muslims in Darfur continue to worsen since it started in 2003.

African Union (AU) peacekeepers were deployed in 2004 to help stabilise the region and protect civilians from Arab militias also known as the Janjaweed. However, the mission has been proven to be difficult.

Running out of resources, it has been proposed that the peackeeping mission be taken over by the UN. The proposal however, has been fiercely rejected by the Sudan government.

Today, the Janjaweed and other rebel groups have caused the deaths of over 200,000 people and more than 2 million displaced. NGOs such as UNICEF will not stay long in some areas, as fighting has been intensified recently, making the aiding suicidal. When that happens, tens of thousands of people will most likely die of starvation.

The next time I venture into the canteens of NTU, I know I am most fortunate to be able to choose the meals that I want. To be concerned about the tastiness of the meal is indeed a blessing.

More news and background stories of Sudan & Darfur:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/africa/2004/sudan/default.stm
http://www.genocideintervention.net/educate/darfur/news

Poverty did not exist out of thin air,
but from political injustices; a man exploiting another man.

In the Agrarian Justice, Thomas Paine talked about the fact that poverty is the product of human actions. It is not a natural thing. In the Author’s English Preface, he said,
“It is wrong to say that God made rich and poor; He made only male and female, and He gave them the whole earth for their inheritance.”

200 years have passed since Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice. And yet, such inbalance distribution of natural resources still exist. And we are not talking about oil, gold or diamond. But basic biological needs – water and agricultural food.

Just take a look at what’s happening in Palestine:

“One and a half million people depending on the good will of the system that holds them under siege, depending on the diligence and hard work of the truck drivers and the Major’s cheerful few who stand with their clip boards all day sweating in the hot dusty desert while in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Gaza City and Ramallah, Cairo and Riyadh, Brussels and Washington the powerful deliberate and plot, self styled Olympian gods toying with the fate of mere mortals.”- Oxfam’s Gaza Blog: On the road again

Karen Armstrong came down to Singapore on 18th June, to deliver a lecture titled “The Role of Religion in the New Millennium.”

She talked about the present, the past and the future.

Present:
People in western Europe and the US see religion as an anti-modern and even dangerous ideology.

Past:
How has the idea that religion is dangerous came about.
What are fundamentalist groups, and what are their typical behaviour/characteristics.
The secularising political scenes in western europe, US and the Muslim world.

Future:
Religion can only survive if people who champion religion, champion the one thing they have in common – moral values.
And this is the role of religion in the new millennium – to champion the value of compassion, which has become a rarity.

There was also the Q&A session.
She responded to questions such as why people who champion religion have not already champion moral values;
and the feasibility of religion in political scenes.

Karen Armstrong aso highlighted the reason why some Europeans and Americans have strong resentments against religion is that they have the wrong perception of what religion is. They only see all the bad action done in the name of religion.

————-
I’m preparing a transcript of the lecture. But I won’t be posting it up here, so don’t wait.
If you’re interested, let me know.

UPDATE:
An official transcript is available for personal viewing/download:
http://www.muis.gov.sg/cms/Research/spResources_subpg.aspx?id=5388