Some time ago, I blogged on Dubya's religious beliefs, and a report on the BBC web site today, Christian foot soldiers battle for Bush, indicates that his evangelical stance is set to pay electoral dividends in the southern states. George Soros, meanwhile, has other ideas. In an article appearing in the The Age, Bursting the Bush bubble, Soros (described by the author as 'probably the only US citizen with his own foreign policy') is reported as saying that 'ending the Bush presidency's "supremacist ideology" has become a "matter of life and death" for the planet's future'.
The Age piece goes on to make reference to Soros' new book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, in which he gets stuck into Bush's 'war on terror' and the way it has been used to impose US views and interests. Bush he sees as a classic "victim turned perpetrator" and an ideal front man for neo-con ideologues, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. According to Soros "It suits his personality because he's a born-again. He is a former substance abuser (alcohol) who has personal acquaintance with the devil because he has experienced it inside himself and then he has been reinforced by a devil (al-Qaeda), which tried to destroy him by attacking him in the White House." Needless to say, the bible belt are less than impressed with George S.
I've been stewing on this for a week or two now, and reading Phillip Adams' piece in the Oz at the weekend, In Fear We Should Trust, it has reminded me just how Orwellian the world has become post-September 11. Gary Sauer-Thompson's analysis of the Australian Government's decision to invest several billion dollars of tax payers' money on a missile defence system, Boys and Their Toys, provides evidence of this. Just exactly who are these missiles going to be pointing at? Leunig's cartoon (also located at Gary's blog) sums it up rather nicely. Another article on the topic - a personal favourite - is located here.
The New York Times (Iraq Illicit Arms Gone Before War, Departing Inspector States) leads today on the resignation of David Kay, the man who led the US effort to find WMD in Iraq. Interviewed by Reuters, Kay said he'd concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the war last year, and that while Iraq may have had illicit weapons at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, a combination of United Nations inspections and Iraq's own decisions since, "got rid of them". This is obviously an embarrassment to President Bush, but what impact (if any) will it have on his re-election prospects?
President Bush's resumé certainly makes interesting reading (thanks to Free Pie for this link). Sadly, given the multi-million dollar stage management of US presidential elections, and the increasing cynicism that accompanies old age, I seriously wonder whether this will make any difference.
With the departure of the irascible Dr Mahathir from the Malaysian political stage last October, there has been a lot of speculation that the former Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, might be released from prison. Gaoled four years ago on charges of corruption and sodomy, Anwar had his day in court yesterday, seeking bail while awaiting the outcome of an appeal against the latter conviction for which he must serve nine years.
The Straits Times reports on the events surrounding the denial of bail, and how, much to the chagrin of Anwar, the judges refused to give reasons for the denial. All this should not come as too much of a surprise to Anwar and his supporters. With the prospect of an election in a couple of months, it was unlikely that Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, would risk releasing the still popular Anwar to upset UMNO's election apple cart. What does remain to be seen, is whether -- after the election -- Abdullah Badawi will deliver on his promise to allow more freedom of political expression.
This is copy of a letter I emailed this morning to Lonely Planet, the travel guide company...
Dear Tony and Maureen
As a long time consumer of your publications, I discovered to my horror today that you tacitly support the military junta in Burma. By producing such a publication you are effectively endorsing the actions of a government with one of the world’s worst records on human rights.
Turning a blind eye to murder, rape and torture is one thing, but almost as offensive is the following statement on your website:
"Lonely Planet is passionate about bringing people together, about understanding our world, and about people sharing experiences that enrich everyone's lives ... Travel can be a powerful force for tolerance and understanding. As part of a worldwide community of travellers, we want to enable everyone to travel with awareness, respect and care."
I think the very least you can do is remove this statement until you actually mean it!
The Introduction to the 'Myanmar' Guide is also a nauseating cop-out -- pity the people of Burma don't have the luxury of making such choices! If you are seriously concerned about the plight of these people, you would simply not publish the book and issue a statement on your website saying why. Many forward-thinking, and commercially-successful companies are now publishing reports detailing the actions they have taken aimed at greater corporate social responsibility (CSR). These companies are doing this because they realise that people 'vote with their wallets'. I think you would be well advised to wake up to this. Indeed, I predict that you will actually increase your company's overall sales by withdrawing the book, and making a public statement in support of Aung San Suu Kyi and the pro-democracy movement.
In the meantime, until you withdraw this publication, when I teach about CSR and competitive advantage in MBA courses I will use Lonely Planet as an example, and rather like your Introduction in the Myanmar Guide, I will let the students draw their own conclusions!
Also note that I will be publishing a copy of this letter on my web site.
Yours sincerely
Dr Jeremy Williams (former Lonely Planet Guide consumer)
The Economist this week reports on the Spanish government's national hydrological plan, Europe's biggest water project (Ebro eddies, password required).
Originally proposed by the Socialist government in 1993, the plan is for 120 dams and 1,000km of pipelines to be constructed that would divert a cubic kilometre every year away from the Ebro River, of which a fifth would flow to the Barcelona area and the rest to Valencia, Murcia and eastern Andalusia. Last month the Spanish government formally requested European Union finance to meet a third of the $15 billion cost of the whole project. The European Commission conditionally approved €80m ($100m). The Economist notes that critics say 'the entire plan is outmoded, unwieldy and designed to benefit the government's business friends' and that there are claims it will 'cost twice as much to transport the water as it would to produce more water through desalination'. Asit Biswas, an international consultant recruited by the opponents of the plan, says it will be “a magnificent monument to bad planning for decades and even centuries to come”, while the Greens argue that it will 'destroy the Ebro delta wetlands, home to such protected species as spoonbills and egrets'. Nice to see that the EC is using European taxpayers' funds as effectively as ever.
One of my favourite lines in the movie The Full Monty is when Dave musing over Gerald's wife's anti-wrinkle cream, lamented that what he really needed was some 'anti-fat bastard cream'. According to the State of the World 2004 report produced by the Worldwatch Institute, Dave is not alone.
Indeed, he is being joined in increasingly large numbers. The report says that 'In the United States, an estimated 65 per cent of adults are overweight or obese, leading to an annual loss of 300,000 lives and at least $117 billion in health care costs in 1999.' Worryingly, the rest of the world is following suit. In Richer, stouter, and no happier, Alex Kirby of the BBC notes that more than 25% of the world's people now 'enjoy' the lifestyle which used to belong to the rich. Rising obesity and debt, and increasing pressures on time, are reducing many people's quality of life. Meanwhile, 'consumers' demands are devouring the natural world unsustainably, leaving the poor less able to meet their needs.'