Part 1

It is rare these days to have successful Hollywood productions that are six hours long. American attention spans are simply not equipped to weather such torture. I was therefore surprised at the success of the movie John Adams. To my relief I later learnt that the six hours were divided into one-hour episodes and shown on HBO before they were sold on CD. It was well worth it. The movie provides wonderful insights into the foundations of the US polity and democratic institutions while telling a personal story. I will not say much about the movie so as not to ruin the experience for those who may choose to watch it.

One of the profound revelations in the movie is how particular to a culture and history the formation of a new state can be. Despite the revolutionary leaders’ identity as aristocratic Englishmen, the system that they founded had very little in common with the governing system in London. But it did closely resemble the aspirational hopes of Britons like John Locke. Puritan discipline combined with economic transformation and cheap firearms allowed revolutionaries to refuse subordination to a foreign power and helped assert democracy. Well sort of.

…a low tolerance for cognitive dissonance leads most propagators of falsehood to self-deception; they tend to say what they believe, having first come to believe what they say.[1]

“Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency. Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. Cognitive dissonance is a perceived inconsistency between two cognitions in which the person believes one thing but then acts in a different way from what they believed. For the purpose of cognitive dissonance theory, cognitions are defined as being any element of knowledge, attitude, emotions, belief or value, as well as a goal, plan, or an interest. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions,”[2] since it is very hard to live with cognitive dissonance.

Notes and references have been omitted from this version to make it reader-friendly. For the footnoted version, click here(PDF)

Adam Smith summed up the vile maxim of the elite class as follows (back in 1776): “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” To be sure, there was only contempt in the US for the “vile maxim” during the 19th century among industrial workers (including the lively and vibrant working class press), who bitterly condemned the advance of the Industrial Revolution and much of what it entailed, more concisely, the “‘New Spirit of the Age’: gain wealth, forgetting all but self.” This would have been inconceivable under conditions of brotherly love, solidarity and subsequent equality of condition (not just opportunity), which is a democratic imperative.

Even though money-hungry marauders (political and economic masters) know that only very few of the many who seek wealth will find it, still, it is of inestimable importance for them to instill that value nevertheless, so that by mindlessly and pathologically seeking wealth, forgetting all but self, we destroy our sense of community without which we cannot renew democracy and regain, or gain for the first time, our status as sovereign citizens, hence cannot thrive as a human race, cannot realize our fullest human potentialities.

You can trust neither the rainy season sky nor babies’ bottoms. [Ethiopia] 

Ethiopians have been farming for millennia. They have also faced severe food shortages for about as long. Reliance on natural rainfall for farming is at times similar to gambling in a casino – except with literally deadly consequences when one loses. This begs the question of why these people who have historically innovated in all manners of technology have not been able to simply copy modern agricultural methods from others to achieve food security in recent times. 

If you haven’t heard already they are about to do so. Well sort of; they are going to start by using their land and labor to achieve food security for the Saudi’s first. They are not alone. Since 2004, 2.5 million hectares of African land has been snapped up by the wealthy of our world. That is equivalent to 138 farms the size of the largest one in the world located in north western Canada. The pace of land acquisition is accelerating in 2009 and the scramble is on. But who are the combatants and what do they really want? 

In a community of beggars, stealing and not begging, is considered a crime. [Ghana] 

Kofi Annan has a new job. He is leading AGRA, The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.

The idea of piracy has made a sensational comeback in popular culture and world politics in the last several years. Hollywood has cashed in millions of dollars popularizing the old mischief. I have attended enough pirate themed children birthday parties to start to consider pirates lovable rascals.

That’s until the Somali pirates enter the picture and ruin the facade for all of us. The news of teenage Somali pirates has infiltrated the airwaves around the world, coming to its climax a few weeks ago with the murderous act of the U.S military. With what is called a ‘failed state’, we have come to expect anything from Somalia. Piracy is not the worst of them. After all, it has been drummed into our psyche that we humans are self destructing beings if not watched over by the more prudent amongst us, such as governments, despite how tyrannical. Lo and behold, Somalis don’t have one.

Such is the picture that is being painted for us of the Somali pirates. A bunch of unruly teenagers causing trouble on high sea. Given our modern education/conditioning that the state is our guardian, the image of Somali pirates quickly conjures thoughts of undisciplined and out of control children.

On May 12, 2009, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released a report showing that same air cargo companies transporting humanitarian aids to Africa also funneled arms into the same volatile parts of the continent.  The research is performed by two British nationals with former ties to governmental and non-governmental organizations.  The report focuses primarily on the messengers of the destabilizing efforts as supposed to the sources.  What could be the logic given by the researchers to go after the air cargo companies, as supposed to the sources who are paying them to transport their cargo?  The former are easier to track. It is from that perspective a recommendation is also offered to boycott the air cargo companies.  The logic behind such recommendation is that, if reputable governmental and humanitarian organizations cease to utilize the services of these messengers, the problem may be obviated.  This approach clearly assumes that reputable organizations (such as governments and NGOs) are not involved with the ‘bad’ cargo (some weapons and illicit drugs) that the aircraft are carrying.  It is also implicitly assumed that if reputable organizations cut off income to these airliners by denying them business, the problem can be curtailed.  Furthermore, it is assumed that the weapons that go to destabilize a region are those that originate from non-reputable organizations, as the report mentions the ones coming from western government are for logistic defense support only.