Thought of the day 04.15.2013

"Because he makes me laugh. Because, fuck knows why, he adores me. Because he needs somebody to look after him and nobody else knows how. Because everything about us is wrong and I never ever want to be right. Because I wake up in the morning and see him sleeping next to me with his stupid dyed hair and his stupid painted nails and his stupid toy monkey and I remember I love him so much I don't know what to do, I love him I love him I LOVE HIM."

Richard Rider, Stockholm Syndrome

(Reuters) - Late socialist leader Hugo Chavez's chosen successor Nicolas Maduro won Venezuela's presidential election by a whisker but now faces opposition protests plus a host of economic and political challenges in the OPEC nation.
The 50-year-old former bus driver, whom Chavez named as his preferred heir before dying from cancer, edged out opposition challenger Henrique Capriles with 50.7 percent of the votes in Sunday's election, according to election board returns. Capriles took 49.1 percent, a difference of just 235,000 ballots.
Capriles, whose strong showing beat most forecasts, refused to recognize the result and said his team had a list of more than 3,000 irregularities ranging from gunshots to the illegal re-opening of polling centers.

Breaking the strike

Democracy, elections, freedom of speech, individual rights: pillars of a healthy, ideal society. Or, so it is in theory, where one can just a chose the perfect model of democracy, with the perfect model of elections, with the ideal model of a voter/individual. But what do you get when you translate all this in reality, when you remove the faulty premise that all is built around the perfect individual? What do you get when you intersect interest groups and elections? And what do you get when your individual rights are in conflict with the interests of a group?

We are in Cyprus, and the year is 2013. Let us say I am an immigrant worker (just a generic construction worker) somewhere in Paphos. I think I am legally working (though I am not sure – every time I ask my boss about my “asphalia” he goes crazy, calls me names and threatens me with dismissal, and I don’t have the guts to report it since the times are rough and I know I will end up surely being dismissed anyway). I never work only 8 hours/day (even though that was the initial agreement), and every time it rains I do not work and therefore do not get paid for that day. Let us say also that a certain interest group declares a strike in the name of all… construction workers. And slowly I start to get squeezed in a corner: I express solidarity and run the risk of starving my family, or break the strike (which, anyway, is a political game where I am just a pawn, serving somebody else’s interests).
 

“BUILDERS continued their island wide, indefinite strike yesterday with no apparent end in sight as trade unions SEK, PEO and DEOK have threatened that measures may escalate.
In a statement released yesterday, PEO gave its full support to the builders in their fight against their employers.
“For a long time, employers in the construction industry in Cyprus, citing the crisis and difficulties in the industry, have started an attack on the working class. They have systematically dismissed large numbers of workers and replaced them with cheap labor, increasing unemployment and the impoverishment of the families of thousands of workers,” the statement said.
The builders have organized demonstrations for today after the decision to continue their strike was made yesterday during meetings across Cyprus. They criticized their employers for taking advantage of cheap foreign workers, essentially taking the industry back ten years and destroying the trade union movement.
The central council of the Building Contractors' Association in Cyprus will meet today to consider a proposal from the Labor Ministry.”

Source: Cyprus Mail

Let us say that I decided to break the strike. It is my right to do so. It is everyone’s right to protest, as it is mine to pursue my interests. But it is almost impossible. I spoke with friends and acquaintances about it, and no one dares to break it. The amount of threats they received scared them enough to comply, while in some cases violence was used to stop people from working. I tried to search news about it online: nothing! I search the printed press: nothing! In Paphos, Paralimni, Larnaca I can personally count at least 6 events of this nature, with only one incident (in Paphos) being reported in an obscure “property news” website. What is the guardian of democracy – the press doing? Are they sleeping on the job? Yes, the news about the negotiations are interesting, and yes, the workers are entitled to protest, but how about individual rights? Is the syndicate becoming a mafia organization, building itself on intimidation?

Some might argue that there is no connection between syndicates and the threats, but I cannot see it any other way, not when for almost every attempt to break the strike there was a gang showing up at the working site with clubs and metal rods, ready to show they mean business.

We are talking about social dialog, but that is taking place only among government and those affiliated with a movement or syndicate, and that leaves out individuals whose dignity, rights and even physical integrity may be threatened in the process.
I do not defend immigrant workers (on the contrary, the fact that some accepted to work for illegally, for little money is part of the problem; in this way employers learned that abuses -towards the state and workers- are allowed, especially since the control entities are so weak and corruptible), nor the government or the strike, but I do want to point fingers at all groups. As long as you forget the discrete composition of society, you will just argue interests of one organization, and as long as you fail to show solidarity with your peers you cannot expect improvement in you work condition, and you fail to protect one’s right to disagree you cannot claim you have a healthy society, and inalienable rights for its participants. We cannot allow freedom to exist only in historical speeches, we need it to be part of our day to day life, and we need government to protect it, and syndicate to respect it.

Today, in modern Europe, we cannot afford to have such issues, while preaching others over democracy, while advocating pacifism and non violence. We cannot fix problems by creating others. We cannot forget about each one of us.

Reuters: Libyan Islamist militia swept out of Benghazi bases | Reuters

It takes courage to stand up for something. It takes even more courage to do it when when you stand up against a group known for its violence, with a fundamentalist understanding of religion and politics, that has the tools, financing and support to enforce its views by way of murder, terror and intimidation. It is one of the first signs of real freedom we actually see. We know that the revolution against Gaddafi was confiscated by fundamentalists, for they had the weapons; no ordinary citizen (without a political agenda) would carry a weapon as they have no use for it. We know that control is exercised through militias (no need to inform you about their allegiance), and those groups influence politics (even if it is not the voice of majority) in a game of veiled blackmail for "security".

It is a sign for the government that they need to rush expansion of its own security services, to minimize its reliance on these (at best) militias, if they want a stable, functioning state as soon as possible. And a stable functioning state exists when law and order is enforced by the general rule of law, not of divided, subject to interpretations, corruption and ones interes, ad-hoc decree.

Full article:

An Islamist militia was driven out of the city of Benghazi early on Saturday in a surge of anger against the armed groups that control large parts of Libya more than a year after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.

"A spokesman for Ansar al-Sharia, which some U.S. and Libya officials blame for the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last week in which the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed, said it had evacuated its bases "to preserve security in the city".
In a dramatic sign of Libya's fragility, after sweeping through Ansar's bases the crowd went on to attack a pro-government militia, believing them to be Islamists, triggering an armed response in which at least 11 people were killed and more than 60 wounded. The invasion of Ansar al-Sharia's compounds, which met little resistance, appeared to be part of a sweep of militia bases by police, troops and activists following a large demonstration against militia units in Benghazi on Friday. Demonstrators pulled down militia flags and set a vehicle on fire inside what was once the base of Gaddafi's security forces. Hundreds of men waving swords and even a meat cleaver chanted "Libya, Libya", "No more al Qaeda!" and "The blood we shed for freedom shall not go in vain!"

"After what happened at the American consulate, the people of Benghazi had enough of the extremists," demonstrator Hassan Ahmed said. "They did not give allegiance to the army. So the people broke in and they fled.
"This place is like the Bastille. This is where Gaddafi controlled Libya from, and then Ansar al-Sharia took it over. This is a turning point for the people of Benghazi."
Adusalam al-Tarhouni, a government worker who arrived with the first wave of protesters, said several pickup trucks with Ansar fighters had initially confronted the protesters and opened fire. Two protesters were shot in the leg, he said. "After that they got into their trucks and drove away," he said. Protesters had freed four prisoners found inside.

Libya's government had promised Washington it would find the perpetrators of what appeared to be a well planned attack on the U.S. consulate, which coincided with protests against an anti-Islam video and the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

PRESSURE ON OBAMA
The attack and the outrage directed at the United States over the video across the Muslim world raised questions about President Barack Obama's handling of the so-called Arab Spring. Although Ansar al-Sharia denies any role in the consulate attack, the latest events in the cradle of Libya's revolution appeared at least in part to vindicate Obama's faith in Libya's nascent democracy.

"The killing of the ambassador, and a preceding set of serious security incidents, are a wake-up call to the new government to actually start to improve security," said Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya. "And now they've got backing from the street in Benghazi to do just that."
Libyan political scientist Ahmad al-Atrash told Reuters: "People in Benghazi and all over Libya want to get these militias under control ... The overwhelming feeling is against any element that keeps the situation unstable." The second half of Friday night's protest proved his point.
Continuing to chant anti-Ansar slogans, the crowd, swelling into the thousands, moved on to attack a separate compound where the powerful pro-government Rafallah al-Sahati militia, safeguarding a big weapons store, opened fire on the assailants. As looters later tried to leave the scene, vigilantes wielding clubs and machetes tried to prevent them driving off with heavy weapons. Officials at three hospitals told a Reuters correspondent they had a total of five dead and more than 60 wounded from the night's violence. Police found six more dead bodies near the compound on Saturday morning, police officer Ahmed Ali Agouri said. "We came as peaceful protesters. When we got there they started shooting at us," student Sanad al-Barani said. "Five people were wounded beside me. They used 14.5 mm machineguns." Nasser Abdelhaaq, a Rafallah al-Sahati commander, said the brigade had returned to their compound on Saturday morning. He suggested that the crowd had been deliberately manipulated to turn on Rafallah al-Sahati, an officially approved militia that also has Islamist leanings. "Twenty-five percent of those who came were there as saboteurs," he said. "Some of them, we know who they are, they were working with Gaddafi's security brigades." While the compound was being looted, the government texted Benghazi mobile phones asking citizens to go home and "not allow saboteurs to destroy your noble and successful demonstration".

RELIANT ON MILITIAS
Libya's new rulers know that, while militias pose the biggest threat to their authority, the state's weak security forces rely on former rebel units, armed with heavy weapons, that fought in the uprising. Like the rest of Libya, Benghazi is still prowled by dozens of armed groups operating openly, usually with the official permission of a government that is powerless to stop them.
Ansar al-Sharia's overt Benghazi presence was never huge. But it was one of the few groups operating openly without official licence. Its leaders proclaim democratic government to be incompatible with Islam, and the presence on the streets of pickup trucks bearing their Kalashnikov logo was an affront to the government's authority. Ansar al-Sharia and other Islamist militias have bases elsewhere in eastern Libya, notably around the coastal city of Derna, known across the region as a major recruitment centre for fighters who joined the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

The attack on the U.S. consulate seems to have provided a strong impetus for local authorities to rally support behind the weak national government. Thousands of Libyans marched in Friday's "Rescue Benghazi Day" in support of democracy and against Islamist militias. "It's obvious that this protest is against the militias. All of them should join the army or security forces as individuals, not as groups," student Ahmed Sanallah said. "Without that, there will be no prosperity and no success for the new Libya."
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was well liked, and many Libyans condemned the attack on the consulate despite being angered by the anti-Islamic U.S.-made film that triggered it. Some protesters' placards read: "We demand justice for Stevens" and "Libya lost a friend". Others had mixed views. "I am out today to defend Benghazi. Killing the ambassador is a completely separate thing," said 26-year-old Amjad Mohammed Hassan, a network engineer. "I don't give a damn about the killing of the ambassador because the Americans offended the Prophet. I am just here for Benghazi."


(Additional reporting by Omar al-Mosmary, Mohammed Al-Tommy; Writing by Marie-Louise Gumuchian; Editing by Kevin Liffey)"

Original article can be found here: Libyan Islamist militia swept out of Benghazi bases | Reuters

In the Name of Charity

We all heard about refugee camps, we all know they exist, we all know how people live there, or how people die there. We all have been approached by  charitable organisations at some point in our life, trying to impress us with what they want to do for our human fellow. In fact, on brief visit to a European city (name is not important), I was approached too, but I declined. Not because I am bad person or that I don't care, it is just because i don't trust those organisations nor their means. The cause of this mistrust? The Holiest of them all in the past century: mother Teresa! Asking for big bucks to build a house of dying, not just dying, but dying an absurd way that brings salvation.

I do not believe in just feeding and treating. Call me narrow minded, but I believe it is just a waste of resources, it is just a "problem not solved" continuously growing burden on everyone's shoulders. It is just an extension of the suffering of those in need. One case of smiling, fed and vaccinated child is just not enough; a week later he may become a victim of the system, war or religious quarrels he was trying to escape. It looks god on the camera when he receives a loaf of bread, and the kid smiles thinking he has enough for three days, its fantastic when he gets medical treatment, but almost nothing is made to fix things that brought him in that situation, and here is where I think a different attitude is necessary. That leaves out natural disasters, in those cases the best humanity can do is to offer temporary relief and support.

Now, you will call me a war-monger (some might say a "republican"), but democracy can be enforced (even to the middle east), it just takes patience and commitment, and a proper "World Police Organization". You might say we have one: UN. OK, but I don't see them in Syria, they were not very effective in former Yugoslavia, not very effective in Palestine, not very effective in Darfur... and all three of them huge humanitarian disasters. I even dare to ask a question: how would Syria look like today if it was governed by the before mentioned "World Police Organization"?  Disarmed rebels, disarmed army... the only way forward would have been for them to find common ground and move forward, once the armed struggle is eliminated. And all this while cities would still be habitable, and the victims numbers much lower. But we are afraid we will not get the vote next round of elections; we know that many times decisive action is the best answer, but we chose to stay put and pay the charity bill.

Corruption, Meritocracy and the People

   Corruption, seems to have developed a self-sustaining , indestructible system that perpetuates infinitely in the administration apparatus. I cannot help to believe sometimes that a autocratic political system is needed for 10 years during which a corruption-proof administration can be built, with working paths independent of person, with clear processes and procedures, with penalties and responsibilities for each action and each individual involved in it, with control systems that oversees it, making it independent of politics and outside influences. BUT, here lies a bigger problem: finding that incorruptible involved  individual to do it. Humans are subject to corruption and compromise.

   One can argue that some political systems leave less room for it, and it is true (in part). But one loophole is one too many.

   Not advocating extremism here, examples from history cannot be clearer against it, starting with Roman Empire and ending with North Korea, and who forgets history risks repeating history and failures of the past. There must be a way around it. Having shared time with a Process Engineer, I learned that everything can be optimized, everything can be improved, including administration and political environment. But a designer of it is not enough, will is what we lack. When well structured and compartmented governing structures are in place, the influence of political parties are minimized to the point where it doesn't even matter their participation, which will render their existence useless. And if they do not exist any more, what will the structure look like, what will it be, meritocracy? Hmm... there is another aspect, maybe the most important: public opinion. Can it be harmonized with a meritocracy, or better said can one engineer a symbiosis between an administrative system based on merits and public opinion? Otherwise it will be just another dictatorship using a different name...

Single Government

I like Zeitgeist, za movie! It was put together in such a charismatic way, with a lot of sarcasm used, mixed up with facts, historical interviews, and a lot of questions. A lot of questions!... and a lot of answers, some direct, some, well, not so direct... But, hey, it opened more perspective on some events, some of them crazy and ridiculous, while some quite serious and valid. I liked a lot the description of the Federal Reserves explanation, I loved the part about religion, and really loved the part trying to connect some dots about the conflict in Vietnam, and the two World wars. Also, the lobby for sustainable energy is an interesting part, but just a bit unrealistic, and plagued by omission. But, above all, one subject drew my attention, not only because it sparked controversy, but also because of the hypothetical implications over everyone's life: Single Government!


Now, Single Government,
as described in "za movie" is bad, really bad. And, the idea that a group of organized elite can push world politics in a direction they want, it's like Hitler believing the Jews forced the war upon The Third Reich, and only writing about it now makes me laugh. The whole noise about The Bilderberg Group, to me, seems like a paranoid hysteria of a bunch of drunken house-wifes with far too much free time. Yes, New World Order is a legitimate expression, but more into the changing of poles of power, rather than world domination of elitist few. Effectively, after World War Two, the antagonism of two European Powers (or three - including France), represented by British Empire (allied with France) and The Third Reich, changed to a  bipolar world with the biggest winners in the war: USSR and USA. This expression was used by many politicians in that sense, but Conspirational Theorists managed to extract the seeds of paranoia, as they can develop anything into a conspiracy. Oppressive, repressive, secretive and ruthless are the attributes given, and no human would be safe when they are in charge. That would be bad!...Really, really bad!

But, wait!...
Bad?!... Why, bad?!... Why does it necessarily have to be bad?!.... Well, it is, in the version presented to us! But it doesn't have to be like that. Lets just pause, and take things seriously, if only for a moment; when we talk about Single Government, we talk about a single structure, an entity if you will, with the sole purpose of human betterment, society improvement and global unity. What would be the benefits of this? While our most enlightened heads are working for cures to various diseases, renewable power sources, space exploration, explaining the secrets of the universe, our separated governments work for political advantages, economical advantages, remaining blind to the fact that the future should hold not world dominance, but World Unity. I know, it is like asking angels to have sex with demons, a utopia bigger than communism, but the advantages of it are huge! Think about it (and here, I mean about the ideal case), with a single government we get:

• A singe organizational structure to finance.
• A single, unified set of rules governing trade, justice, administration.
• No customs (stimulating trade, production).
• Uniform prices for basic necessities (or very close to uniform).
• No armies. Those huge amounts of money that fund military organizations (most of which having deterrence as a sole purpose), can go into research. No borders, no national interests equals no need for armies.
• Equal living standards (maybe not equal, but more uniform). That would mean a lot for poor Countries and areas.
• A single currency. Now, I don't know much economics, but I tend to think that one currency avoids many problems related to exchange rates between different currencies, with effects in inflation (if you are economist, correct me if I'm wrong).

There are other benefits to this idea that elude me now ( put them in a comment, if you find any ), and, I admit, some disadvantages. World powers will never relinquish their dominant position in the world, but it is because we do not dare to dream and wish such a thing, and some even fear it.

And, yes, it is daydreaming!
But please, let me dream! I thought this to be a good discussion topic and I have put my 2 cents in. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.