CULTURAL DISABILITY OR CULTURAL HEGEMONY?
The recent ABC report of cruelty in Egypt to cattle in
following a similar story about Indonesia last year raises the
question. Are the actions of our government indicative of a
cultural disability in Muslim nations, or are they indicative of
cultural hegemony on our part?
First consider the question. If US or UK abattoirs engaged in
mistreatment of animals with similar practices, would our government
stop exports until those practices stopped, or would we rely on the
people of that country to put a stop to such mistreatment?
(either by government regulation or boycotting the product).
That answer is easy. The animal rights group "Compassion Over
Killing" filmed atrocities in California committed from 22nd June
through to 2nd July of 2012, The Australian government did
nothing, but instead relied on the US to rectify the situation.
On August 19 the US government stopped operation of the offending plant.
This is either evidence that our government is guilty of Cultural
Hegemony, or that our government is convinced that Muslim governments
suffer from Cultural Disability, or are just plain culturally primitive.
I would like to immediately state that I greatly admire the Muslim
religion, and were I not a Christian, and so dedicated to the belief
that Jesus is the Son of God, I would study the Koran with the intent
converting. However I will continue to urge my Christian
colleagues to adopt many of the religious beliefs of the Muslim
religion, in particular those relating to the proper place in society
Evidence of the inability of most women to act in the men's world of
by the cohort of females in our current government. Senator
foremost in actions that clearly display the hegemonic belief (outlined
Moslem's suffer from a cultural disability.
Of course not all women are incapable of serving with distinction in
high public office. Margaret Thatcher is a prime example that
proves that women can perform outstandingly in public office. And
without acting in an unfeminine manner.
LOCAL (OZ) POLITICS
The ALP should be finished, except the idiot coalition premiers are
turning out to be so hopeless that Labour will probably turn defeat
into victory in
a couple of election cycles. Barry O'Farrell in NSW wants to
local government councils, and the mutterings against the Liberals from
across our southern border (Victoria) are
getting louder. Tony Abbott is turning out to be a wussy
pussy. Look, Tony. There are some people you will never
convert. Stand up for work choices and small business. And
make sure you keep Rupert onside. I don't know how he does it,
and I don't know why he turned against John, but maybe you do.
For non-OZ (Australian) readers, Sydney is like NY and LA rolled into
one. Good climate like LA, centre of business and art like
Hollywood & Wall St & Broadway. Melbourne is sorta
like Chicago - the politicians from there are Democrat and
reliably to large campaign donations. The police are more
protective of their own than anywhere
else. Brisbane is our tamed version of Dallas-FW and
is probably most like Utah and Darwin is most like Alaska.
As for the economy. Quantitative Easing is a Friedman
solution. And most everyone agrees that it's a fix for
deflation. At least in the
But there is a danger in QE. Engineers know about something they
feedback" and it's opposite, "Positive Feedback". Negative
feedback is stable, positive feedback leads to instability.
Economists call negative feedback mechanisms "Automatic
Stabilizers". They don't seem to have an example or name for
feedback mechanisms. I would like to make a suggestion. How
about Quantitative Easement? Too much and you get
inflation. Not enough and you get deflation. And
there is a delay time factor to take into account. Looks to me
like an unstable oscillation could be set up if the timing (or "period"
in Engineering terms) is wrong. And of course, the more that QE
is applied, the shorter becomes the period.
Europe is stuffed. The south is sinking into deflation with
unemployment. The UK might hold out, (by devaluation) and so
Germany. The adventure into Syria is fraught. We really
need a nuclear confrontation, although I am sure that diverting
attention away from the economy is a temptation.
China and Japan are maneuvering about territory. (to divert
attention from the economy maybe?) I should warn the
Chinese that the Japanese are a proud race, and may well Kamikaze if
them too far. On the other hand, I would warn the Japanese that
Chinese are past masters in politics, and it is better to allow them to
save face, even if it involves minor losses or trade-offs of territory
that might be compensated for in other ways. It's all about
narrative. And each side can provide a local narrative.
OTOH the USA is resurgent. It's advantage is a social system that
allows entrepreneurs to rise above inherited wealth and power (Think
Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, Google). This means the USA has
superior innovation. That innovation ability has uncovered and is
exploiting a new energy resource. QE has maintained stability
through the bad stretch. Hopefully soon it can be abandoned, and
negative feedback will again be the rule.
In China and Europe and Australia people
with power can
(and do) capture and attempt to profit from the creations and
of others. (In Oz think Fletcher & Coles. In China
remember the takeover of the HK airline just after reunion). The
new management fail
to innovate further. Those truly creative innovators are quite
rare, and although an apparatchik can seize one idea, it ends
there. The current boom in the USA is from cheap energy.
And that cheap energy alone will keep the USA resurgent for the next
THE CAUSE OF MIDDLE EAST POLITICAL INSTABILITY
The instabilities of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon & Turkey
(and others in the region) all have one thing in common. That
thing is two (or more) groups within the country, one (or more) of
which chooses to consider itself downtrodden, and that status breeds
Such alienated groups and resentments occur in other parts of the
world, but in Arab nations that resentment seems to be more likely to
find an outlet in violence.
Which brings us to explore the reason. Bill Clinton tried to
solve the Palestinian-Israel issue in talks with Yasser Arafat and the
Israelis. As I recall, the final sticking point boiled down to
the "right of return". Not an issue of territory. Not
ownership of Jerusalem. Two states could have existed. But
Arafat insisted that the Palestinians in refugee camps should return as
citizens to Israel. The Israelis pointed out that if the
Palestinians returned, they would then outnumber the Israelis at the
OK. Imagine that you are (say) a Kurd, or a Syrian or Iraqi
Sunni, or even an Egyptian Christian. Your national leadership is
standing up for the right of Palestinians to have their own
state. Since that logic is presented as righteous, you might
reason "what about my rights? The police always seem to persecute
those of my minority/majority. Oh yes, those poor Palestinians
need a nation. But in the meantime, what about me and my people?"
Perhaps those instabilities and revolutions
have a direct relationship with national leadership's condemnation of