Category — Politics

McCain and the POW Cover-up

Assault on USS Liberty still covered up

The book “Desperate Deception”

The book “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II“

I don’t think anybody who’s up with publishing news hasn’t, by now, read the article at Publisher’s Weekly on JA Konrath’s deal with Amazon.

I also have Konrath’s blog on feed so was interested in reading his feedback on the article. Oh my. Konrath, while polite, doesn’t mince words, saying that “PW’s version of the truth is lacking in many areas.”

Oops. I tend to be fractally sceptical, so thought I’d compare something fairly easy to verify between the two accounts. PW says:

According to Nielsen BookScan, the first book in the Jack Daniels series, Whiskey Sour (2005), sold 32,000 copies, while the latest, Cherry Bomb (2009), has sold 4,000 copies.

Now, that’s damning, you have to admit. Oh what a has-been Konrath is! No wonder he moved to Amazon, the hack! But hold on. What’s this? Konrath says:

CHERRY BOMB, my last book in the contract, is not coming out in paperback until June [2010].

So, what sold 4,000 copies? Was it the paperback, as PW intimates (“Konrath … has been published by Hyperion in paperback for years”), or the hardback as Konrath insists? Amazon (and The Book Depository) confirm that the edition of CHERRY BOMB published in 2009 is, indeed, the hardback. So Konrath was right! Double oops. In light of this, one can only read PW’s statements, such as:

So Konrath essentially took a book no one wanted and instead of fully self-publishing it, signed with Amazon-Encore, which will bring the book out in paperback a year after the Kindle release this summer ….

as being somewhat spiteful. And here I was, thinking that a rag on publishing might be just a teeny weeny bit above spin. Le sigh.

It bit extra deep because I also got my free Top 5 daily email from Roubini yesterday. (What, you think I pay for my propaganda?) Because one of my abiding loves is economics (no, seriously), I have learnt to take anything to do with politics, economics, sociology, etc. with a grain of salt. So when I read this (I’ve highlighted the amusing bits):

The current financial and economic crisis—and in particular the still unfolding sovereign debt crisis in Europe—has highlighted a change in Germany’s attitude towards the so-called “European project” and the quickening pace of Germany’s emergence from what might be called its post-war transition. While in the past often putting its interests second to European unity, Germany has now become much more outspoken about its own political and economic goals. German pronouncements on everything from the need for new financial regulations to NATO expansion into former Soviet territory to the proper role of the ECB had already riled its partners to varying degrees, but since the onset of the Greek crisis, these tendencies have grown much more pronounced. Germany’s unilateral adoption of a deficit cap, initial resistance to a European bailout and, most recently, unilateral restrictions on short-selling all serve as evidence that the EU’s largest economy is increasingly focusing on policy goals more consistent with its own unique export-dependent, highly prudent economy, even if those aims come at the expense of its European partners.

the antennae immediately twitched. Germany as a selfless paragon of European unity? Where did this come from? The Germany we all know has pushed the agenda of the EU insofar as it would increase its own dominance in the group. Just ask any of the other nations. Remember Rumsfeld’s grizzles about “Old Europe” and “New Europe”? Germany and France were considered by him to be “Old Europe” — two big economies with their own axes to grind. Now we’re supposed to believe that Germany is some angel of European unity, selflessly putting itself last? Sorry, nobody who knows political history at all buys that.

The second snorting point is about Germany’s “unilateral restrictions on short-selling … com[ing] at the expense of its European partners.”

Oh, now Roubini is going past analysis and diving straight into fantasy. Anybody who doesn’t live within the censored media bounds of the USA knows that Europe can’t stand the kind of short-selling that inevitably led to the last financial collapse. Or, to put it another way, nobody in Europe likes short-selling, but Germany was the first to out-and-out forbid the practice. There is no “coming at the expense of” in this situation. There is no disagreement. The ONLY people who disagree with this move are the American investment banks.

I’ve noticed that Roubini often has a hidden agenda and it’s becoming more and more apparent in his group’s analyses. It’s still useful information. Remember that. It’s all useful information, but you gotta watch that spin.

TANGENT: And just to give you cognitive trauma coming on the heels of economic news, Two Lips gave the Cougars & Cubs anthology (featuring my short story, Singapore Sizzle) 5, er, kisses? Mouths? Lips? Whatever it was, it’s much appreciated. Thank you Two Lips!

Man, I’m pooped and I haven’t even begun my promo push yet! Monday already and I really don’t know what to write.

J and I were discussing the sophistication of voters this morning and how a complete reluctance to even talk about politics leads, in my mind, to a lazy and uninvolved populace. I wanted to expound on this in a post, but it’s way too big for just one and I don’t have time for the moment.

I read in the papers that the Malaysian ringgit has appreciated and will continue to appreciate across major currencies. What does this mean for Singapore, besides the fact that the hordes to come over and buy up everything in the local supermarkets will find their Singbucks don’t go as far as they used to?

Malaysia is also in the top ten of competitive countries (list of 58, from memory). Switzerland put the list together and — oh surprise! — Switzerland is also in the top ten. Well, I suppose when you define the entire game, you’re entitled to include yourself in the winner’s circle, right?

There is talk that the subsidies on oil, sugar, flour and petrol in the country Must Go! Prime Minister Najib has a fine balancing act to contemplate. If the government phases out subsidies (and I can only see unsubsidised sugar in this diabetes-rich country as A Good Thing), a lot of people are going to be pretty upset. The only way he can make this work is to somehow encourage higher wages to offset the subsidy cuts or risk a semi-skilled drain to Singapore. The raw argument goes: why earn RM1,500/month in Malaysia when you can earn SG2,000/month in Singapore? (SG1.00 = RM2.30) Well, for one reason, RM1,500 buys you a helluva lot more in Malaysia than SG2,000 buys you in Singers. The smart ones will live in Johor and commute to Singapore and join 65,000+ other people doing the same thing. But what does this mean for Malaysia?

And, in writing, well I’m working on a new novel, so it’s just slog slog slog at the moment and — eek! — June next week. Back to my writing machine. See you Wednesday.

Of course there are things happening in Malaysia at the moment, but I can’t write about the news while ignoring Bangkok.

I think the pictures in Asian newspapers are more graphic than those in Western papers, and here’s what I opened to yesterday morning (click to enlarge).

I don’t know enough about Thai politics to speak definitively on this issue, although I do wonder where the Thai king is in all of this? He’s protected by a frighteningly devout population, as well as a number of punitive laws should you even breathe the wrong way while in the same city as him, and yet he remains ostensibly silent while his own subjects are being killed under the authority of an elected official. This is all too much for my feeble mind to take in.

Much more personally, I have friends in Thailand so am naturally worried about them. I’m not about to ask anybody to pray for them, because prayer achieves absolutely zilch in the getting-better-in-any-situation stakes. I’m just monitoring and hoping they are all okay.

In other news, after reading a post on minimalism at Smashing Magazine, I decided to apply that principle to my website and you’ll now find that the front page is bare of all those little updatey things that used to go at the bottom. I’m still thinking of how best to organise the other releases so it doesn’t resemble a hodge-podge of stories from all over the place, but haven’t come to any firm conclusions yet.

Tomorrow, I have a guest author. It’s Ann Wilkes, fellow Broad and fellow sf writer, so please make sure you visit. She has some interesting things to say about writing and recycling. You wouldn’t want to miss it.

And you still have time to enter the Cougar Growls competition by leaving a comment at any of the Cougar posts. I’ll be drawing a winner tomorrow evening, Malaysian time.

When people talk about civilians and World War Two, the focus inevitably shifts to Europe and heroic tales of the French Resistance, as if they were the only party of resistance fighters (aka terrorists) in the War. Not a lot of people even think that Asia suffered predations as well, so I was happy to see an article in Sunday’s paper and even happier to note that it was about an Eurasian woman, Sybil Kathigasu.

Born to Indian and Irish parents in Indonesia, Sybil was brought up in Malaysia (Malaya, as it was then known) and was still there when the Japanese marched in using their own version of a blitzkrieg back in 1941. As the newspaper article puts it:

[Sybil]…endured unimaginable torture under the hands of Japanese soldiers. Her fingernails were ripped off with pliers and her legs scalded with iron rods … She suffered damage to her spine and skull after a severe beating by thick bamboo sticks. None perhaps was more torturous than witnessing her six-year-old daughter, Dawn … being hung from a tree over a fire.

… Sybil died aged 49 in Britain. And old wound on the jaw sustained from the kick of a Japanese boot had brought on a fatal bout of septicaemia.

Click on the image below to enlarge and sorry about the patchwork nature of it. My scanner is only A4 sized.

Although we have always been a very small part of the population, I’m proud to know that Eurasians were an active part of the resistance during the War. My paternal grandfather, for example, also used to keep a radio set (the possession of which meant an automatic death sentence). My father told me of one occasion when a Japanese patrol decided to do a random check of houses. They went from room to room in the family home. When the officer opened the door to one of the rooms, he saw a radio set in there that my grandfather hadn’t had time to hide yet. There was a frozen moment before the Japanese officer closed the door again and left the house.

Why didn’t the Japanese officer do anything? Had he lost faith in the war? Maybe he didn’t care one way or another? Was he was sick of all the killing? All I know is that if it wasn’t for that Japanese officer, I probably wouldn’t be sitting here writing this now. It was also just as well that my father’s family didn’t live in the capital, Kuala Lumpur, where the Japanese ruled with a much tighter fist. My maternal grandfather talked about walking through the city, past streets with the heads of resistance fighters (or just anybody who displeased the Japanese) rotting on top of long stakes. I’ve seen photos of it and it’s a gruesome sight. One can only imagine what that smelt like in the tropical heat.

It seems that everyone was forced to bow whenever they encountered a Japanese, officer or soldier and, as my grandfather bowed, he always made sure to mutter something like: “I can’t wait till you’re dead, you Japanese bastard.” If any of the Japanese thought he was insulting them, it would have meant beheading on the spot from one of the katanas that the officers used to wear, but he couldn’t help himself. It used to drive my grandmother crazy.

Ah, I wanted to talk about Sybil, but it looks as though I’ve ended up talking about my family. I know I have new blog readers here and you have to know that my favourite topic to discuss is politics and resistance to the prevailing dogma, which a lot of you may not like. But, bearing in mind what I’ve said, I hope you understand. I have no choice. It’s in the blood.

POSTSCRIPT: What happened during WWII, more than sixty years ago, has a direct bearing on who I am. I wonder what the grandchildren of Iraq and Afghanistan will have to say in the next sixty years? But how many writers have we already lost? How many artists? How many engineers? How many scientists? These are people whose gifts will now never help humanity heal, feel or progress.

So the papers are a flutter with news of yet another Catholic bishop (Walter Mixa), a personal friend of Pope Benedict XVI (aka B-16), flogging children at an orphanage in Germany while yelling: “Satan is in you and I must drive him out.”

(Satan was in someone, sweetheart, but I’m not sure it was the children.)

This is hot on the heels of B-16 being forced to finally face the child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church because latest news broke that they happened in Germany which, as we all know, is his Fatherland.

But that got me thinking. What about Asia? People have told me of Catholic brothers in boarding schools coming to the dormitory a few nights a week and calling for boys. Later, those boys would return to their beds crying and refusing to talk to anyone. What do you think went on? A midnight prayer ritual?

Or nuns who would severely beat children at Catholic boarding schools for holding hands, calling the small girls “filthy”. No projection going on there, eh Sister?

We already know that the venerable Ratzinger, when he was only the power behind the Throne (rather than the Ray Ban-sporting, Ferrari-blessing Throne itself) used to move paedophile priests from one parish to another to avoid lynching from outraged parents. And yet Asia has been deathly quiet on this. It makes no sense. Although, once you spend some cycles on it, you’d realise that Asia is actually the perfect place to send paedophile priests.

One. You have a huge population of people used to living under strictly hierarchical, totalitarian systems. (Democracy wasn’t invented in Japan, know what I’m saying?)

Two. You have a huge emphasis on belief. Belief in the Emperor/King/Sultan, as well as all the religions running around. The wrapper on my Gardenia brand loaf of bread, for Chrissakes, says that the first National Principle of Malaysia is:

Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan (aka “Belief in God”)

That’s even before the principle of law or loyalty to the country. And that’s on my damn bread wrapper!

Three. You have populations of different religions all over the place. What are you going to do if you find that your priest has been playing touchy-feely with your child? Go to another church? How can you when there are not so many around? (I’m excluding the Philippines here.) There are Buddhist temples closer to you than the church you normally attend. You can change religions but who’s to say one is going to treat you/your child better than another, and what will your friends and family say about you jumping ship like that? You can’t be a non-believer. See Point Two above. You are, essentially, trapped.

Four. You won’t be believed. Oh man, you think some populations in Europe are compliant? (Germans, for example.) They’re nothing compared to Asia. When you can be thrown into jail for doing nothing more than commenting on the hypocrisy of a ruler publicly doing something against his religion, you know you’re on shaky ground the minute you try to tell someone that the Emperor’s aide isn’t sporting much in the way of underwear either. The cult of personality is strong in this part of the world, whether we’re talking about God or the latest rich Hindu holy man. You swim against the tide at your peril.

Five. We’re brown, so who cares? Consider this. You’re some white, superior jerk sitting in Vatican City somewhere, and you get told about a paedophile priest. You belong to one of the largest, richest, most private corporations in the world. Money is no object to you. What are you going to do to the priest, especially if one of your trusted bishops doesn’t like him very much? Shift him from County A in England to County B in Ireland? Or, just so he gets the message, send him to the Philippines? The little brown natives are going to be so happy they have a White Man to minister to them (oh, the status!) that they’ll poke their own eyes out with a red-hot poker rather than admit their Pale-skinned Shepherd is ministering to things other than their souls.

The silence around child sex abuse from priests is so deafening in Asia that it’s unnatural. They do it in Europe? In the Americas? But not Asia? Something’s going on and, unfortunately, it’s my personal bet that when the first story breaks of abuse in Asia — as it must — the parishioners will end up looking as culpable as the priest.

No, really!

What is the saying that’s bandied about? That there are only seven or eleven or something story lines in the world? I suppose you could say the same about political outcomes. There are only a handful of them and they play out, century after century, regardless of technology level.

I’ve been reading about what’s been happening in the United States. Israel, Palestine, the military. What is indisputable is that the United States is Israel’s strongest ally. In fact, some might say that the USA often puts its own aims to one side in order to support Israel. Certainly, that support has come at the cost of strong relationships with the Arab nations in the Middle East, excepting Saudi Arabia and Egypt perhaps.

I’m actually not wanting to say whether I think that’s right or not, I’m just stating facts. In any question of Israel versus any other state or group, you only have to look at the Congressional voting record to see that the US elected representative body always, but always, sides with Israel.

That’s the politics. Let’s go to the military. If there’s one thing you can say about the military, it’s that they have an over-developed sense of nationalism. Soldiers are nationalists, and why not? They fight for a country, they die for it. There’s nothing that makes the ideal of a nation stronger than being prepared to lay down your life for it.

The interesting current tension lies between the two groups. You see, the military disagrees with the level of support that the US government gives to Israel. While Joe Biden is saying stuff like this:

Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as Vice President of the United States….

General Petraeus, future Presidential contender, is saying something like this:

The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR [Area Of Responsibility, the Middle East in this case --ksa] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.

And while Barack Obama says:

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided

thus cutting the Palestinians out of all recognition of their claims to the city, Admiral Michael Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff tells Israel that attacking Iran would be a:

big, big, big problem for all of us

The views of the military, interestingly enough, are also echoed by various analysts within the various Departments of the United States.

So, what would it take to stage a military coup in the US or, at the very least, bring in a military-styled structure to its civil society? You can easily see the justification, can’t you? The nationalists see the current support of Israel as working against the national interests of their country. Up against the nationalists is a group of people that is supposed to represent the people but, everyone agrees, is corrupt and available to the highest bidder. And, in between, one small country as a catalyst.

You might say that, sure, a coup may be attempted, but that the American people themselves would defeat the sustainability of such an unnatural act. If you say that, I’d counter with the economy itself and the disillusionment of thousands, if not millions, of US citizens. Dean Baker puts it most succinctly in a recent Counterpunch article:

… tens of millions of people are out of work or underemployed today, not because they are too lazy to work or lack the necessary skills and experience. They are out of work because the people who manage the economy could not do their job right. None of the people in policy positions lost their jobs because of this failure.

Hmmmm. If you had some strong personality who promised a full shutdown (or, at least, review) of military aid to all countries, full employment of Americans through massive infrastructure projects, and the deployment of armed forces throughout US cities in order to reduce crime levels (*), in the current climate, how many Americans would realistically protest?

There was one known coup attempt in the United States last century. Who’s to say there won’t be another, but this time with the military front and centre? I keep thinking of Emperor Palpatine and the “sweeping away of the old Republic” and wonder how things will play out. No prophecies, I’m just watching.

IN OTHER NEWS: I was at Novel Spaces yesterday, talking about persistence. Why not comment?

(*) Sorry, did you say Posse Comitatus? It was suspended once; it can happen again.

Coming up with our own rules? But everyone will see!

I’m very happy to announce that Malaysia is looking at a comprehensive review of the loathsome ISA (Internal Security Act). This piece of legislation allowed for summary detention without trial for anyone deemed to be a threat to the State. The current argument is that the ISA, along with five other associated Acts, will be overhauled in a consistent manner. What that actually means in execution is another matter, although quite a number of prominent jurists have been asking for a wholesale repeal of the ISA, citing it as an outmoded piece of legislation that deserves no consideration in a civilised country. Hear hear!

The people who want to retain the ISA commonly bring up the objection that what the ISA contains is now also contained in the terrorism legislation of all those bastions of Western civilisation, such as the UK and the USA (and Australia). Who is Malaysia, they ask, to throw out the ISA when the countries who accuse the country of heinous human rights abuses have instituted similar laws themselves?

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard variations of this argument. “Why should we do this when morally superior X isn’t?” or, “You think there isn’t A-B-C in America? That we’re the only country that has it? America can’t do anything about their problem!”, thus implying that we shouldn’t do anything about ours either. For a continent that has supposedly shaken off the shackles of colonialism and is fast becoming The Economic SuperRegion Of The World, you’d think that Asians would have moved past the point of constantly comparing themselves to the so-called West. Alas, it isn’t so.

Why should we do “this thing”? How about, because it’s the decent thing to do? How about a bit of independent thinking on how we should be treating our own citizens within the scope of our own country? How about applying laws of decency because they’re fair and decent and not because a Western country has, or hasn’t, instituted them?

I think I’m in danger of having a concave head with all the headpalm-ing I’ve been doing in recent months. Who. The. Hell. Cares. Whether Thailand or South Korea or Pakistan has similar legislation? Do it because it safeguards your citizens. Do it because it increases people’s quality of life. Do it because it’s the fair and humane thing to do. If you say you’re a religious country and thus live to a higher moral code, prove it! But don’t make up excuses that constantly betray a childish comparison to countries that, quite frankly, don’t give a damn about your own citizens. That just tells me you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. And nobody’s fooled.

International Women’s Day always comes around in a surprise for me. I used to love celebrating it in Brisbane. Although a working day, there were often lunches and dinners organised by various organisations and, after a morning of work, you could toddle off to a series of functions with good food and flowing wine and make a very nice day of it.

In Poland, the day — which used to be celebrated in a major manner — has now slipped a bit in disuse as the society designates it a “Communist” day. In fact, it was created by the Socialist Party of America in 1909 (back in the day when the USA actually had a socialist party and an Anti-Imperial League; Mark Twain was one of the League’s more vociferous members) and, so Wikipedia tells me:

Demonstrations marking International Women’s Day in Russia proved to be the first stage of the Russian Revolution off 1917.

In Malaysia, the celebrations are low-key, if they exist at all. I’ve tried to find an article in Sunday’s The Star for you but it doesn’t appear in any online searches. For those who have the paper, it’s in Sunday’s edition, on page N17. The article is headed “Women’s Day forum receives poor response”:

An International Women’s Day 2010 forum organised by the … [Penang] … government received poor response with only 10 people attending the morning session although chairs were allocated for 100 participants.

State executive councillor, Lydia Ong, who’s been “active in non-governmental organisations (NGOs) since 2005″ goes on to say that:

“We noticed that whenever forums or talks on ‘hard issues’ are held, the turnout is poor compared too say, classes on cooking or self-grooming.” … Ong attributed this to the “very low” level of awareness among women of their rights.

Of course, as you dig deeper into the article, you find that you had to pay to attend the forum and that the poor response was for the morning, Mandarin, session. The afternoon session, in English, attracted 60 people, which isn’t bad. I still wonder about that comment of Ong’s however: do women shy away from politics and human rights, actively preferring seminars on cooking and fashion? Does anyone have a comment they’d like to make about this?

So, anyway, it’s International Women’s Day today. If you’re at all thankful to the women around you, from mother to co-worker, take a moment to be appreciative. It may be as simple as buying them a coffee or even sparing some time to give your mother or sister a phone call. It could be buying your daughter a lollipop as a treat. Whatever it is, it will be very much appreciated. And a good Day to all!

You listen to who?

(Sorry about Wednesday. Had to get into Singapore for something. Back to normal programming now. Er, maybe.)

I’m going through an Umberto Eco kick at the moment. I finished his “How to Travel With a Salmon” and have delved back to re-discover “Travels in Hyper Reality“. I think I’ll write on that volume sometime in the future, but what struck me was a congruity between the introduction of Hyper Reality (written in the original Italian back in the early 70s) and Immanuel Wallerstein’s latest commentary (this week).

(ASIDE: Immanuel Wallerstein is an American sociologist who’s interested in world systems. He’s Senior Research Scholar at Yale. I subscribe to his Commentaries so get them via email, but the one I’m alluding to (Number 275), can be found here.)

Eco mentions that, on a visit to the USA, he was asked by a reporter how he reconciled his work as a scholar with that of a columnist with one of Italy’s most widely-read newspapers. It’s interesting that Eco sees no conflict between the roles but that the US journalist does.

And in reading Wallerstein’s latest commentary, I was struck by the following paragraphs:

At this point [of great governmental impossible choices] enters that greatest of world pundits, Thomas I. Friedman, to write a column entitled “Never heard that before.” What had he never heard before? He heard non-Americans talking at Davos about “political instability” in the United States. He says that in his past experience such a phrase had been used only about countries like Russia or Iran or Honduras. Imagine that. People actually think the United States is politically unpredictable. And Thomas Friedman never heard it before.

There have been some people who have been writing this, and explaining this, for some forty years at least, but Thomas Friedman never heard it before. That’s because he has been living in a self-constructed cocoon, that of the political Establishment in the United States and its acolytes elsewhere. Things must be really bad for them to recognize this basic reality. The United States is politically unstable – and likely to become more so, not less so, in the coming decade.

While the USA makes a wonderful target for this specific post, I would like to posit that the point I wish to make is broader. See if it applies to your country.

The line between Thomas Friedman and Umberto Eco begins and ends with politics. In Country X (again, is it yours?), the major political newspaper columns are written by people with little knowledge of the subject upon which they’re pontificating. Of course, you get the normal self-serving guest spots by politicians attempting to show how they were more ethical and rational about a particular issue but, in general, the calls to explain — or change — domestic or foreign policy are usually doled out by people in, as Wallerstein put it, “a self-constructed cocoon”.

Thus, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan is usually trumpeted by people with little knowledge of history but their own vested interests. A desire to have a war with Iran is written by people with little knowledge of geo-politics but their own vested interests. And the war with Iraq was prompted by people with little knowledge of UN resolutions … and little moral fibre. But with their own vested interests. As a result, the catastrophic breakdown of the wall between investment and commercial banks was pushed through by financial lobbyists … with nary a word of publicised protest. The anything-but-not-a-public-option medical “reform” was/is touted highly by insurance companies … with nary a word of publicised protest. And the mushrooming of the USA defence budget has been encouraged by arms manufacturers .. with nary a word of publicised protest. None of the above parties are uninterested bystanders looking at the big picture, but very interested players looking at the bottom line.

That’s not to say there isn’t any protest. The apoplexy, disbelief and refutations from certain sectors of the country are strident and never-ending. But, by and large, they are the academics, the intellectuals, and so are beneath the notice of the general population. (When did you last read Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky? No no, they’re still alive. And still commenting. Just not anywhere the average citizen is likely to read about it.)

What Wallerstein says is correct. The idea of the United States as a politically unstable house of cards is not a new one, but the people who know this, who are aware of this, are not heard because … they’re academics. And Country X is very very firm about drawing a line between its intellectuals/academics and its columnists.

To a degree, it’s also a self-censoring situation. For a non-political reference, just recall how shabbily Carl Sagan, an eminent scientist, was treated by his peers. The derogatory label levelled at him was that he was “a populist”, as if making complex ideas accessible to the general population is a bad thing.

The problem is, of course, it is. Because if you understand things, then you may start questioning things. And if you start questioning things then — oh, I don’t know — you may actually start to behave like a citizen in a democracy and demand answers of those people you’ve elected to their positions. And we can’t have that.

I’m attending a series of Customer Experience seminars at work at the moment and among the many fallacies that the instructor has regurgitated was one particular case study. She detailed a conference where two speakers were giving talks on the economic situation. The first speaker got up and told people that they weren’t out of the woods yet and that things may even get worse. He backed this up with various charts, showing the decline of several indicators. The mood in the conference hall when the first speaker was done, the instructor said, was sombre. The second speaker got up and told people that things were looking up! That the stock market has rebounded. And that major countries are facing solid growth.

“I much preferred the second speaker,” the instructor said. “He was optimistic and he raised the spirits of all in the conference hall. And that’s how you should operate because nobody likes listening to depressing news.”

Really? Is that what people would prefer? Pretty lies over ugly truth? Is that what you prefer? Because, if you do, then you’ve created your own problem. If all you’re after are the happy-happy-joy-joy moments, then you’ve set up a situation where you don’t want to hear from academics about the tortured, ancient morass of history that is the Middle East. And you don’t want to hear from academics why the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act under Bill Clinton was the baddest economic idea of modern times. And you don’t want to hear from academics why a country that condones, and even glorifies, torture (the cosy arrangement between the Bush government and the writers of “24″ being a case in point) is doomed to descend to brutality itself. And guess what happens? You wade into a region you know nothing about, you interfere with the checks and balances of the financial system (such as they are) and you end up dehumanising your entire society. And all because someone with a loud mouth and vested interests told you so, and you didn’t know any better and — perhaps — you didn’t want to know any better.

In the chaotic situation that we all now find ourselves in, cut loose from the tether of any kind of knowledge of how any part of the world works, we are tossed from one giant wave to another, clinging to the authoritative pronouncements of editors, pundits and columnists in our media, all of whom seem to change their opinions at the drop of a hat. One moment, the situation we’re facing is the direst in the world; the next week, everything’s looking up; the following week, it’s all doom and gloom again; and so on.

This is the time when we need, above all, some deeper analysis to understand the big picture and chart a way forward. Every society needs its intellectuals and academics, if only to present something to argue cogently against, if nothing else! What we don’t need, and are getting far too much of, is the kind of ten-second, gimmick-ridden, permanently fickle punditry of the Jim Cramer types. Don’t you deserve better? I certainly do.