Looks like a great movie, and Jakarta Casual's write up ain't bad either.
Hopefully I'll get to see it!!
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Lazy Thinking
During the week one of my favourite bloggers referred to one of my posts about the Middle East.
[I have to admit I was quite proud, cos she is quite a sharp writer.]
However another blogger (DVP) having read her post, wrote up a rather biased, partly anti Jewish, partly anti-Israeli / anti-Zionist take on the modern history of Jewish peoples in the Middle East.
In my opinion, it dehumanised Jews and demonised Zionists. As my original post linked to an article which evenly humanised both Jews and Arabs, I thought DVP's work was particularly twisted and conniving.
This caught me off guard and has shown up my hitherto lazy thinking on the conflict. Apart from his simply racist remarks, he quoted histories which blamed Zionists for the repression of Jews that remained in their ancestral homes in the Middle East (i.e. Iraq, Egypt etc.).
My view had been that the creation of Israel was of course a factor of this repression and ensuing violence, that cannot be denied. You cannot displace peoples that lived on land for centuries and expect to live happily ever after. However the key point is, that Arabs had NO moral justification for treating Jewish people that lived in the wider Middle East so badly - no matter what was going on in Palestine.
Similarly, after 9/11 white western bigots have no justification for racist acts and taunts against Muslims in America, Australia and elsewhere.
-------------
Although I am angry at DVP's article, it has cleared my thinking on the issue. For that I am grateful.
It's a platitude, but as the old cliché goes; two wrongs don't make a right.
[I have to admit I was quite proud, cos she is quite a sharp writer.]
However another blogger (DVP) having read her post, wrote up a rather biased, partly anti Jewish, partly anti-Israeli / anti-Zionist take on the modern history of Jewish peoples in the Middle East.
In my opinion, it dehumanised Jews and demonised Zionists. As my original post linked to an article which evenly humanised both Jews and Arabs, I thought DVP's work was particularly twisted and conniving.
This caught me off guard and has shown up my hitherto lazy thinking on the conflict. Apart from his simply racist remarks, he quoted histories which blamed Zionists for the repression of Jews that remained in their ancestral homes in the Middle East (i.e. Iraq, Egypt etc.).
My view had been that the creation of Israel was of course a factor of this repression and ensuing violence, that cannot be denied. You cannot displace peoples that lived on land for centuries and expect to live happily ever after. However the key point is, that Arabs had NO moral justification for treating Jewish people that lived in the wider Middle East so badly - no matter what was going on in Palestine.
Similarly, after 9/11 white western bigots have no justification for racist acts and taunts against Muslims in America, Australia and elsewhere.
-------------
Although I am angry at DVP's article, it has cleared my thinking on the issue. For that I am grateful.
It's a platitude, but as the old cliché goes; two wrongs don't make a right.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Trip to Indonesia
Last week I booked tickets to Indonesia!
So, I again join the stream of Bule looking for cheap hookers, pirate DVDs, crass Balinese tourist rituals, ego boosting cheers from kids and condescending mock empathy for really poor people. Let's face it, it's fucking great to be white in Indonesia!
Not that I am against this modern Meneer mentality, their cash goes a long way.
Well anywayz, in an effort to be 4 real this time round; back up my big mouth when it comes to all things RI; and rediscover my Madurese roots, I am going to learn learn Indonesian in Jakarta for a week (Madurese is way too tough for mere mortals like me!).
I still have to find a teacher, the less English the better.
For the other week, the plan is to go up to Medan and seek out THE best bika Ambon in existence. The stress on my heart from all that Bika Ambon will make other stresses (traffic, chatting up pretty warias and bird flu) pale into insignificance. That's the plan anyways.
Will probably end up in Kuta, learning Aussie, drinking Bali Hai. God I hate Kuta, it's like some kind of East West purgatory.
If anyone wants to meet up - drop me a line!
So, I again join the stream of Bule looking for cheap hookers, pirate DVDs, crass Balinese tourist rituals, ego boosting cheers from kids and condescending mock empathy for really poor people. Let's face it, it's fucking great to be white in Indonesia!
Not that I am against this modern Meneer mentality, their cash goes a long way.
Well anywayz, in an effort to be 4 real this time round; back up my big mouth when it comes to all things RI; and rediscover my Madurese roots, I am going to learn learn Indonesian in Jakarta for a week (Madurese is way too tough for mere mortals like me!).
I still have to find a teacher, the less English the better.
For the other week, the plan is to go up to Medan and seek out THE best bika Ambon in existence. The stress on my heart from all that Bika Ambon will make other stresses (traffic, chatting up pretty warias and bird flu) pale into insignificance. That's the plan anyways.
Will probably end up in Kuta, learning Aussie, drinking Bali Hai. God I hate Kuta, it's like some kind of East West purgatory.
If anyone wants to meet up - drop me a line!
Sunday, May 20, 2007
The Gift And The Curse
I just read this post. I love Mr. Aroengbinang's pictures of everyday Indonesia.
I don't agree with the chief point though:
I reckon that many Indonesians live on under $2 a day /because/ of Indonesia's great natural wealth, NOT in spite of it!
Citizens of naturally wealthy countries are almost always worse off than those with few natural resources. Indonesia, Nigeria, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia [The Happy Kingdom (c)] have phenomenal natural wealth, yet many of their citizens are relatively poor. [Of course there are outliers, like Norway and North Korea]
Why?
Number one, whoever controls the copper mines, oil wells etc. has enough cash to buy heaps more weapons than the opposition.
Number two, it's not in the interests of government to develop the nation's citizens. Why waste money on education, when all you need is miners and soldiers? Education is real a hindrance in both professions.
Indonesia's natural wealth is a curse.
I propose selling as much as possible of Indonesia's natural wealth to Singapore.
Those smug smartasses won't know what they're letting themselves in for. Indonesia's politicians, meanwhile, won't be tempted to ingeniously scam Pertamina etc., giving them more time to worry about Indonesia's human capital.
I don't agree with the chief point though:
We just need to open our eyes to look around to see how lucky we are, and find more ways to help those fellow poor citizens of a rich country named Indonesia.
I reckon that many Indonesians live on under $2 a day /because/ of Indonesia's great natural wealth, NOT in spite of it!
Citizens of naturally wealthy countries are almost always worse off than those with few natural resources. Indonesia, Nigeria, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia [The Happy Kingdom (c)] have phenomenal natural wealth, yet many of their citizens are relatively poor. [Of course there are outliers, like Norway and North Korea]
Why?
Number one, whoever controls the copper mines, oil wells etc. has enough cash to buy heaps more weapons than the opposition.
Number two, it's not in the interests of government to develop the nation's citizens. Why waste money on education, when all you need is miners and soldiers? Education is real a hindrance in both professions.
Indonesia's natural wealth is a curse.
I propose selling as much as possible of Indonesia's natural wealth to Singapore.
Those smug smartasses won't know what they're letting themselves in for. Indonesia's politicians, meanwhile, won't be tempted to ingeniously scam Pertamina etc., giving them more time to worry about Indonesia's human capital.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
SeXXX Laws
Last week this made me stop to think.
Your young daughters are raped, so then you force the /rapists/ to marry your daughters. Because your daughters are "soiled" and otherwise unmarriable.
This begs the question: what happens if a father rapes his own daughters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
That reminds me of a case in Aceh where some police officer was caught in a "passionate embrace" with a lover.
Aceh has quite strict Sharia laws - the officer was desperate to get off without a bloody caning etc - so he claimed that this lover was a cousin.
Is it better to make love with cousins than unrelated people in Aceh? What about closer relatives? -- surely that'd be even /more/ legal?
Your young daughters are raped, so then you force the /rapists/ to marry your daughters. Because your daughters are "soiled" and otherwise unmarriable.
This begs the question: what happens if a father rapes his own daughters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
...
That reminds me of a case in Aceh where some police officer was caught in a "passionate embrace" with a lover.
Aceh has quite strict Sharia laws - the officer was desperate to get off without a bloody caning etc - so he claimed that this lover was a cousin.
Is it better to make love with cousins than unrelated people in Aceh? What about closer relatives? -- surely that'd be even /more/ legal?
Friday, May 11, 2007
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
'We'll Bankrupt You'
Up to 6 Premiership clubs are threatening to bankrupt West Ham Utd, because they have illegally fielded 2 players this season.
One of them, Carlos Tevez, is in the process of singlehandedly securing West Ham's survival from relegation (worth a cool $120m).
The Premier league fined West Ham $10m dollars last week, but didn't deduct any points (which would almost certainly relegate West Ham).
The six clubs are looking to bankrupt West Ham by sinking them in millions of dollars of legal fees.
These sort of tactics are common in business all over. Businesses may not be able to out compete another, but they may have enough cash to bankrupt a competitor with legal fees.
Oh, and bankruptcy comes with a mandatory 10 point deduction in the English leagues.
Maybe clubs will increasingly look to win off the pitch, rather than on the pitch.
One of them, Carlos Tevez, is in the process of singlehandedly securing West Ham's survival from relegation (worth a cool $120m).
The Premier league fined West Ham $10m dollars last week, but didn't deduct any points (which would almost certainly relegate West Ham).
The six clubs are looking to bankrupt West Ham by sinking them in millions of dollars of legal fees.
These sort of tactics are common in business all over. Businesses may not be able to out compete another, but they may have enough cash to bankrupt a competitor with legal fees.
Oh, and bankruptcy comes with a mandatory 10 point deduction in the English leagues.
Maybe clubs will increasingly look to win off the pitch, rather than on the pitch.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
All Consuming Charity
Charity these days is branded, prepared and packaged for the ultimate convenience.
Just as we buy convenience microwavable food, we can now buy that charitable feeling.
Years ago you had to have some personal contact with the needy in order get that selfless fillip to your ego. Now you can keep the needy at arms length - at the other end of a long, long supply chain of professional charity workers.
Fair trade is just the natural conclusion of charity in consumerist societies.
No need to worry about being near smelly bums at StarBucks. Just flirt with the pretty waitress, surf on wifi, drink coffee and save the world.
I for one, love it!
Just as we buy convenience microwavable food, we can now buy that charitable feeling.
Years ago you had to have some personal contact with the needy in order get that selfless fillip to your ego. Now you can keep the needy at arms length - at the other end of a long, long supply chain of professional charity workers.
Fair trade is just the natural conclusion of charity in consumerist societies.
No need to worry about being near smelly bums at StarBucks. Just flirt with the pretty waitress, surf on wifi, drink coffee and save the world.
I for one, love it!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Poor Genii
Apparently a UK charity recently lost £16m (~$32m) in an entrepreneurial misadventure.
Obviously not all charity workers are conmen, some like Age Concern are just incompetent; fact is, it's very hard to know whether charities are run efficiently.
The Charity Navigator site does go some way to alleviating this problem, by analysing financial data and ranking according to the proportion of total donations which go directly toward helping the poor.
Unfortunately analysing costs does not help one understand how much benefit is generated through a charity's work -- it may have high admin costs, but it may also be more savvy at allocating funds to those who really need it.
Even if a charity is very efficient, it may in fact do as much harm as good.
Charities can attract those borderline needy, who might actually be able to support themselves with a bit of hard work and diligence. Therefore they may suck people into dependency and out of self sufficiency. Charities can also do untold damage to well functioning markets, for example crowding out existing for-profit businesses which supply a portion of the needy with goods and services.
Such crowding out is less likely in developed countries, because the needy are generally those who find it difficult to function in society (e.g. the mentally ill) and therefore rarely participate in markets anyway. In the developing world, crowding out can have a bigger effect, because the needy are nevertheless often fully involved in society or at least fully capable of involvement.
Mr. Yunus has gone some way to circumvent these problems.
Mr. Yunus founded the Grameen Bank which focuses on lending money to poor people. It is a for-profit, self sustaining organisation. Micro-finance is a great innovation in itself, but the real slam-dunk idea is much simpler.
The Grameen Bank pulls the poor out of the cracks between the meshes of markets which sustain us all, by supplying them a product. It welcomes the poor back into into a respectable, self-sustainable life.
[But, why stop at microfinance? The single biggest market for all sorts of goods and services in Indonesia (the poor, 40 million people and rising) is still largely untapped.]
Social capitalism may be the way to improve the lot of the tired, hungry and wretched, because it helps unlock the genius of the poor themselves.
Obviously not all charity workers are conmen, some like Age Concern are just incompetent; fact is, it's very hard to know whether charities are run efficiently.
The Charity Navigator site does go some way to alleviating this problem, by analysing financial data and ranking according to the proportion of total donations which go directly toward helping the poor.
Unfortunately analysing costs does not help one understand how much benefit is generated through a charity's work -- it may have high admin costs, but it may also be more savvy at allocating funds to those who really need it.
Even if a charity is very efficient, it may in fact do as much harm as good.
Charities can attract those borderline needy, who might actually be able to support themselves with a bit of hard work and diligence. Therefore they may suck people into dependency and out of self sufficiency. Charities can also do untold damage to well functioning markets, for example crowding out existing for-profit businesses which supply a portion of the needy with goods and services.
Such crowding out is less likely in developed countries, because the needy are generally those who find it difficult to function in society (e.g. the mentally ill) and therefore rarely participate in markets anyway. In the developing world, crowding out can have a bigger effect, because the needy are nevertheless often fully involved in society or at least fully capable of involvement.
Mr. Yunus has gone some way to circumvent these problems.
Mr. Yunus founded the Grameen Bank which focuses on lending money to poor people. It is a for-profit, self sustaining organisation. Micro-finance is a great innovation in itself, but the real slam-dunk idea is much simpler.
The Grameen Bank pulls the poor out of the cracks between the meshes of markets which sustain us all, by supplying them a product. It welcomes the poor back into into a respectable, self-sustainable life.
[But, why stop at microfinance? The single biggest market for all sorts of goods and services in Indonesia (the poor, 40 million people and rising) is still largely untapped.]
Social capitalism may be the way to improve the lot of the tired, hungry and wretched, because it helps unlock the genius of the poor themselves.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Charitable Black Holes
Charitable organisations (charities, governments) help those that fall down through the cracks found between the meshes of markets which sustain most of us in our daily lives.
The problem found when charitable organisations work in these cracks is that there is a strict dichotomy between those with the needs (the poor) and those with the means of need fulfillment (the donors).
Normally those with needs also possess means of fulfillment. For example, if I feel in need of a holiday, I can fulfill that need by booking a ticket to Manado; if I feel hungry I will order a Chinese or Italian meal, and so on. If a poor housewife in Jakarta needs to pay hospital fees she may not have the wherewithal to fulfill that need.
I, as a well-off person (by some standards) could fulfill her need, but have no idea of the desperation she may be in. Even if she stopped me, explained her situation and asked me to help; I wouldn't really know whether she is for real or whether she is just a good con-artist with a villa up in Punjak Pass.
Charities may have a better idea, but they are merely middlemen. The donors are still separated by a firewall from the needy. I may donate money to a charity, but I have no idea what good my donation is doing. Generally, all I have to go on is a hailstorm of marketing which the best charities diligently provide and indulge their most important donors with (maybe the charity's directors are just suited con-artists with a good taste in BMWs and villas in Punjak pass). Contrast that to when I invest in a company, I need only to glance at how much the stock price has gained or lost since I purchased.
The needy live in the economics version of a black hole.
The problem found when charitable organisations work in these cracks is that there is a strict dichotomy between those with the needs (the poor) and those with the means of need fulfillment (the donors).
Normally those with needs also possess means of fulfillment. For example, if I feel in need of a holiday, I can fulfill that need by booking a ticket to Manado; if I feel hungry I will order a Chinese or Italian meal, and so on. If a poor housewife in Jakarta needs to pay hospital fees she may not have the wherewithal to fulfill that need.
I, as a well-off person (by some standards) could fulfill her need, but have no idea of the desperation she may be in. Even if she stopped me, explained her situation and asked me to help; I wouldn't really know whether she is for real or whether she is just a good con-artist with a villa up in Punjak Pass.
Charities may have a better idea, but they are merely middlemen. The donors are still separated by a firewall from the needy. I may donate money to a charity, but I have no idea what good my donation is doing. Generally, all I have to go on is a hailstorm of marketing which the best charities diligently provide and indulge their most important donors with (maybe the charity's directors are just suited con-artists with a good taste in BMWs and villas in Punjak pass). Contrast that to when I invest in a company, I need only to glance at how much the stock price has gained or lost since I purchased.
The needy live in the economics version of a black hole.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Meta Evolution
For quite a while I have been wondering whether evolution itself evolves, and how it might evolve.
Evolution is a way for lineages of organisms to adapt to their environments and search for better solutions to the problems which they encounter.
[Plants have found the golden ratio for example, which mathematically maximises the amount of sunlight they are exposed to. And needless to say most animals are mathematical and engineering feats of excellence in their own rights]
I also wonder whether organisms search for these solutions differently, and whether slowly but surely their evolutionary searches improve.
I read recently (Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins) that there are areas of evolutionary search which are restricted by organisms. I.e. parts of search space are excluded a priori by the organism, because those parts would probably lead to unfruitful findings. E.g. mammals more often than not, do not evolve asymmetrical features, rather they evolve in a symmetrical fashion.
That idea is fascinating. Organisms contain information which tells them where it's best not to bother looking for good solutions to their problems, thereby focusing on areas where more fruitful solutions can be found.
I wonder how these evolution restrictions are found? And whether there is any fundamental rhyme or reason behind them?
Evolution is a way for lineages of organisms to adapt to their environments and search for better solutions to the problems which they encounter.
[Plants have found the golden ratio for example, which mathematically maximises the amount of sunlight they are exposed to. And needless to say most animals are mathematical and engineering feats of excellence in their own rights]
I also wonder whether organisms search for these solutions differently, and whether slowly but surely their evolutionary searches improve.
I read recently (Climbing Mount Improbable, Richard Dawkins) that there are areas of evolutionary search which are restricted by organisms. I.e. parts of search space are excluded a priori by the organism, because those parts would probably lead to unfruitful findings. E.g. mammals more often than not, do not evolve asymmetrical features, rather they evolve in a symmetrical fashion.
That idea is fascinating. Organisms contain information which tells them where it's best not to bother looking for good solutions to their problems, thereby focusing on areas where more fruitful solutions can be found.
I wonder how these evolution restrictions are found? And whether there is any fundamental rhyme or reason behind them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)