“The governor makes a very strong case and we feel that he’ll be able to make that strong case in person,” Lt. Gov. Brian Calley told reporters toward the end of a long Senate session Wednesday night, when senators adjourned without voting on Medicaid expansion for the second straight day. “He spent a lot of time on the phone with people today, but it’s a big enough issue for him that he has decided to cut the trade mission short by several days in order to manage the issue on the ground.”

Snyder was expected to be back by midmorning Thursday, Calley said. He had been planning to return Saturday.

It is essentially do-or-die time if legislators are going to make hundreds of thousands of more adults eligible for government-funded health insurance in January under the federal health care law.

Democrats and Republicans in the GOP-controlled House teamed up to approve Medicaid expansion legislation last week. But the Senate’s Republican leader is having trouble finding at least half of the chamber’s 26 Republicans to support proceeding with a vote – the traditional threshold.

Calley, who cut short his own trip to the Upper Peninsula, said the issue is big enough for Michigan that it “deserves an up-or-down vote.”

“We never expected it to be easy. It’s still a major priority for the administration and we’re treating it as such,” he said.

Amber McCann, spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, said he “will always look to his caucus for whether or not they want to see an issue come up.”

Conservative and tea party groups are pressuring lawmakers to oppose the expansion, including threatening to run candidates against some Republicans in 2014 primary elections. Snyder says providing health insurance to more people will make them healthier and save money because fewer uninsured patients will go to the emergency room for uncompensated care. Critics say Republicans should not be in the business of expanding government.

Medicaid covers roughly one in five Michigan residents, mainly low-income children, pregnant women and the disabled along with some poorer working adults. The bill would provide insurance to 320,000 more adults in 2014 and about a half-million by 2022, cutting the state’s number of uninsured nearly in half.

Under the health care overhaul, states can expand Medicaid to adults making up to 133 percent of the poverty level, or about $15,300 for an individual. The U.S. government is offering to cover the entire cost initially and 90 percent down the line.

The bill includes GOP-written requirements that new enrollees making between 100 and 133 percent of the poverty line pay up to 5 percent of their income on medical expenses after being on the program for six months. They would have to contribute up to 7 percent of their income toward medical costs after getting Medicaid for four years.

The federal government would have to sign off on waivers for Michigan to proceed with its plan.

Snyder’s absence from the Capitol this week has drawn criticism from Democrats. But a spokeswoman says he scheduled the trip more than five months ago based on the legislative calendar at that time.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Not exactly the stuff of Edward R. Murrow . . . unless of course he wanted to achieve a bikini body through sexercise.

The same formula coverage often seems to come up in the media coverage of the civil liberties crisis.  The media has become an echo chamber for common themes and language.  At the insistence of the Bush Administration, torture in the form of water boarding was called “enhanced interrogation” — an entirely made of term to avoid the “T” word.  Recently, NPR and other news organizations yielded to demands to avoid calling Snowden a “whistleblower” as opposed to the Administration’s preferred description of a “leaker.”  The media has also repeated the statement that the two surveillance programs were “lawful” — a position challenged by many civil libertarians.  It is instead referred to as “controversial” while noting that there is nothing illegal in the data gathering.  This is again coming directly out of the White House.

Of course, there are some in the media who are exceptions but they are rare exceptions.  Much of the coverage has the depth of a “Flat Belly diet” with reporters referring to the FISA court as a real court with meaningful review despite of a history of virtually never refusing an application for surveillance.  It may not have a lot of content but it makes you feel ten years freer.

Ashraf Pahlavi, sister of former king of Iran passed away (aged 93) today due to Chediak-Higashi Syndrome. She was a controversial figure before 1979 revolution. She was very passionate and loved men and power equally. She gained humanistic tendencies later on in her life when her brother lost his throne to Islamic revolution. She had asked to be buried next to mohammad reza (her brother) in Egypt, however Muslim Brotherhood have not agreed upon this yet.

Elsewhere in A Theory of Justice, Rawls maintains that “[t]he acceptance of the principles of right and justice forges the bonds of civic friendship and establishes the basis of comity amidst the disparities that persist” (p. 454)¹. In short, civic friendship is the end result of a social process that begins with universal assent to a common justificatory basis and the notion of justice as fairness, which follows from the original position. That which secures respect, recognition and sociability between parties in civic friendship is twofold: prior, universal assent to reasons valid for each party in the discussion and the universal rights due to each party qua subject and subjectivity. The distinction between subjectivity and individuality is here essential to making sense of Rawls’ and Stout’s differences. Of this distinction, Alain Renaut and Lukas Sosoe write:

“[L]a dignité de sujet (de droit), que les concitoyens se reconnaissent réciproquement [...] résiste tous les changements moralement ou juridiquement contingents pouvant intervenir dans la vie de l’individu. Ainsi faut-il parler d’une immunité du sujet de droit contre tout changement de son état civil, de religion, de profession et de sexe, contre son adhésion à tel ou tel parti, telle ou telle opinion politique, telle ou telle religion. L’individu peut changer plusieurs fois de projets de vie sans que ce changement affecte en rien son identité comme sujet, dans la mesure où les convictions et les engagements multiples de l’individu ne font pas partie de son identité publique¹“.

To summarize briefly, according to Renaut and Sosoe, Rawls holds that, qua subject, the party to political discussion possesses an equal right to freedom of speech, thought, religion, and so on, as does any other party to that same discussion, insofar as contingent factors such as the nature of his or her beliefs, convictions and personal identity do not affect this right in the least. The importance of this statement for our present question is this: Rawlsian subjectivity grounds civic friendship from which then follows the development of the party’s identity qua individual. More simply, whereas subjectivity is the principle of the process, individuality is reduced to secondary importance as an effect of this same process.

The order of reasons is, however, reversed on Stout’s position, for, as we saw above, parties to a political discussion refuse universal assent to a common justificatory basis all the while the fact of their candidly giving and sharing reasons secures a respect for one another’s reasons, beliefs and convictions. In other words, as each party frames its reason-giving and immanent criticism in terms of its audience, one individual necessarily addresses another individual without invoking abstract, universal reasons that would unconditionally apply to each party qua subject. In sum, the public presentation of one’s contingently formed, personal identity sets the stage for Stout’s own “civic friendship” and the equal rights due to each party qua subject follow from having responsibly held a specific discursive position and giving reasons for this position.

In the end, where Rawls saw fit to subordinate individuality to subjectivity in civic friendship, Stout instead makes subjectivity follow from individuality. Although the two thinkers prove to be close in their characterization of “civic friendship”, the way in which one comes to this social state is the inverse of the other. Accordingly, if Stout’s position is to accrue the advantages of the Rawlsian position as concerns policy-making and Rawls’ position the flexibility of Stout’s, then the means of doing so consists in individualizing the Rawlsian subject and subjectivizing the Stoutian individual. Such an effort would result in a mixed model, a sort of minimal subjectivity, that would demonstrate the interplay of different, contingent influences with the free will of the subject in the dynamic and ongoing formation of selfhood, where the party to political discussion is both the agent (through the will) and element (through various influences) of his or her knowledge and practical reasoning. This individualized or individualizing subjectivity would in turn promote and underscore the need for a liberal system, fitted to the make-up of a reasonably pluralist self.

Yet, if we are to bring Rawls and Stout closer together by inflecting Rawls’ account of subjectivity, the only way to do so is by identifying the characteristics and processes at work in the Stoutian individual, a presentation that is unfortunately lacking in Stout’s own work. Certainly, Stout gestures towards such a model when he speaks of the insufficiencies of the communitarian model “to do justice to the kinds of individuality” (Democracy and Tradition, p. 75) seen in democratic society, of the “I-thou model” (p. 281), and of the need for a “principle of individuality” (p. 282). Despite these hints, Stout fails to develop this account of individuality. It is precisely this lack that our study aims to fulfill in answering, first, “what would a Stoutian model of individuality look like?”, secondly, “how can this model be mapped onto Rawlsian subjectivity in a new, combined civic friendship?”, and, finally, “why does a liberal democratic society best fit this deeper understanding of ourselves as subject and individual?”. In drawing on theories of individuality both in politics (John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, as well as texts on dissent in radical democracy) and sociology (George Herbert Mead and Niklas Luhmann, for instance), we intend to mark out the middle path between Rawls’ contractarianism and Stout’s expressivism, a path that preserves both discussion and liberalism, tradition and society. On a final note, although we started out from the theoretical uses of this model, we have shown that it bears a practical application as well in that this new model would permit a novel approach to the political and ethical realm. This practical reach itself suggests a third and final applicability in the field of aesthetics, for the understanding of individual as agent and element implies similar nuances to be made in the arbitration of claims to the beautiful. So does this minimal subjectivity reprise in novel ways three classic philosophical ends: truth, good and beauty.

—————–

Appeal to tradition

Most people aren’t open to imagining non-government provision of services: e.g. roads, law, police as they have lived their entire lives under the government where the government provision of those services is all they know. This effectively functions as the logical fallacy: appeal to tradition (that something should be done a certain way because it has always been done that way in the past). So even when I can point to examples of how these things were actually provided without government in the past, most people would rather discredit/discount this evidence and assume for some reason or another that “the free market can’t provide that! What about predatory pricing / monopolies / lack of private ability to get funding” etc. See this old joke about Soviet Russia for some perspective:

Two women are waiting in line at a Moscow store one day, to buy bread. The line is a long one: in Moscow under the USSR, the length of lines to buy basic foodstuffs was legendary (and that’s when you could get them at all).

One woman, forgetting herself, says to the other, “It”s an outrage that we should have to wait so long, just to buy bread! Does this happen in the West?”

The other woman sharply corrects her comrade: “It”s a privilege that the government provides us with bread! Did you know that, in the West, the government doesn’t even MAKE bread?”

Building the new society within the shell of the old one

It’s quite clear that central planning and interventionism do not work, and they only serve to drive the prices up and the quality of the product down. It may not be easy for people to build new institutions and businesses within the shell of the old one, governments often don’t like it when people compete with their services – however there are some great examples of this happening right now which I will present to you:

Private protection force / security / police – Threat Management Center

See my earlier post “A Different approach to keeping neighbourhoods safe” about Dale Brown’s Threat Management Center – where the state-provided police of Detroit are failing the people, the Threat Management Center are literally out competing a service that people are being forced to pay for. That is how inefficient the government provision is! Also, note that in 20 years not a single one of his customers has been injured or killed after coming to him for help (he even helps some people for free because he makes enough money from businesses and residents who pay for protection). Most important, the focus is different to state provided violence (police and military), as his focus is on trying to create non violent outcomes.

Private Dispute Resolution / Arbitration – Judge.me

Now you might initially think it’s not possible to create a system of entirely private law. Judge.me is an excellent example of an opt-in arbitration service that is vastly cheaper, faster and more efficient than government law. See the quick 90 second video here:

By agreeing beforehand (ideally by putting a term in their contract), the two parties are able to settle disputes using a neutral third party (Judge.me and it’s arbitrators) outside the government court system. See their FAQ here. This type of service will be an important precursor to the emerging market law system.

“This kind of simple, technology-based private arbitration should be of especial interest to anarcho-libertarians, who have long argued that private arbitration would play a significant role in justice in a stateless society. (…) One interesting thing is their choice of law… based on common law and equity principles. (…) Disputes are resolved by common sense principles of justice—the general rules developed over time in common law and equity courts. This is similar in a way to international law’s appeal to “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations”.”

~ Judge.me, Private Arbitration and Intellectual Property, Stephan Kinsella

Rights enforcement agency / Dispute Resolution Organisation – Shield Mutual

Shield Mutual has a vision of defending customers from state aggression using crowd sourced public relations, proactive leadership, digital fundraising and legal aid. See the vision of Shield Mutual here.

Free market environmental protection – Parkprivatization.com

Despite what you might have thought about evil capitalists polluting rivers and creating externalities, a free market as it is actually applied (not the mixed market or interventionist model) helps preserve those parts of the environment that the consumers cherish through proper application of property laws. E.g. in the case of the river, if that river belongs to somebody you can’t just pollute straight into it without having to pay damages to the person/company who own it. With the example of park privatisation, you should have a read of the FAQ on the front page which answers all the standard questions like: How does the private company get paid? Won’t private companies just let the facility run down to make more profit? Won’t private companies just build a McDonald’s in front of Old Faithful? Will private companies jack up the entrance fees? You may just be surprised by some of the answers.

Free market currency / Free market banking – Bitcoin 

Bitcoin will enable easier international commerce / free trade and helps create a parallel economy of sorts. It can’t easily be shut down as it is decentralised, and enables people to easily pay anybody anywhere in the world with very little delays (the network runs 24/7 unlike fiat banking’s ‘business hours’ and banking holidays and  3 day funds clearance), transaction costs, no risk of chargeback, easy set up and Bitcoin is (mostly) apolitical, unlike every government fiat currency which is politically manipulated and consistently being debased. Also, Paypal doesn’t serve approximately 60 countries, and there are some countries that credit cards are difficult to use in too – Bitcoin goes anywhere in the world. It’s early days yet (but rapidly growing, with something like 30-40% user growth per month), however to anybody who studies the economics and technology behind this, the ramifications for it are absolutely massive.

So hopefully that gives you some perspective into peaceful, non-government ways of doing things that you might not have thought possible.

On Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin will hold a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte and the first Vice-Premier of the State Council of China Zhang Gaoli.

Rutte was invited to the International Economic Forum as a special guest. It is planned that within the framework of the Forum  Putin and Prime Minister of the Netherlands will discuss the main issues of bilateral relations, paying particular attention to the prospects of cooperation in trade and economic spheres and implementation of agreements reached during Putin’s working visit to the Netherlands this April.

Putin will also talk with Gaoli, who will head the Chinese delegation at the forum. According to the press service of the Kremlin, there will be discussed topical issues of trade, investment and energy cooperation in the light of implementation of the agreements reached during the state visit of President Xi Jinping in Russia this March.

The energy sphere remains the driving force of the development of trade and economic cooperation between Russia and China, the Russia-China oil pipeline provides stable oil delivery, it is being worked out the possibility of increasing the capacity of cross-border pipeline infrastructure to increase the export of Russian oil to China.

“The large currents of the past generation – deindustrialisation, the flattening of average wages, the financialisation of the economy, income inequality, the growth of information technology, the flood of money into Washington, the rise of the political right – all had their origins in the late 70s. The US became more entrepreneurial and less bureaucratic, more individualistic and less communitarian, more free and less equal, more tolerant and less fair. Banking and technology, concentrated on the coasts, turned into engines of wealth, replacing the world of stuff with the world of bits, but without creating broad prosperity, while the heartland hollowed out. The institutions that had been the foundation of middle-class democracy, from public schools and secure jobs to flourishing newspapers and functioning legislatures, were set on the course of a long decline. It as a period that I call the Unwinding.

In one view, the Unwinding is just a return to the normal state of American life. By this deterministic analysis, the US has always been a wide-open, free-wheeling country, with a high tolerance for big winners and big losers as the price of equal opportunity in a dynamic society. If the US brand of capitalism has rougher edges than that of other democracies, it is worth the trade-off for growth and mobility. There is nothing unusual about the six surviving heirs to the Walmart fortune possessing between them the same wealth as the bottom 42% of Americans – that’s the country’s default setting.”

This morning Robert told me (via Radio 4 – he wasn’t in my house, I don’t think), that we have somewhat of a conundrum in the banking world. The government want banks to lend to businesses and ‘the economy’ again, but simultaneously they also want them to hold higher ‘tier 1 capital ratio’s’ in line with BASEL III recommendations of around 7%.

You got that? Good, because here is the tricky part… The two banks that have been lending and meeting the governments targets, namely Barclays and Nationwide (which isn’t strictly a bank, but never mind) are now going to get penalised by the regulators for not holding the requisite 7% of capital against the loan books, and now have a ‘shortfall’ of capital… Oh no! Double oh no! Triple oh no!

Here’s the stickler, the best way for banks to hold the capital is by not lending. But we want them to lend, and we also want them to hold capital. Robert says, (and he makes clear this is in no way a criticism of politicians) that this is contradictory.

Thank God, or if you prefer, the purely random complexity of life to emerge out of just one of an infinite number of universes, for Robert Peston! Without him we would surely be ignorant. For now we know the two choices that face the economy, to lend, or not to lend, but is that really the question?

As I said, I’m not an economist. Thank God, of if you prefer… etc. I wouldn’t want to be stuck in a profession that gets itself caught in incompatible binary choices and still can’t see the utter pointlessness of its existence. Let’s put it like this, have you ever played Sudoku? I’m going to presume ‘yes’ or that you are at least aware of it. Now this may seem obvious to you seasoned players, but I used to think with Sudoku that if you arrived at a point where you had only two possible numbers in several boxes, and were unable to eliminate any others, you were faced with a choice. One or the other, and then see what happens. I was really pleased to (only recently) find out strategies that, although complicated, avoid you ever having to make a random choice in Sudoku. I still haven’t mastered them all yet, but I’m getting there.

Now imagine playing Sudoku where you were left with two choices, and there was no process you could follow, or any amount of computer analysis that could tell you for sure which number to go with. Now imagine that even if you chose either numbers, they could still inevitably fail, and no correct answer could ever be obtained. I think you would agree that it would constitute a rather poor, frustrating and pointless game.

Well, it is my opinion (remember, not an economist) – that the economy and the financial systems of this world are exactly that. A Sudoku puzzle that cannot be solved. We’ve been at it for years, but now it has come to the crunch. Two numbers in a box, and no reason to choose one over the other, as both make the solution invalid.

For the philosopher Thomas Kuhn, this would constitute a ‘paradigm’ that has been fully inhabited and rigidly defined by its architects, defended strongly by its adherents, and been more-or-less suitable for our purposes to a point. However, as Kuhn described with science and political structures, the dogmatic adherence to this paradigm will reach a revolutionary phase, where the underlying errors in its foundations and principles can no longer be ignored as they are causing catastrophic problems that can’t be reconciled.

An easy way to demonstrate this (courtesy of Open University author Jon Pike)  is with astronomy. For centuries we relied on a geo-centric model of the solar system (placing the Earth at the centre) which was fundamentally wrong. However, the principles were still sufficient to enable steady progress in navigation techniques and solve celestial puzzles. Eventually, over hundreds of years, as our needs became more complex and our techniques more advanced, little inaccuracies began to form and adjustments were made to the calculations. But the underlying false premise remained, and as real-world problems occurred in navigation and astronomical calculations, the opponents to the system, who had until that point been branded idiots or even heretic’s, were finally able to supplant the old system, firmly placing the sun at the centre of the solar system. And lo! Suddenly all the little errors were rectified by the truth of the new system, and humanity made a great leap forwards.

So it is that we have arrived at the same point with the current financial system. There is a false premise somewhere which unless removed and the whole framework restructured, will constantly prevent us from progressing. My guess (not an economist remember) is that this flawed premise lies in whatever function of the system also causes the huge wealth inequalities in this world by granting those with vast resources the ability to exponentially increase said resources via trading on loans/debts etc… I think that buying money to make money, with money that never existed, sounds like a pretty damn ridiculous concept that benefits a few people with access to such scams, and depresses everyone else.

But I’m not an economist, so what do I know? Maybe Robert Peston will wake me up one morning (not literally – look, I don’t live with Peston ok?), and say:

“The problem with the IMF’s plan to demand more capital ratio’s from the banks while stimulating the economy and avoiding further rounds of quantitative easing from the BOE is that they are the dogmatic defender’s of a paradigm based on a flawed premise and we need a revolutionary shift in how we structure and distribute resources if this world is ever going to progress to a more enlightened and equal age of shared prosperity.”

If he ever did say that, I would probably ask him to move in with me, but alas, I fear such words will never slowly drone out of his lips and through my radio to my anxious ears. You see the problem with a ‘paradigm shift’ is that those who have made a profession out of the current system will defend it, as it is in their interests to do so. This is why the mainstream media does not give us an accurate enough picture of the world, because it rejects the possibilities of alternatives that could render its expertise redundant. Not that it doesn’t have a place, it certainly does, but we need to think about and explore alternatives to all sorts of accepted truths that are actually just abstract concepts of our own device, able to be revised and replaced when they become unworkable and damaging to equality, which I would argue ‘economics’ certainly and irrefutably has.

But I’m not an economist, so what do I know?

References:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22983363
 (Peston on Barclays/Nationwide)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
 - (A good starting point on Kuhn and his philosophy)

In many places it is very difficult to get sufficient food and clean drinking water, or to find a safe place to live. Prices have skyrocketed, and a lack of work means that many can no longer afford the basic essentials of life. Ask God to provide for peoples physical and material needs.

There is a large charge sheet building against Mr. Morley, and it’s self inflicted .

A good public sector CEO should be like a Premier League referee, if he’s having a good game, you don’t notice him.

He has been delivered a £100 million hospital pass by the Tories in London. He should be doing everything to put the pin back in the grenade regarding the staff’s fears, not seeking mindless publicity by Boris Johnson like buffoonery.

He showed a complete lack of understanding why staff and the public were cross regarding a 2012 Florida trip which cost £5,500 and included a sunset cruise as part of a “management conference”

Then in October 2012 Morley outraged patients and staff by threatening to issue itemised billing to get patients to “value and appreciate the service”, adding that patients should, “feel lucky as in the US you would have to pay for it”.

In August 2012 he told Campaigners that we should, “expect a Tescos basic package” of NHS care where you have to pay for “extras”.

In 2012 he spent £16K od charitable funds on an App which we were told by IT experts should have cost no more than £1K. When we searched for it a year later, we couldn’t find it.

He reneged on an agreement not to charge for staff parking. He then said, “these changes, particularly policy changes, will take place with or without union agreement”.

For £175K first class wage, we expect a first class CEO.

This month saw the disastrously misjudged Superman video.

When staff and the public complained he sent this email; “ Hopefully, as you can see, I can laugh at myself and I do not intend to take any further action on this occasion, despite the personal nature of a small number of these posts. Please be aware though that we know the names of everyone who has posted inappropriate comments, and any repeat of this behaviour will have to be dealt with more severely, in accordance with our policy.

The BBC’s Vicky Johnson described this as “sinister” and I have to agree as he can’t possibly trace people unless he has a deal with YouTube, the Sun newspaper and Google, or it’s on the Trust’s Intranet site. This is a statement meant to intimidate. If he can’t take criticism, don’t dress as Superman!

The staff feel gagged, we hear horror stories from the staff all the time during our street stalls and campaigning. They refuse to go on record as they are scared. Vicky Johnson from the BBC spent all morning trying to get staff to speak to her on the record about issues at the Trust, and the video. No one would as they professed that there is a perception of intimidation by management at the Trust.

I think that locally elected officials, whom we pay and trust to act in our best interests, call him and the Board to account on this list of critical concerns.

Land Securities is committing to the £260 million development of 1 & 2 New Ludgate, EC4, a speculative mixed-use development in the City of London.

The 379,000 sq ft scheme occupies an island site moments from St Paul’s Cathedral and comprises two distinct buildings united by a new public piazza.

Together they offer outstanding work environments with 346,000 sq ft of highly efficient office accommodation set around generous open and green spaces.

There will be 33,000 sq ft of restaurant and retail facilities at ground and basement levels as well as improved pedestrian links and new public areas for those working, visiting and living in the area.

Demolition work is already complete and Land Securities has appointed Skanska Construction UK Ltd as main contractor for the scheme. Construction will start on site in August with completion scheduled for April 2015.

1 & 2 New Ludgate is located where the capital’s financial, legal and professional worlds meet. It sits on a road, rail and underground crossroads making it easily accessible from all directions with a wide range of amenities on the doorstep.

It is 5 minutes’ walk from Farringdon station, which will be the only station in London where Crossrail, Thameslink and London Underground all converge when current works complete in 2018. Around 140 trains per hour are expected to flow through the Farringdon interchange.

The decision to go ahead with 1 & 2 New Ludgate follows the announcement in May that Land Securities is committing to the next phase of its £2.2 billion redevelopment of Victoria in London’s West End, and demonstrates our confidence in the London office market.

Colette O’Shea, Head of Development, London said: “Our decision to commence the speculative development of 1 & 2 New Ludgate reflects our confidence both in the City office market, where we believe supply of new space will be constrained in 2015, and in the quality of the attractive and highly efficient office space we are creating.

“1 & 2 New Ludgate, designed by architects Fletcher Priest and Sauerbruch Hutton, will be a striking, flexible and contemporary addition to one of London’s most historic locations with appeal to a wide range of occupiers seeking space in central London.”

*The Similar Analogy of View of Detroit can be drawn to the View of Missionary work in Africa.

          The chronical condition of underdevelopment and political chaos, endless big and small wars in Africa and the difficulty of industrializing many countries in that continent, i believe, have kept Christian communities’ missionary work in that continent at ground level: continuous efforts of supplying food, medicines, and other basic necessities, which, according to news I read long time ago, sometimes fall in the hands of rebels or opposite political groups instead of feeding poverty-stricken people there, becoming the fuel of keeping  their wars going on. True progress of missionary work in that continent only can come hand-in-hand with the progress in the industrialization of that continent.  

***

Usually, in economics, providing jobs to needy people is considered as a superior strategy (by making them self-sufficient) over providing food and home to them (have them as continuous dependents); because without providing jobs, feeding them continuously require continuous supply of resources.

          Previously, i mentioned about having some idea about Detroit, to create jobs, industries. The City itself has a great potential for development, i believe (had some visual images of it, but realizing it requries a lot of homeworks to develop the “BluePrint” and others’ consensus to realize it). And with it as starting point, industrial analyses and developing related/other industries. i suggested some ideas to this city. but i’m not sure whether they were accepted or not; possibly ideas maybe ?

          The Long-Term, Essential Solution for Reviving a city like Detroit is to pursue aggressive industrial development. And it requires clean politics that is willing to pursue, invest on that mission of reviving, redeveloping instead of continuously falling into “Political Bickerings“. For this, Detroit, at first glance, has pro and con (of course, through analyses of the city will provide far more deep perspectives) 

          Detroit has “locational advantage,” similar to the current prosperius big cities, like Chicago, NY, Los Angeles and so on. It is rather close to Chicago (right? next time i checked it seemed) and have adjacent borderline to Canada. So, it has good location, with water surrounding the city. But the city has fundamental problem of “Extremely Skewed Demographic Composition toward African Americans (as listed below from Wiki info), which must have been the major cause of the city’s political problems of racial conflicts instead of focusing on properly governing the city.

          My first impression is (purely my first impression, without deep understanding on the city), this racial dominance of African American population in the city (82.7% of population according to Wiki) may have contributed the dominance of African Americans in city politics and may continue to do so, blocking the penetration of other racial groups into city politics. 

          Usually, healthy, prosperous big cities tend to have very mixed racial proportions of whites, asians, african-americans, internationals, and so on with some global components. Also, this balanced demographics with good portion of foreiners keep its finance industry healthy with strong inflow / outflows of money globally.

          When a city/town is predominantly dominated by endogenous, home-grown whites only, it also hinders, limits the city’s development, growth, leaving the city rather conservative, small-middle-sized-city with limited globalization and industrialization.

          So, Detroit’s “demographic composition” and the dominance of African-American politicians in city politics may possibly become a continuous roadblock of the city’s re-industrialization. Still, although there might be chances that genious politicians of other races may eventually penetrate into the city politics to create somewhat healthy-racial-balance in that city’s politics. But it’s pure assumption, desire. With the city demographic composition like that, it would be a very tough call to expect. 

          In any areas of human societies, industries, businesses, arts, entertains, literature, in every fields, how people conduct their works / businesses are about who they are, their nature, their personalities, their personal backgrounds, their educational trainings and so on. Their works / achievements reflect who they are, their personalities, how they think/act, how they have lived/experienced, what are their trainings for education and jobs, and so on. So, people’s individual personalities and background, work skills in collective, summed levels are the source and direction of how each individual city develops, grows, or not. A city with many painters will become artistic city; a city with many actors will develop like Hollywood; city with many engineers will develop into industrial, sllycone valley; a city with many doctors and nurses will grow as a hub of health care industry and pharmacy and so on.

“A city’s nature reflect what kind of people she has in it.”    

Wiki

Race and ethnicity

As of the 2010 Census, the racial composition of the city was:

• 82.7% Black or African American;
• 10.6% White (7.8% non-Hispanic whites);
• 3% from other races;
• 1.1% Asian;
• 2.2% from two or more races;
• 0.4% American Indian;
• 0.02% Pacific Islander.

i wished that people consult, discuss together to come up with new ideas. as scripture said “many counsels …..success.” But it hasn’t been the case. Always, there seem to be constant misunderstanding. Also,….the fact that i’m in need has been always ignored…….people in need are not respected, but rather ignored……..

On June 20-21 Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to take part in activities of the XVII St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. In particular, on June20, the President will meet with the representatives of “business twenty” (B20) – forum of the business community, which includes representatives of the companies and business associations of G20 member countries and partner states, as well as the leading international governmental and commercial organizations.

The Russian head of state will meet with the members of the G20 youth summit (Y20), which will be held at the Forum on June 18-21. The summit will bring together the leaders of G20 youth delegations, as well as representatives of specially invited countries: Brunei, Spain, Kazakhstan, Senegal, Singapore and Ethiopia.

On the same day, Putin will meet with the international advisory council of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and CEOs of major infrastructure funds. In the course of this meeting it is planned to discuss investments in the Russian economy, including infrastructure projects.

Ombudsman Andre Marin said some jail guards are brutalizing inmates and covering up the abuse by destroying or falsifying records and intimidating colleagues.

Marin called for immediate action to root out the problem and excise the “cancer” of the code of silence around guard violence.

Filled with disturbing pictures and stories, Marin’s report outlines a grim reality in Ontario’s 29 correctional facilities.

Marin said guards can punch, slap, kick, or stomp on inmates, often with complete impunity because their fellow officers don’t speak up.

Marin was careful to blame a “rogue minority” of correctional officers who bully inmates and colleagues, and placed part of the blame on overcrowding and understaffing.

As I write this paragraph, I am sat outside committee room 2, waiting for some kind of sign to tell me that I am in the right place. I am meant to reporting on a cross-party committee hosted by Bite the Ballot, but how can I report on it, if no one is here. Mind you it doesn’t help my nerves if I am 45 minutes early.

I was first greeted by Mevan Babakar from Bite the Ballot, the rest of this paragraph is shaking hands I will skip straight to the start of the committee.

Barron Roger Roberts opened the committee by explaining how he has been involved Bite the Ballot since meeting its director Mike Sani in a coffee shop in Liverpool since just after the beginning of the campaign.

“The aim is to re-engage young people in politics, currently only 45% of of people are registered voters, Bite the Ballots campaign is great opportunity for young people to express their views. The main aim is sign up as many people as possible but the sad thing is many young people don’t know what a ballot paper is or the opportunities to vote.”

Barron Roberts went on to describe the Movement as a great opportunity for young people to sign up and that if we all work together we can ensure that we can bring about great changes.

Mike Sani echoed this statement and went on to say how it is great fun working with Barron Roberts as he such a character. Sani then opened the floor with the statement that only 12 % of 18-24 year olds questioned were sure that they wanted to vote. Sani then asked the MP’s in attendance, what difficulties they had engaging with young people?

One MP said that he felt that schools were reluctant to invite politicians in as they feel that MP’s will be bias towards their own party rather than teaching the children about politics. The opposite point was raised by a Welsh MP who said that MP’s and 16-18 year olds have to meet each other and talk about politics and being an MP

The discussion was moved by Barron Roberts to where can young people place their trust. Roberts said that he feels that there are very few corporations that young people can trust, and with both the expenses scandal and the Leveson enquiry, young people find it difficult to trust MP’s and the Media.

Mike Sani replied by showing that he understands the difficulties that Bite the Ballot face and what a difficult role it is when young people feel that they cannot trust politicians. He adds that the press doesn’t send a positive message and the Bite the Ballot want to give MP’s the tools to go and talk to schools.

Mike Sani also took this opportunity to highlight that Bite the Ballot has registered 4028 people to vote so far.

The committee then took a very different turn and one, that I will be honest I was not expecting. We played one of the games that Bite the Ballot play when they go into schools. The rules were simple, if you agree with the statement you stand on the right hand side of the room, if you disagree with the statement you stand left and if you are unsure you stand in the middle.

Statement one was about the Olympics, was it value for money? This split the room, into almost three semi-equal groups,those who agreed that the Olympics were value for money said that it was great for the economy, raised the spirit of the nation and created heroes. Those who disagreed said that we could have done it for much less and that it lost the magic of a amature compation that became more about the money and big business.

The second question posed was Should MP’s be recalled? This led to some discussion about how they should be recalled, it was stated that it could be very easy for a party to take down a MP on one single issue if it suits their needs. The question was then re-phrased to Should MP’s be recalled if they are corrupt, the vast majority agreed, but this sparked a discussion about when to recall an MP; Do we wait and see if they make amends or do you take them out at the first sign of trouble? The jury is out on that one

After we had taken back our seats, the discussion moved on the use of APPG’s (All-party parliamentary agreement) was discussed, this would mean at a set interval (every week, fortnight, month etc) members from all the major political parties would meet to discuss the events of the campaign, what was happening and what everyone has to do next. This was met with stale reception, while this would be an opportunity to engage with mp’s it was felt almost unanimously that there are now better ways to communicate with people and that APPG’s have run their course as attendance is appallingly low.

Mike Sani has suggested a formalised agreement between MP’s, he said that if we could get every MP to make one visit to a school every month over a year that would add up to 24,500 visits in a year. Another member of Bite the Ballot also took the opportunity to suggest that with regular debates that they should have a pool of people who are versed on a subject and are ready to speak a debate

To end the committee one MP used the case study of youth surgerys. He talked about how they hold a surgery on facebook with over 6000 friends and aim to answer questions within 3 minutes. Looking around at the other MP’s I could see them thinking ‘why didn’t I think of that?’

*This article was first published on ShoutOutUK, it can be found here; www.shoutoutuk.org/2013/06/18/committee-room-2-the-roots-and-progress-of-bite-the-ballot/

This is the beginning of the oath Murdoch swore when he became an American Citizen in 1985.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;

When he swore this oath of allegiance Murdoch tore up his Australian passport. He may have been born in Australia but he has chosen that not to be an Australian.

Murdoch has shown over and over that he has no loyalty to anyone or anything except power and money.

When he ran into a problem expanding his American media interests he tore up his Australian passport and became an American.

On the Religious level he is the copyright holder of the New English Version of the Bible, a Catholic ‘Knight’ bought by building a church and the publisher of the Satanic Bible. No recognisable loyalty there.

Instead of accepting responsibility for the policies behind the UK phone tapping scandal he pleaded he didn’t know and left those further down the pecking order to carry the legal consequences. I have no sympathy for anyone involved but it does seem to me they were stiffed by the man ultimately responsible.

He tried to buy the Whitlam Government and failed so instead he shafted them. Now he has found a man as unprincipled as himself in the form of Tony Abbott and it looks like he might succeed in buying a government this time.

How did Murdoch get this much power?

I’d love to reproduce the letter in full but I note this little deterrent at the bottom of the page: Copyright © Liberal Party of Australia.

It’s  only a short letter, probably only kept short because Tony talks about his promises “during these uncertain economic times”. Hardly worth copyrighting, in my opinion. Rather worth framing though. It’s one for the ages.

Anyway, have a read and you’re welcome to come back here and talk about it, ie, pick it to pieces for the load of crap it really is.

PS: I wonder who is friend is.