justanotherhack's Xanga

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:23:28 GMT

I'm bringing Xanga back - drop a comment if you're with me!

A Thousand Words

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:30:59 GMT

The picture depicts a famine stricken child crawling towards an United Nations food camp, located a kilometre away.
The vulture is waiting for the child to die so that it can eat it. This picture shocked the whole world. No one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer Kevin Carter who won the 1994 Pulitzer prize for this picture. He left the place as soon as the photograph was taken.
Three months later he committed suicide due to depression.

The photograph was taken by Tim Fadek who covered the Qana airstrike in Lebanon by Israel in 2006.

A good samaritan. Taken by an unnnamed photographer in 2007 in Iraq, just outside Basra.

Jason Hayes took this picture in Beslan after the 2004 school massacre by Chechen rebels, which killed more than 180 children.

Washington Post, Dec 12, 2005. "No nation in history has made the transition to a free society without facing challenges, setbacks and false starts, " proclaimed US President George W. Bush.

Fair enough. And what may you ask, defines the word, "challenge"? How about the experiences yet to be had by the young girl above, grieving, screaming silently over the corpse of her dead daddy, gunned down by American forces. A perfect example of "facing challenges" the American way.

Understanding the Future

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:51:47 GMT

It's detractors call it 'Casino Capitalism', a brand of capitalism that espouses the worst of free market theory. The private equity industry has been facing a massive amount of flak in recent times from politicians, trade union workers and employment groups, who have accused them of asset stripping, dubious employment practices and avoiding any corporate social responsibility practices.

The Financial Times in it's March 1 issue has a number of articles on the trials and tribulations faced by the various private equity groups, especially those based in the UK, ever since a number of them targeted some of Britain's most high profile retailers such as Sainsbury's and Boots. In the same issue, Ed Balls the City minister has stated that though unlisted companies are not subject to the same scrutiny as public companies, perhaps the time had come for the private equity industry to regulate itself in a more transparent manner.

However, I do feel that some of the criticism is quite unfair and uncalled for. Having worked for one of the top global private equity firms myself, I do feel that most fail to take into account the fact that private equity firms more often than not invest in loss making companies that have not been in the black for quite some time or never at all. Restructuring the workforce is one way of bringing the company back into profitability, and handing it back to the shareholders in a healthier state. Also, private equity groups don't get interest relief on equity loans that are put into the companies.

The industry has been doing its bit by introducing a number of safety regulations but more time is needed. Let's stop calling them names and support them in their initiative to generate greater wealth creation.

The New Deal?

Tue, 27 Feb 2007 01:32:34 GMT

In an interview to the New Statesman in its issue dated 19.02.2007, Hilary Benn, a candidate for Deputy leadership of the Labour party, spoke out against any sort of military intervention against Iran, a statement that makes for interesting reading, especially if one considers the fact that he voted for the war in Iraq. So will this signify a drastic change in British foreign policy if Benn’s statement are taken in to consideration?

Benn has said that the current situation with Iran is very different from the 2003 Iraq scenario and the process of dialogue and debate must be followed in order to reach any sort of understanding. Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran, in spite of the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. This followed his announcement that 1,600 British troops would be withdrawn from Iraq in the near future.

Blair will be desperate to leave Downing Street on a high note and has nothing to lose by opposing US supported military action against Iran. Members of his cabinet have also denounced any form of armed conflict, which has no doubt angered the White House.

The Labour party knows that it will have to come up with something special to retain power in the 2008 elections, and there’s no other way to do that than to start with a clean foreign policy state. So, will this be Gordon Brown’s version of the ‘new deal?’. Only time will tell.

Operation Kill, Maim and Destroy

Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:01:34 GMT

Time magazine has come out with an interesting lead story in its issue dated 19.02.07, where they have managed to draw parallels between the ongoing US-Iran diplomatic war (which is expected to escalate into a full blown military strike by the US in the very near future), with the proxy war led by Pakistan supported militants against India. The author, Mark Kukis, has said that political hardliners in Iran would find supporting insurgency in Iraq more attractive than by courting a major conventional or assymetrical military conflict with America, a war they would simply have no chance of winning. While Mr Kukis's article does make for interesting reading, it is quite amusing in its own way.

The way things seem to be taking place in the Middle East, America needs just a flimsy excuse to launch a military offensive against Iran and it seems that they have it.There is no way theUS will allow Iran or for that matter any other Arab nation to spread their tentacles in Iraq. The embattled Bush administration, which is haemorraging men, morale and money in Iraq at the moment, has already accused Iran of supplying bombs that have gone on to kill 170 US soldiers in Iran. This comes after the Americans captured four Iranian agents, allegedly members of of the Quds force, Iran's paramilitary arm.

Although Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary has said that America is not interested in entering into a war with Iran, President Bush has announced that the US will respond "firmly" if Iran escalates its military action against US/Iraqi troops. As we all know, what Mr Bush wants, he gets and right now he's simply itching for a fight..Guerilla warfare be damned, there isnt going to be any pussy-footing around this time.

Removing the remnants of the Raj

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:25:34 GMT

Hand pulled rickshaws are not just a part of Kolkata's often creaking mass transporation system. They have become a part of the city's landscape, seen as a throwback or even as one of the last remnants of the erstwhile British Raj. However, with an inexorable move towards globalisation and modernisation, these rickshaws are being increasingly seen as an impediment to the investor-friendly image, the state government is keen to implement.

The Economist in its issue dated 01.02.2007, pointed out Kolkata's 18,000 rickshaw pullers would have little alternative than to resort to begging, if their only means of livelihood were to be outlawed by the state government. However, the article fails to take into consideration the moral ambiguity that allows a human being to serve as a 'beast of burden' in order to eke out a living. In today's age of technology and constant innovation, the thought of one man acting as a human cart is simply reprehensible.

While much ado has been made of the fact that thousands would end up on the mean streets of Calcutta either begging or resorting to a life of crime, the article fails to take into consideration the reality of the situation that alternative arrangements are being made by the authorities to rehabilitate the rickshaw pullers. From providing them with basic education to setting up welfare schemes to ensure some form of livelihood. While this may take some time to implement, there is no doubt that the authorities are on the right track.

Politicians have argued that pulling a rickshaw is no more inhuman than working in the mines or as a sharecropper. But this is just empty rhetoric. If the city is to go forward, the rickshaws must go.

Chemical Reforms

Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:38:30 GMT

The recent statement made by Harold Gafo, Health Minister for the Labour Government, that alcohol causes more harm to society than any illegal drug, has once again stirred up the age-old debate whether alcohol should be reclassified to reflect the damage it causes in society, or whether one should take a harder look at the current classification of illegal drugs and if necessary, legalise them completely. Going by Mr Gafo’s views, it is quite obvious that the current status quo is unacceptable to him.

If one goes simply by statistics, the Health Minister certainly has some very strong arguments on his side. Official figures released by the UK Home Office, state that the number of alcohol related deaths in the UK have more than doubled to 8,386 since 1991.[1] On the flip side, deaths due to imbibing of narcotics such as heroin, smack, cocaine and its ilk, was significantly lower. Mr Gafo’s statement should act as a clarion call for all those seeking radical changes to existing alcohol and narcotics laws and one may even hope that the current or the next government will enact legislation in the very recent future, reflecting the same.

Reclassification of alcohol as an illegal substance would significantly reduce violent crime statistics in the UK, where nearly 40 per cent of all violent crime, 78 per cent of assaults and 88 per cent of criminal damage cases are committed while the offender is under the influence of alcohol.[2] While legislations such as the Licensing Act, 2003, have been enacted to tackle this issue, they have found to be woefully wanting.

While drinking has been perceived to be a part of British social fabric over the ages, the culture of ‘binge drinking’ amongst British youth has long overshadowed acceptable social behaviour. Issues such as morality, ethics and communication have been severely affected with deviance, degeneracy and disorder ruling the roost. If the government does take the brave step of reclassification of alcohol, it will go a long way in restoring acceptable social norms.

One also has to take into account the vast amount of money spent by UK health services on the treatment of alcoholism. Alcohol misuse costs the UK ₤18 billion a year, with ₤1.7 billion spent by the overburdened NHS alone, along with ₤7.3 billion spent on crime and disorder caused under the influence of alcohol. Compare this to ₤500 million spent by the UK health authorities annually on treatment of drug abuse and the calls for reclassification of alcohol as an illegal substance certainly makes more sense.[3]

The opposing call to legalise all drugs has its merits. The UK alone has a drugs and narcotics market worth over ₤12 billion.[4] If the government legalises all drugs leading to a regulated market, revenue to the Exchequer would be immense. Levying of taxes and excise duties on all drugs would lead to increased funding of drug awareness programmes and initiatives as well as treatments for addicts. One solution is for the legitimate market, whether state controlled or through licensed private companies, to purchase the drugs at source from the producers, paying a better price than the smuggling cartels, and depriving the cartels of their raw material.

Prohibition has been time and again found to be lacking in cutting down consumption, as experienced by the United States of America in the early 20^th century. Opposition to free will always has an adverse effect. Consumers will always turn to anti-social activities such as crime in order to feed their habit and growing dependency. This more often than not, leads to flooding of poor and dangerous quality of drugs in the market. With legalisation, the government can monitor the quality control of the drugs purchased, sold and consumed within the country. Public awareness would increase as well with the individual having a better sense of the relative harms involved.

Britain has been seeing an increasing number of calls from the Police, Judiciary, sections of the media and even from a few politicians for urgent reform of the existing drug laws.[5] However, the response of the government so far, can only be called as ‘dithering’.

American drug czar John Walters has admitted that his country is fighting an increasingly uphill battle on the war on drugs. This newspaper believes that this war is one that cannot be won, without taking a number of radical initiatives. Legalisation of drugs may well turn out to be the biggest weapon this government can utilise in order to pull up the country from the chemical morass it is steadily getting sucked into.

[1] www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091

[2] http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/ar020101.htm

[3] http://www.politics.co.uk/issueoftheday/home-office-spending-on-drug-treatment-$367322$366833.htm

[4] http://www.idmu.co.uk/taxukdm.htm

[5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2120116.stm

Negotiating an Economic Tightrope

Sun, 11 Feb 2007 20:35:05 GMT

When Chinese Premier Hu Jintao visited the United States in April 2006, a British newspaper commented, "Last week George Bush, leader of the most powerful country on earth, met Hu Jintao, his banker."[1]

While President Bush wanted assurances from his Chinese counterpart that China would take positive steps to revaluate its currency, the yuan, all the U.S economy got was a substantial order for Boeing aircrafts. Needless to say, the impasse led to renewed calls for the enforcement of protectionist policies to insure American business interests to beat off the Chinese dragon.

Ever since former U.S President Richard Nixon re-established direct relations with China, kick-started by the famous ‘Ping-Pong’ policy of 1971-72, trade and bilateral relations between the two economic monoliths have been prickly at the most. While the ever growing trade relationship between the United States of America and China marks the convergence of the globe’s two biggest economic superpowers and is seen as being crucial to the development and continued growth of the global economy at large, contentious issues such as soaring trade deficits, human rights violations, energy consumption, protection of intellectual property rights and the perceived artificial currency devaluation by the Chinese have always been seen as impediments to smooth dialogue.

The question which arises in most American minds, including policy makers, is that how does one apply leverage against an emerging geo-political giant who also happens to be one of America’s biggest creditors?

Henry Paulson, US Treasury Secretary, who will be leading a high powered delegation which includes six cabinet members and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, to Beijing this week to establish a ‘permanent strategic dialogue’ with his Chinese counterparts led by Chinese Vice-Premier Wu-Yi, expects to build trust and seek change across a range of issues such as addressing monetary policies and protection of intellectual property rights to social issues.[2] This closely follows the visit made to Beijing by U.S Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez in November. Mr Gutierrez will be accompanying Mr Paulson this time around as well.

Right on top of Mr Paulson’s agenda is expected to be addressing the massive trade deficit the U.S has with China, which touched a staggering $202 billion, the biggest imbalance ever with a single country. China alone accounts for nearly 26 per cent of the United States' $725.8 billion trade deficit, which makes it the U.S’ second biggest foreign creditor after Japan.[3] The lop-sided trade imbalance has seen a political backlash against the Bush administration with policy makers calling the current situation, “lacking in equity, durability and balance in the opportunities it provides.”[4]

China’s holdings in the U.S federal debt have increased to $342.1 billion, an increase of more than 425 per cent in merely six years. While these foreign inflows of cash have added to the demand for the dollar and U.S Treasury bonds and kept interest rates low, it may be surmised that the U.S is merely recycling it’s own debt, since these same dollars are used to pay off the trade deficits.

U.S manufacturers will also be taking a keen interest in Mr Paulson’s visit. American industry hawks have been urging the Bush administration to take a more hardline approach towards amending trade and monetary issues with China, which they consider deeply unfair at the moment.[5] Currency and strategy analysts and industry representatives believe the China has intentionally undervalued the yuan by almost 40 per cent, giving itself an unfair trade advantage. The outcome of the undervalued yuan makes Chinese goods cheaper than American products and vice-versa. While China did announce in 2005 that it will float the Yuan against a basket of currencies and will no longer be pegged to the dollar only,[6] a move initially welcomed by the White House then, but since then has been described to be just an eyewash. Tangible results are expected and expected soon.

The failure to protect intellectual property rights by Chinese authorities has been another major thorn in the side of U.S manufacturers. The lack of transparency in prosecuting offenders accused of violating IPR laws has been seen as a major drawback by the U.S industry, who claim that that such intellectual property theft is costing them billions of dollars in lost sales. Mr Gutierrez who attended a strategic IPR roundtable in Beijing last month spoke out strongly, stating that a victim of widespread IP theft in China was the American support to expand the trade relationship between the two countries.

“Those who espouse protectionism as a legitimate economic policy have a loud voice. They cite specific imbalances. And they point to the lack of robust IP protection in China as a top reason why we should put protectionist policies in place. This would be the wrong course. However, we can't disprove the critics with rhetoric. We need results,” pointed out Mr. Gutierrez.[7]

There is also no doubt that China will have to stick to pledges it made, to develop a more market accessible economy by lowering of trade barriers across all sectors and to ensure its own long-term credibility, when it joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001. The U.S which filed a case against it before the WTO in a dispute involving auto parts alleged that China was imposing a high rate of taxes in violation of the promises it made to the WTO on joining. This was also supported by the European Union. President Bush said, “We expect that country to treat us fairly.”[8]

However, with regard to the truncated Doha round of WTO talks, the Chinese Minister of Commerce, Bo Xilai pointed out that the round should concentrate on the free trade process and the negotiation process should be observed strictly, since it was the developed nations that had the most to gain from the liberalisation of global trade. Taking the example of the textile issue, Mr Xilai said that China was being made the scapegoat for the surge of Chinese textile products even though a number of developed nations had stuck to a seventy per cent quota for textile products.[9] It is but quite obvious that these issues have to be ironed out before the U.S can afford to charge China for unfair trade practices.

In spite of this, the current White House administration has been seen to be more than eager to do business with China. However, with the American political scenario undergoing a complete reverse with the Democrats sweeping the House of Representatives as well as the U.S Senate, the relative bonhomie presented by the Republicans to the Chinese may undergo a sea change.

It is a known fact that Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the Senate has been one of Beijing’s harshest critics over a period of time. A backer of Taiwan, Ms Pelosi also opposed normalising trade with China granted by the Clinton administration in 2000, a fact that must be of immense worry to them. She has gone on record to state that she considers China’s holding U.S Treasury Bills worth $339 billion as a ‘national security threat.’[10]

However, a radical change from the existing U.S-China bilateral policies is not expected. The economic agendas of both countries have become intertwined and symbiotic, leading to co-dependency.

Although it has started to trade in a basket of currencies and not restrict itself to the dollar any longer, China’s massive investment in the U.S currency will not allow it to pull out of it in a hurry. Moreover, the Chinese economy is extremely dependent on production and exports. It would be a logical assumption that the U.S being the world’s largest consumer, any fading of its buying power, would lead to a corresponding downturn in the Chinese economy as well. The Chinese infrastructure has yet to reach the standards of America and till it does, one may well see it continuing to shift money to the U.S.

The U.S and the Chinese economies have accounted for roughly half of the total global economic growth in the last four years. The impact of the U.S-China bilateral trade policies already has had a significant impact on the health of the global economy as it moves inexorably towards a more rule-based economic system. The jade gates have opened and it is only a question of how wide they will swing.

[1] Source - The Observer - Can America foot the bill for its Chinese takeaway? Leader article published 23.04.2006

[2] www.ft.com – How China can make Paulson’s mission worthwhile. Published 07.12.2006

[3] www.worldnews.about.com – Hu Jintao, Bush’s banker – Why the China U.S trade imbalance is unsustainable – Author – Jennifer Brea.

[4] States News Service – USTR to strengthen enforcement in re-adjustment of U.S-China trade policy. Published 14/02/2006.

[5] Associated Press Worldstream – U.S manufacturers urge tough position in trade talks with China. Published 05/12/2006

[6] www.bbc.co.uk – China launches currency shake-up – Published 22.07.2005

7 http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn_t_doc_2006111401.html - U.S Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez remarks to IPR Roundtable, Beijing, China – Published 14/11/2006

[8] Source: The Associated Press State and Local Wire. Martin Crutsinger. Published 30/06/2006

[9] www.china.org.cn/english/government/128104.htm - China makes proposals on Doha trade talks. Published 09/05/2005

[10] www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml - Why Nancy Pelosi frightens China. Author – Joshua Kurlantzik. Published 16/11/2006

What DOES the future hold for me????

Wed, 07 Feb 2007 04:49:55 GMT

Hopefully this!!!

“Our doubts are traitors,

And make us lose the good we oft may win

By fearing to attempt.”

The above quote is from William Shakespeare’s play, “Measure for Measure”, and it seems so apt. I have always believed that the future belongs to people who see possibilities before they become obvious, and seizing the same with the force of their determination.

At 27, I knew coming to Cardiff University to pursue a Masters in International Journalism, was a calculated risk, since it meant giving up a relatively well-paid job, especially one which offered promising growth opportunities to boot. But I have always felt that in order to match up or even exceed the exacting demands thrust upon any professional seeking to make a mark in his or her chosen profession today, such a gamble would have to be undertaken.

While I have never been one to foretell the future, I would like to surmise that one year down the line, I do expect to be gainfully employed. At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I feel that having an inherent confidence in my capabilities, along with a few years of full-time work experience under my belt before undertaking the programme, has equipped me with the necessary tools to re-embark upon my chosen profession. I have tended to look upon this one year at Cardiff as a further stepping stone rather than a launch pad to professional success. However much more needs to be done.

In order to achieve this I intend to utilise this one year polishing my skills by filling in the gaps such as the technical aspects of news production, understanding the nuances of news in developed media and gaining exposure to newer forms of media. Having been given the opportunity to interact with students, faculty and news personnel from all over the globe, it is my wish to create a sizeable network so as to understand the profile of a global journalist.

The future beckons us all and we are halfway there. It is an exciting time for all of us and it is up to each one of us to make the most of it.

Hello

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:01:49 GMT

Xanga

Type your first post here, then click "Submit" to publish it to your Xanga Site Or you can come back anytime to write a weblog post later!