Critiquing America

Every month I write a lengthy letter that I send to family and friends. After my previous letter a very good (American) friend of mine emailed me, admitting that she took offence to my negative opinions of America and how the current government is addressing the economic problems.

Lest I offend any more people, I would like to say here publically, as I replied to my friend in private, that my comments on America are not critique, as much as it is vocalized observation. In other words, my purpose is not to criticize America in these letters. (For that I have this blog ;-) .) It is primarily to note the symptoms, ponder on the causes, and extrapolate possible future results.

Let me give you an example. When Zimbabwe started to feel an economic hardship they started to print extra money. This money was not based on anything real, like gold. Such printing of unsubstantiated money created inflation (i.e. you needed more money to pay for things), and the government tried to “solve” this problem by printing even more money. Again, since the money was not substantiated by something real its value decreased. A cursory look at Zimbabwe’s complete depreciation in currency is a glimpse into what will happen to the American Dollar if America continues to print more money. I’d like to mention two other observations that are underscoring the issue with this continued printing of unsubstantiated money in America. The first is the Chancellor of Germany’s critique of America’s economic plan. From experience, Germany knows all too well the type of reality where you need a wheelbarrow load of money to buy bread. The second is China, Russia, Brazil and India’s discussion of abandoning the US Dollar as the trade currency of choice. If these countries have lost faith in the American Dollar, it should say something – keeping in mind that these countries are some of the biggest exporters in the world.

My friend asked me a very serious and probably fair question: “What would YOU do instead of what is being done with the banks?” Firstly, let me not pretend to have the solutions to this problem. As I said in a previous letter, this problem is too big for any one person (i.e. Obama or any president and his cabinet) to fix. One thing I would not do is to continue to print valueless money. Printing unsubstantiated money is not solving the problem. It is merely prolonging the inevitable, and by doing so it is increasing the seriousness of the collapse when it occurs. Obama’s recent proposal to give the Federal Reserve Bank more power is another thing I would not do. The US’s Federal Reserve Bank is not “federal”, it is a private company. As I heard one guy say, the Federal Reserve Bank is as “federal” as Federal Express. Part of the mess the US is in, is because companies have gotten too much power over government. Increasing their power will increase the problem.

Also, I don’t think bailing out the these “too big to fail” companies will solve the problem, and here is why: The premise is that by helping these companies the money pumped into them will tinkle down from top-to-bottom until the common man at grassroots level benefits. This is mostly not the case. The money dumped into these companies will mostly be used to pay off the debt (often abroad). In other words, the money will not somehow soak down to the average citizen that needs it the most; instead, the money will go out of America, or save the butts of the rich elite whom have their own savings, yachts, holiday houses in tropical countries and European sports cars.

What would I do instead? Personally I would distrust these major companies, and if need be let them fail.
What I would do with all these billions of dollars in bailout money is invest from the bottom up. I’d invest in emergency projects, encourage entrepreneurial businesses, improved education, build up the infrastructure and not cut infrastructural budgets (like that of the education system, police, etc.). The basic difference between what is being done, and what I think ought to be done can best be described by an analogy of a very sick person. Currently the sick person’s symptoms are being treated. I propose that the person’s immune system be boosted. If one continue to treat the symptoms the person might superficially seem to improve (and that is what the continual printing of money will achieve in the short run), but suddenly the sickness will flare up and the inevitable will happen. (The printing of money will only go so far, until Zimbabwean results occur.) On the other hand, if you focus not on the symptoms, but on boosting the immune system, the patient will be in serious pain and suffering at first, but there is a very good chance that the person will start to heal naturally if you make sure that the causes are not still in place. This healing will not be a superficial covering of the symptoms, but actual recovery. The focus should not be on improved comfort and relief, but on actual healing.

Of course, I do not pretend to know it all – I’m not a politician or economist. I’m merely an observer.

To come back to my criticism of Obama, let me be clear that I’m not criticizing him in particular. (Again, I’m not so much a critic as an observer.) I’ve been equally critical of Bush, even more so, but for different reasons. Bush moved America towards an Orwellian Big Brother state. Obama has done very little to counter that momentum. However, I must admit that I’ve lost my faith in Obama long ago. Any true perusing of the media will reveal that what Obama says often contradicts what his administration says. It would seem that his job is mostly PR.

I do not trust politicians. I didn’t trust Bush. I do not trust Obama.

Rumsfeld = God (?)

Image from The Guardian

In 2003, then US President, George Bush, declared that God told him: “George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan” and “George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.”

It turns out that the “Voice of God” was Donald Rumsfeld. An article by GQ-magazine reveals that Rumsfeld often prepared top secret reports on the Afghan and Iraqi wars, with quotes from the Bible, often juxtaposed with images from the battlefront. While the verses are frequently comforting and motivational, their effect when placed in association with the images creates a tone reminiscent of the Crusades. “This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine,” writes Robert Draper.

It would seem that George Bush was hearing a voice; he just mistook whose voice it was.

Like father (Bush), like son (Obama)?

I was curious as to why George W. Bush would push certain policies to go through, knowing fully well that it is the end of his term in office and that he would personally not benefit from those Orwell-policies. Can it be true, as some suggest, that they (all those big time politicians) are part of the same cloak-and-daggers agenda?

Adam posted the followABC News article on his blog. The article has Sen. Joe Biden making statements about crises that America will face within the first year of Sen. Barak Obama’s presidency. The only way the draconian laws of the Bush Administration can be lifted is if it is done by the next administration, but if the next presidency is faced with “an international crisis, a generated crisis”, as Biden warns, there is no way the next president will abolish these laws. He will be using those laws and it will be “possibly unpopular, decisions”.

The American government has been pushing these freedom-fettering policies because they are preparing for something. Danger looms on the horizon.

America, noticed more soldiers back home?

From one of my favourite blogs, I linked to this article, “Brigade Homeland Tours Start Oct 1” on the Army Times-website. It is not unusual for an active-army unit to be “at home” in times of crisis – such as when a natural disaster struck, e.g. Hurricane Katrina. But it is very unusual in any other circumstances.

Clearly the Bush Administration expected serious civil unrest with the recent economic collapse. There must definitely have been fear of civilian “terror” – surpassing the fear of the terror in Iraq. The news article says that this home-based active army “…may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.”

What is really scary is the announcement that this active army on home soil is going to be a permanent feature. After this initial 12 months of the 1st Brigade Combat Team’s active duty on home soil, it is expected that “another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.”

America is moving towards a dictatorship regime with unprecedented speed. Everything is in place. With Bush’s signing of the “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act”, the president can declare Martial Law at a whim – he merely has to announce that there is some civil unrest and viola!, we have Dictator Mr. President.

Bible prophecy is occurring before our very eyes. The lamb is starting to speak like the dragon.

Here are two YouTube-videos to get you thinking...

Mumblings over Myanmar, monks and monkeyspheres

So when should religion get involved in politics and how? At this very moment Burma, or now formally known as Myanmar, is in uproar with pro-democracy protesters calling for reform from the military-government.

Hundreds of thousands of the protesters involved are Buddhist monks. The Buddhist clergy are very revered in Burma and their protest send a very strong message. So much so that the military which at first left the protesters be, had in the meantime retaliated with curfews, protest break-ups, arrests and confining the monks to their monasteries.

Apart from their protest rallies, the Buddhist monks further react by refusing the military religious rites.

As is the case with so many countries where atrocities occurred (think of Rwanda), the rest of the world hardly raises a finger, although they do raise many eyebrows and opinions.

The fact is countries without invested interested will not act. It is purely not to their benefit. They will publicly denounce it. Even China, Burma’s biggest trade partner, has called on the Myanmar-government for reform. But, in the end, nobody is really willing to put their money where their mounts are.

Speaking of money, many countries are getting involved in Burma, but for selfish reasons only. Last Sunday, while pro-democracy marches screamed outside, India’s Oil Minister, Murli Deora, was in Burma’s capital on official (energy resources) business. Other better-off countries such as China and South Korea are also hoping to exploit Burma’s natural (energy) resources.

Although the United States and the EU has in place economic sanctions against Burma, corporations giants like Total and Chevron Corp is still in business in Burma, and “funding the dictatorship”.

The question is, what can one do? Launch an attack like Bush did on Iraq? Some would argue that Bush’s assault to “free” Iraqis from a dictator is Biblically justified. The Buddhist monks in Burma clearly see themselves correct in protesting against the military dictatorship.

I cannot help to wonder what Jesus’ approach would have been? Active pacifism like that of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi (both admitted to be inspired by the life of Jesus). When Christ walked in Judea, Israel was under a Roman dictatorship. During all His teaching He didn’t once propagate the idea of revolting against the current regime. Although He did make allusions to justification of self-defence, He clearly did not intend to get involved with any political matters. Of course man’s politics was not His mission, but man’s eternal salvation.

I ask again, when should religion get involved in politics and how? Or doesn't it matter, since we are all too cozy in our own Monkeysphere. But isn't that the whole purpose of religion - trying to save us from the apathy of the Monkeysphere? Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is case in point.

I don’t know if this is one of the reasons for the Buddhist monks’ protesting (the thing that really instigated their uproar was a sudden increase in fuel prices, not religious freedom!), but if the monk’s protest bears fruit, other religious communities will also benefit. The Muslim community in Burma have practically all been driven out of the country.