A growing number of Americans viewed him as the one who jeopardized Senator Barack Obama’s bid for the 2008 presidency, but should the American voters damn Reverend Wright for speaking out what he had on his mind?
By: Vanessa Uy
Carole Simpson – one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s supporters – said on a Larry King Live interview that Baptist preachers, in general, have very big egos. Though somewhat an unfair generalization, I do agree with Carole Simpson’s view on Baptist preachers. In my view, one does need a very big ego when preaching something that is inexorably will someday go out of fashion like institutionalized / mainstream Christian doctrine. Even the subatomic particles have adopted Buddhism’s “Eightfold Way” a few moments after the Big Bang. Sadly, how subatomic particles chose their way of life – or my Friedrich Nietzsche like critique on Christian slave morality - is the least of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s problems in the face of the US election season demagoguery.
Reverend Jeremiah Wright gained worldwide fame – or notoriety depending on your point of view – when his polemic critique on the Bush Administration’s despotic Foreign Policy that lead to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers was aired all over US national TV and the Internet. Though many before Reverend Wright had expressed more damning polemics on the shortcomings of the American society and of the powers-that-be on Capitol Hill from John Steinbeck’s “The Grape of Wrath” to Exene Cervenka and Lydia Lunch (remember “Rude Hieroglyphics” back in 1995). Reverend Wright’s uniqueness in comparison to the previous reactionaries his relatively close connection to the 2008 presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama. By being senator Obama’s pastor Reverend Wright was inadvertently thrust into the scrutiny of the “Stuffy as a Box” conservative values of White House power politics. Obama’s political opponents are now using Reverend Wright’s views against his bid for the presidency. But how sincere are the concerns of Senator Obama’s political rivals? Are they playing the ugliest variant of the “race card” by reserving the role of Tom Joad only to white male Americans?
As of late, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been known for a lot of things. A self-made man, an enlightened patriot – but a 21st Century American mass media-manufactured-caricature of an African-American he is not. Before becoming a pastor on the Trinity United Church of Christ, Jeremiah Wright lived an overachieving life that’s more a product of Gene Roddenberry’s writings than Death Row Records. Wright served six years in the US Navy and was part of the medical team that treated former President Lyndon B. Johnson’s gall bladder back in the 1960’s. In short, Reverend Wright really did pay his dues when it comes to patriotism.
Like the late Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador who was an outspoken critic of government repression, Reverend Jeremiah Wright has also adopted Liberation Theology to criticize the shortcomings of the Bush Administration. Not just on Foreign Policy, but pretty much on everything from the economy to promoting the arcane demagoguery and racist ideology of Anglo-Saxon Creationism / Intelligent Design. By adopting James Hal Cone’s Black Liberation Theology, Reverend Wright has very much upset the White American status quo. Especially since James Hal Cone’s Black Liberation Theology – to me - sounds like a mixture of Friedrich Nietzsche’s views on power politics and Socialist-leaning Latin American Liberation Theology. When Black Liberation Theology espouses the idea that the task of Black Theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community does carry a shameful implication. But does this implication meant that the Calvinism and Protestant Work Ethic that made America the last true geopolitical “Superpower” has been denying the African-American community from benefiting the bounty of this American Dream?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Olympic Games: Politics As Usual?
Ever since the modern revival of the Olympic Games back in 1896 in Athens, Greece, the Olympics had since been plagued by nationalistic political rivalries – even cancelled three times - due to world wars. Will a once sacred institution ever gain independence from fractious politics?
By: Vanessa Uy
The Olympic Games have even earlier roots than our current modern equivalent that started back in 1896. The first Olympics were held in 776 BC at Olympia, Greece. Back then, nothing was of more importance to the Greeks than the quadrennial (that’s every four years) festival of sporting events and religious rites. Olympia was even considered a sacred ground. Wars were suspended, and a solemn peace – Ekecheiria – lasted for the duration of each and every Olympics.
Then came the intrusion of fractious politics of one form or another, which now threaten the upcoming 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics with widespread boycotts. The rationale behind this boycott range from Beijing’s unlawful annexation of Tibet to the Beijing Government’s complicity in the ongoing genocide in the Darfur Region of Sudan due to its lax regulation of armaments exports. Not to mention the spotty Human Rights record when it comes to handling its own political dissidents. Sadly the genocide and crackdown of political dissidents issue also applies to Tibet and to the country’s exiled spiritual leader His Holiness The Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet.
The political turbulence plaguing our modern era Olympic Games have occurred several times before of varying degrees of controversy. Even during the 1896 Athens Olympics, a row over who’s following the Gregorian or Julian calendars was a point of contention. But controversy became big-time during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which also started the tradition of the Olympic Torch Relay. Our current Beijing Olympic Torch Relay lately became a target of anyone expressing his or her political sentiments over the Beijing Government’s “Shameful Policies”.
After reading a book by Richard Mandrell titled “The Nazi Olympics”, which is about how the author saw the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. I finally gained a clearer understanding about the rationale of anyone using the Olympic Games as a platform to express political views. Though the books salient theme is about how athletes are increasingly regarded as national assets. Comparable to the procurement of World War II era “prestige necessities” like fighter planes, submarines and synthetic rubber manufacturing plants. Add to that the triumph of African-American track and field athlete Jesse Owens, which shattered Adolph Hitler’s belief in the “Aryan Myth”. This finally made maintaining a “stable” of athletes a necessity if a country wants to maintain her national standing.
And who can ever forget on how John Carlos, the US gold-medal sprinter in the 1968 Mexico City Games who bowed his head and raised a black-gloved fist during the playing of his national anthem as a critique of the Civil Rights situation in America. He later said: “The Olympics is nothing but a full political scene – everything in the world athletics is. It’s country against country, ideology against ideology. The people you run for – the officials – overshadow you with their political ambitions, with the face they want you to put for your country.”
Then came the shocking assassination of 11 Israelis at the 1972 Munich Games by Palestinian militants is by far politics at its bloodiest. The “political debacle” that spurred on this terrible incident remains unresolved till this day. And might get even worse before it gets better.
The 1976 Montreal Olympics was more popularly known for leaving the host-city with a billion-dollar debt. Yet the political overtones were very much alive when 17 African nations refused to compete in the Montreal Games due to the exclusion from Olympic membership of South Africa and Taiwan by the International Olympic Committee.
The 1980 Moscow Olympics was popularly known for being synonymous with the word boycott. The US led boycott of the games which Canada, Japan and the then West Germany were among the nations that later followed suit has called into question whether this is the beginning of the end of the Olympic Ideal. Though many then viewed that the boycott was justified primarily because the Civilized World’s protest over the then Soviet Union’s unlawful invasion of Afghanistan just to quell a suspected threat of Islamic Fundamentalism is very much justified. The planned boycott of a growing number of Western nations over the upcoming Beijing Olympics is partly bolstered by the relative success and the political ideals behind the US led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games.
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was boycotted in a tit for tat response by the then Soviet Union and other Warsaw-Pact countries / allies. The Los Angeles Games was more famous for its blatant commercialism despite it’s the first time that a host-city finally earned a profit from the games.
The “minor quip” of the 1988 Seoul Olympics was the press finally finding out about the scandal over the use of illegal performance enhancing substances like anabolic steroids which later plague the athletes who used them with chronic health problems several years later. Luckily, no one used then President Chun Doo Hwan’s brutal crackdown of student protests as an excuse for boycotting the games.
The 1992 Barcelona Olympics was more of a PR issue for the city when the spectators were greeted with a high incidence of petty crimes like purse snatching and pick pocketing. Though no one threatened to boycott the games using Tomàs de Torquemada, the Spanish Inquisition, the Colonialism / Imperialism issue, complicity on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the unsolved disappearances / murders during the Franco dictatorship as an excuse.
The 1996 Atlanta Olympics was a controversial one because the proposed venue of the centennial of the modern Olympics was supposed to be Athens, Greece. But the city of Atlanta outbid Athens. No one threatened to boycott over this. The threat of domestic terrorism by now largely forgotten Christian Fundamentalist / extremist who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City back in April 20, 1995 is the only big issue surrounding the games. Though a prankster was charged with disturbing the peace by blowing up a somewhat large firecracker during the opening ceremonies.
While the 2000 Sydney Olympics was largely incident free. The planned protest by Native Australians or Aborigines about the “Stolen Generation” issue was kept out of the media’s gaze probably due to the efforts of then Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s “Secret Police Apparatus”. Though the Aborigines later got their apology when Kevin Rudd became the current Prime Minister of Australia.
The controversy surrounding the 2004 Athens Olympics were mostly pertaining to the politics of money and bureaucratic red tape which dangerously delayed the finishing of the facilities to be used during the games. The issue over the partition of Cyprus never came up though.
The upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics is probably the most controversial Olympics to date not just because of the “political overtones” surrounding the event but also the levels of air pollution in Beijing which could pose as a health hazard to the athletes. Will the Beijing Government stop the wheels of their industry just to keep the air quality acceptable during the games? Though the International Olympic Committee’s decision for Beijing to host this year’s Olympic Games was decided over three years ago. The long list of “rationales” for boycotting it did not gain widespread discussion until near the end of 2007. Back then the row over YAHOO! CEO Jerry Yang giving the Beijing Government vital information that allowed them to arrest journalist Shi Tao as a political dissident seems like an excerpt from a bad episode of the TV series 24, was the only popularly known rationale for boycotting the games. The banality of evil for those who don’t witness it first hand notwithstanding, yet it was when the Beijing Government’s heavy handed crackdown over the unrest in Tibet got the badly needed media exposure did everybody became convinced that boycotting the games is a moral imperative. Adding to that the spotty Human Rights record, not to mention the AN YUE JIANG and her shipload of weapons bound for the ailing “Mugabe Regime” in landlocked Zimbabwe being uncovered in the port of Durban in South Africa only strengthens the case for a boycott. But the question is should we?
The Beijing Government has been accusing the Western media for their somewhat biased reporting in regards to the upcoming Summer Olympics. But the BBC’s extensive news coverage regarding the plight of the working class Chinese eking out a living. What about the athletes who probably spent years – even decades - honing their skills? Should these people just voluntarily penalize themselves over the International Community’s failure to deal with Beijing’s heavy handedness diplomatically? This has got me thinking whether there is a better way other than an all out boycott in showing our disapproval over how the powers-that-be ran China. When the US government staged a trade embargo against the then “Apartheid Government” of South Africa, they choose only goods that are of use to the Apartheid Regime. While necessities are still available to the average black South African. Top level dignitaries like the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the upcoming Beijing Olympics citing scheduling conflicts of his junket. Maybe the participating athletes – as a sign of protest – will do what John Carlos did during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, a symbolic show of defiance.
By: Vanessa Uy
The Olympic Games have even earlier roots than our current modern equivalent that started back in 1896. The first Olympics were held in 776 BC at Olympia, Greece. Back then, nothing was of more importance to the Greeks than the quadrennial (that’s every four years) festival of sporting events and religious rites. Olympia was even considered a sacred ground. Wars were suspended, and a solemn peace – Ekecheiria – lasted for the duration of each and every Olympics.
Then came the intrusion of fractious politics of one form or another, which now threaten the upcoming 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics with widespread boycotts. The rationale behind this boycott range from Beijing’s unlawful annexation of Tibet to the Beijing Government’s complicity in the ongoing genocide in the Darfur Region of Sudan due to its lax regulation of armaments exports. Not to mention the spotty Human Rights record when it comes to handling its own political dissidents. Sadly the genocide and crackdown of political dissidents issue also applies to Tibet and to the country’s exiled spiritual leader His Holiness The Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet.
The political turbulence plaguing our modern era Olympic Games have occurred several times before of varying degrees of controversy. Even during the 1896 Athens Olympics, a row over who’s following the Gregorian or Julian calendars was a point of contention. But controversy became big-time during the 1936 Berlin Olympics, which also started the tradition of the Olympic Torch Relay. Our current Beijing Olympic Torch Relay lately became a target of anyone expressing his or her political sentiments over the Beijing Government’s “Shameful Policies”.
After reading a book by Richard Mandrell titled “The Nazi Olympics”, which is about how the author saw the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games. I finally gained a clearer understanding about the rationale of anyone using the Olympic Games as a platform to express political views. Though the books salient theme is about how athletes are increasingly regarded as national assets. Comparable to the procurement of World War II era “prestige necessities” like fighter planes, submarines and synthetic rubber manufacturing plants. Add to that the triumph of African-American track and field athlete Jesse Owens, which shattered Adolph Hitler’s belief in the “Aryan Myth”. This finally made maintaining a “stable” of athletes a necessity if a country wants to maintain her national standing.
And who can ever forget on how John Carlos, the US gold-medal sprinter in the 1968 Mexico City Games who bowed his head and raised a black-gloved fist during the playing of his national anthem as a critique of the Civil Rights situation in America. He later said: “The Olympics is nothing but a full political scene – everything in the world athletics is. It’s country against country, ideology against ideology. The people you run for – the officials – overshadow you with their political ambitions, with the face they want you to put for your country.”
Then came the shocking assassination of 11 Israelis at the 1972 Munich Games by Palestinian militants is by far politics at its bloodiest. The “political debacle” that spurred on this terrible incident remains unresolved till this day. And might get even worse before it gets better.
The 1976 Montreal Olympics was more popularly known for leaving the host-city with a billion-dollar debt. Yet the political overtones were very much alive when 17 African nations refused to compete in the Montreal Games due to the exclusion from Olympic membership of South Africa and Taiwan by the International Olympic Committee.
The 1980 Moscow Olympics was popularly known for being synonymous with the word boycott. The US led boycott of the games which Canada, Japan and the then West Germany were among the nations that later followed suit has called into question whether this is the beginning of the end of the Olympic Ideal. Though many then viewed that the boycott was justified primarily because the Civilized World’s protest over the then Soviet Union’s unlawful invasion of Afghanistan just to quell a suspected threat of Islamic Fundamentalism is very much justified. The planned boycott of a growing number of Western nations over the upcoming Beijing Olympics is partly bolstered by the relative success and the political ideals behind the US led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games.
The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics was boycotted in a tit for tat response by the then Soviet Union and other Warsaw-Pact countries / allies. The Los Angeles Games was more famous for its blatant commercialism despite it’s the first time that a host-city finally earned a profit from the games.
The “minor quip” of the 1988 Seoul Olympics was the press finally finding out about the scandal over the use of illegal performance enhancing substances like anabolic steroids which later plague the athletes who used them with chronic health problems several years later. Luckily, no one used then President Chun Doo Hwan’s brutal crackdown of student protests as an excuse for boycotting the games.
The 1992 Barcelona Olympics was more of a PR issue for the city when the spectators were greeted with a high incidence of petty crimes like purse snatching and pick pocketing. Though no one threatened to boycott the games using Tomàs de Torquemada, the Spanish Inquisition, the Colonialism / Imperialism issue, complicity on the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and the unsolved disappearances / murders during the Franco dictatorship as an excuse.
The 1996 Atlanta Olympics was a controversial one because the proposed venue of the centennial of the modern Olympics was supposed to be Athens, Greece. But the city of Atlanta outbid Athens. No one threatened to boycott over this. The threat of domestic terrorism by now largely forgotten Christian Fundamentalist / extremist who blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City back in April 20, 1995 is the only big issue surrounding the games. Though a prankster was charged with disturbing the peace by blowing up a somewhat large firecracker during the opening ceremonies.
While the 2000 Sydney Olympics was largely incident free. The planned protest by Native Australians or Aborigines about the “Stolen Generation” issue was kept out of the media’s gaze probably due to the efforts of then Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s “Secret Police Apparatus”. Though the Aborigines later got their apology when Kevin Rudd became the current Prime Minister of Australia.
The controversy surrounding the 2004 Athens Olympics were mostly pertaining to the politics of money and bureaucratic red tape which dangerously delayed the finishing of the facilities to be used during the games. The issue over the partition of Cyprus never came up though.
The upcoming 2008 Beijing Olympics is probably the most controversial Olympics to date not just because of the “political overtones” surrounding the event but also the levels of air pollution in Beijing which could pose as a health hazard to the athletes. Will the Beijing Government stop the wheels of their industry just to keep the air quality acceptable during the games? Though the International Olympic Committee’s decision for Beijing to host this year’s Olympic Games was decided over three years ago. The long list of “rationales” for boycotting it did not gain widespread discussion until near the end of 2007. Back then the row over YAHOO! CEO Jerry Yang giving the Beijing Government vital information that allowed them to arrest journalist Shi Tao as a political dissident seems like an excerpt from a bad episode of the TV series 24, was the only popularly known rationale for boycotting the games. The banality of evil for those who don’t witness it first hand notwithstanding, yet it was when the Beijing Government’s heavy handed crackdown over the unrest in Tibet got the badly needed media exposure did everybody became convinced that boycotting the games is a moral imperative. Adding to that the spotty Human Rights record, not to mention the AN YUE JIANG and her shipload of weapons bound for the ailing “Mugabe Regime” in landlocked Zimbabwe being uncovered in the port of Durban in South Africa only strengthens the case for a boycott. But the question is should we?
The Beijing Government has been accusing the Western media for their somewhat biased reporting in regards to the upcoming Summer Olympics. But the BBC’s extensive news coverage regarding the plight of the working class Chinese eking out a living. What about the athletes who probably spent years – even decades - honing their skills? Should these people just voluntarily penalize themselves over the International Community’s failure to deal with Beijing’s heavy handedness diplomatically? This has got me thinking whether there is a better way other than an all out boycott in showing our disapproval over how the powers-that-be ran China. When the US government staged a trade embargo against the then “Apartheid Government” of South Africa, they choose only goods that are of use to the Apartheid Regime. While necessities are still available to the average black South African. Top level dignitaries like the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says he will not attend the opening ceremonies of the upcoming Beijing Olympics citing scheduling conflicts of his junket. Maybe the participating athletes – as a sign of protest – will do what John Carlos did during the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, a symbolic show of defiance.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Islamophobia Anyone?
The term has now served as a popular description of the mindset of the people running FOX News. Is “Islamophobia” a mere byproduct of the 9 / 11 attacks or a deeper symptom of disdain by the West over non-Christians?
By: Vanessa Uy
As time went on, the Patriot Act has more or less devolved into the reading of the Riot Act to American Citizens subscribing to the Islamic faith. Also, the Bush Administrations “War on Terror” had turned into something more that half of the world’s population always feared – a war against the non-believers of Christianity. But there’s a growing consensus that the Bush Administration / GOP definition of “non-believers” does not only apply to Muslims, but also to women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, even practitioners of so-called “rational thinking” and “reason”. Yes, rational thinking and reason: the two greatest foes of Creationism. Plus given the recent public rantings of Barack Obama's pastor - Reverend Jeremiah Wright - only serves to show that organized Christianity in America is no longer ashamed to show "political ambitions".
As America is being destroyed by the current Bush Administration in a way that most al-Qaeda operatives can only dream of, I have a nagging feeling that the root cause of all of this is the means in which the Bush Administration made “The Power of Christ” somewhat oversold. I mean has anyone seen Pat Robertson going into the refugee camps in the Darfur Region of Sudan turning stone into bread? How about doing the same miracle in areas worse hit by Hurricane Katrina? It really seems like the “Blue State” regions of America are fast becoming the last bastions of reason, literally. And it seems it's now up to them to act as the last bastion of socio-cultural tolerance.
The “brand” of “Christianity” that the Bush Administration is presently promoting – by force – around the world has been creating global resentment on an unprecedented scale. The Bush Administration’s Christendom’s core mission really is to wipe out Civil Liberties and the right to self-determination around the world. When they imprison Viktor Bout, we can kiss goodbye to our right to self-determination. Its getting very, very hard for the Bush Administration’s Christendom to realize that the world doesn’t want to be saved, only to be left alone. I just hope that the term "Islamophobia" will only apply to George "Dubya" Bush and his Neo-Conservatives.
By: Vanessa Uy
As time went on, the Patriot Act has more or less devolved into the reading of the Riot Act to American Citizens subscribing to the Islamic faith. Also, the Bush Administrations “War on Terror” had turned into something more that half of the world’s population always feared – a war against the non-believers of Christianity. But there’s a growing consensus that the Bush Administration / GOP definition of “non-believers” does not only apply to Muslims, but also to women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals, even practitioners of so-called “rational thinking” and “reason”. Yes, rational thinking and reason: the two greatest foes of Creationism. Plus given the recent public rantings of Barack Obama's pastor - Reverend Jeremiah Wright - only serves to show that organized Christianity in America is no longer ashamed to show "political ambitions".
As America is being destroyed by the current Bush Administration in a way that most al-Qaeda operatives can only dream of, I have a nagging feeling that the root cause of all of this is the means in which the Bush Administration made “The Power of Christ” somewhat oversold. I mean has anyone seen Pat Robertson going into the refugee camps in the Darfur Region of Sudan turning stone into bread? How about doing the same miracle in areas worse hit by Hurricane Katrina? It really seems like the “Blue State” regions of America are fast becoming the last bastions of reason, literally. And it seems it's now up to them to act as the last bastion of socio-cultural tolerance.
The “brand” of “Christianity” that the Bush Administration is presently promoting – by force – around the world has been creating global resentment on an unprecedented scale. The Bush Administration’s Christendom’s core mission really is to wipe out Civil Liberties and the right to self-determination around the world. When they imprison Viktor Bout, we can kiss goodbye to our right to self-determination. Its getting very, very hard for the Bush Administration’s Christendom to realize that the world doesn’t want to be saved, only to be left alone. I just hope that the term "Islamophobia" will only apply to George "Dubya" Bush and his Neo-Conservatives.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The One Laptop Per Child Program: The Politics and the Bureaucracies
With two major competing programs known so far. Will the current one laptop per child program really help children in developing nations prepare for future I.T. jobs, or will the two competing programs devolve into a commercialism turf war similar to the VHS and BETAMAX War of the early 1980’s?
By: Vanessa Uy
Despite over-extensive press coverage, a lot of us “nettizens” never seemed to have lost interest on the promises and the problems surrounding the one laptop per child program. As of late, there are two major programs all rivaling the merits for their raison d’être like fiscal sensibility, technical feasibility and sheer practicality. The two programs are currently field tested on a scale to accommodate the need of a typical school in Nigeria to gauge the success – or failure – of the program.
One “version” of the program is the brainchild of philanthropist Nicholas Negroponte. One of the aims of his one laptop per child program is to provide a bridge that would span the gulf of the existing “Digital Divide” that exists in developing countries. Another aim of Nicholas Negroponte’s program is to promote computer literacy in the poorest parts of the world. The computer laptops used in Nicholas Negroponte’s pilot scheme costs a little over a hundred US dollars each, they’re Internet / Mesh Network capable and can send video and still pictures to the Internet via it’s built-in webcam. If it succeeds, the program would serve as an irrefutable proof of the modern computer’s feasibility as an educational tool even in developing countries. One of the program’s more intransigent problems is the endemic lack of a steady supply of mains / grid electricity in developing countries. This problem can be solved by using a rip – cord operated generator similar to those used in those portable radios that are distributed throughout Africa during the 1990’s to help broadcast information in preventing the spread of HIV / AIDS. Though equipping the laptops with such generators would increase their price, there are also plans for solar / photovoltaic chargers for the laptops built-in batteries. Despite of the problems, the hands on / try something / creativity promotion proviso of the laptops has been one of the most redeeming qualities of the program. By training their problem solving skills, the laptops have become a very positive educational influence to the students despite of Nigeria’s rigid “old school” tradition of educational hierarchy that new knowledge and skills should flow only one way – from the teacher to the students.
The other one of these one laptop per child program that rivals Nicholas Negroponte’s is being run by the Intel Corporation, and is called the Intel PC classmate program and is tried on an another school in Nigeria. The Intel PC classmate program according to Intel is about investing in school kids (Tapping the knowledge economy?). The laptops that are provided by Intel to the students currently costs 350 US dollars each. The reason Intel’s laptops are more costly is because of the extensive use of solid - state flash memory technology in their laptops. At present, solid – state flash memory technology is much more expensive than conventional data storage devices like hard drives and CD / DVD burners. But solid – state flash memory devices can work much more reliably than their “conventional” counterparts in the arduous conditions typically found in the environment where the laptops could be used like dust, moisture, and the shock forces produced when the laptop is “accidentally” dropped. The Intel Corporation says their program is investing on Nigeria’s children by “grooming” them to acquire skills as future I.T. employees. Thus making the children’s job prospects in the future much more secure.
From my point of view, both programs are really visionary in tackling the current problems that can be encountered when developing countries try to improve their educational system. Will the promise of both programs remain but a dream when faced with the harsh realities of the high cost of upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure of developing countries just to make them Web 2.0 compliant, and what about these countries electrical grid infrastructure? Plus, let’s not forget that most developing countries like Nigeria is still currently trying to upgrade their existing “conventional” educational system just to provide basic literacy skills – which includes the English language by the way – which are a pre – requisite to computer literacy.
Even though both of the one laptop per child program is already 5 years old. Both of the programs original “mission directive” was to alleviate the “lack of qualified teachers” problem in developing countries by allowing financially disadvantaged kids access to the vast stores of knowledge that’s available on the Internet. Despite of current technical problems like status of the local telecommunications and power grid infrastructure, plus the politics of censorship that’s recently discussed by this year’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The greatest benefit that the one laptop per child program will be to the environment because unnecessary air travel will be kept to the absolute minimum. This is so because NGOs and program overseers can track the progress of there respective “pet projects” on-line because the kids are uploading the video documentation of the program’s progress. Who knew that something that started out as an educational program is now a part of the solution in reducing our overall “carbon footprints”?
By: Vanessa Uy
Despite over-extensive press coverage, a lot of us “nettizens” never seemed to have lost interest on the promises and the problems surrounding the one laptop per child program. As of late, there are two major programs all rivaling the merits for their raison d’être like fiscal sensibility, technical feasibility and sheer practicality. The two programs are currently field tested on a scale to accommodate the need of a typical school in Nigeria to gauge the success – or failure – of the program.
One “version” of the program is the brainchild of philanthropist Nicholas Negroponte. One of the aims of his one laptop per child program is to provide a bridge that would span the gulf of the existing “Digital Divide” that exists in developing countries. Another aim of Nicholas Negroponte’s program is to promote computer literacy in the poorest parts of the world. The computer laptops used in Nicholas Negroponte’s pilot scheme costs a little over a hundred US dollars each, they’re Internet / Mesh Network capable and can send video and still pictures to the Internet via it’s built-in webcam. If it succeeds, the program would serve as an irrefutable proof of the modern computer’s feasibility as an educational tool even in developing countries. One of the program’s more intransigent problems is the endemic lack of a steady supply of mains / grid electricity in developing countries. This problem can be solved by using a rip – cord operated generator similar to those used in those portable radios that are distributed throughout Africa during the 1990’s to help broadcast information in preventing the spread of HIV / AIDS. Though equipping the laptops with such generators would increase their price, there are also plans for solar / photovoltaic chargers for the laptops built-in batteries. Despite of the problems, the hands on / try something / creativity promotion proviso of the laptops has been one of the most redeeming qualities of the program. By training their problem solving skills, the laptops have become a very positive educational influence to the students despite of Nigeria’s rigid “old school” tradition of educational hierarchy that new knowledge and skills should flow only one way – from the teacher to the students.
The other one of these one laptop per child program that rivals Nicholas Negroponte’s is being run by the Intel Corporation, and is called the Intel PC classmate program and is tried on an another school in Nigeria. The Intel PC classmate program according to Intel is about investing in school kids (Tapping the knowledge economy?). The laptops that are provided by Intel to the students currently costs 350 US dollars each. The reason Intel’s laptops are more costly is because of the extensive use of solid - state flash memory technology in their laptops. At present, solid – state flash memory technology is much more expensive than conventional data storage devices like hard drives and CD / DVD burners. But solid – state flash memory devices can work much more reliably than their “conventional” counterparts in the arduous conditions typically found in the environment where the laptops could be used like dust, moisture, and the shock forces produced when the laptop is “accidentally” dropped. The Intel Corporation says their program is investing on Nigeria’s children by “grooming” them to acquire skills as future I.T. employees. Thus making the children’s job prospects in the future much more secure.
From my point of view, both programs are really visionary in tackling the current problems that can be encountered when developing countries try to improve their educational system. Will the promise of both programs remain but a dream when faced with the harsh realities of the high cost of upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure of developing countries just to make them Web 2.0 compliant, and what about these countries electrical grid infrastructure? Plus, let’s not forget that most developing countries like Nigeria is still currently trying to upgrade their existing “conventional” educational system just to provide basic literacy skills – which includes the English language by the way – which are a pre – requisite to computer literacy.
Even though both of the one laptop per child program is already 5 years old. Both of the programs original “mission directive” was to alleviate the “lack of qualified teachers” problem in developing countries by allowing financially disadvantaged kids access to the vast stores of knowledge that’s available on the Internet. Despite of current technical problems like status of the local telecommunications and power grid infrastructure, plus the politics of censorship that’s recently discussed by this year’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The greatest benefit that the one laptop per child program will be to the environment because unnecessary air travel will be kept to the absolute minimum. This is so because NGOs and program overseers can track the progress of there respective “pet projects” on-line because the kids are uploading the video documentation of the program’s progress. Who knew that something that started out as an educational program is now a part of the solution in reducing our overall “carbon footprints”?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Internal Revenue Allotment Law Loopholes: Gentrification in Disguise?
Every democratically elected government has the legal right to tax their constituent citizenry in order to raise the much needed revenue to maintain it, but what if the said government resorts to rigmarole and bureaucratic legalese to increase revenue collection. Taxation without representation anyone?
By: Vanessa Uy
Before we delve into the essence of what is Internal Revenue Allotment or IRA, lets briefly review the facts surrounding the current fiscal environment of the Philippine Government. Our country is in deep financial woe. The current marching order of the incumbent administration is to look for new revenue sources. This means the Philippine Government has to improve existing tax collection laws, which sadly it has failed to do during the past 30 years or so. Tighten up the government’s budget and maximize to spend what’s left on “concrete infrastructure” i.e. infrastructure projects that blend utility with public relations appeal. The benefits of maximizing spending is a proven idea that allowed the economist John Maynard Keynes to formulate plans that saved America from the Great Depression. In keeping with the subject at hand, just what is Internal Revenue Allotment?
According to the Section 284 of the Local Government Code of the Philippines (RA 7160), Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) is a local government’s share of revenues from the national government. It (the amount) is largely based on land area and population. LGUs (Local Government Units) also derive revenues from various sources. Typically, the IRA for municipalities accounts for 90% of total revenues. Since cities have more sources of local revenues like taxes collected from large business establishments, their IRA ranges from 50% to 70% of the total.
Recently, there’s a row over a number of municipalities being “fast tracked” by the national government to be declared as cities even though the annual average population and income of these municipalities barely meets the criterion needed for it to be legally declared as cities. The reason the national government did this so that they can save a bundle by reducing their IRAs to these municipalities. Other legal “loopholes” in the IRA law are exploited by the incumbent administration include the short - term financial incentives to a municipality’s bid for becoming a city despite a lack of existing taxable viable commercial infrastructure in the present and in the foreseeable future. Also, what about domicile data? Since the majority of Filipinos now work abroad, the average annual population of these municipalities could vary wildly because an overwhelming majority of these workers can go home only once every 18 months. Some of them even have to wait for 5 years just to go home. This government oversight – i.e. inadvertent omission or error – could result in long – term reductions in Internal Revenue Allotment of those municipalities.
To compensate for lost revenue, these city / municipality hybrids will fall back on the methods that will work expediently under the current political climate is by increasing the rates of real estate tax. Surely this will lead to gentrification since our tropical climate has become a Mecca for Western tourists. It won’t be long that only “expats” (ex patriots / rich foreign nationals) can afford to keep their homes while the long - term native residents (ordinary Filipinos like you and me) will be driven to the “poorhouse” thanks to exorbitant real estate taxes.
If I sound unduly alarmist, it is because the Internal Revenue Allotment existing “legal loophole” has shed light on the fact that our country’s outlying municipalities had inherited – by legislation – the proverbial “Bad Part of a Social Contract”. You know: that bad part of the social contract from the incumbent administration that willingly sidelines social justice issues just to improve the government’s revenue collection. Why should those citizens living in the outlying municipalities owe Feudal Obligations to the Makati Corporate Elite?
As of late, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her Public Relations Campaign Machinery has purchased TV airtime about how the majority of us Filipinos had benefited the previous seven years of economic progress that her incumbent administration had brought. You know that “Sa pitong taong nakalipas, ramdam namin ang asenso” TV adverts. You know, those public on air testimonials of Filipinos who benefited our country’s economic progress during the past seven years. Even though to me that particular advert reeks of jingoism, the truth can’t be denied. The problem is, does the extra money that us Filipinos earned during those previous seven years of economic progress will just be used to pay the coming exorbitant real estate tax increases? Just because the national government wants more revenue while the outlying municipalities be forced to increase real estate taxes just to keep their basic programs running. If our newfound prosperity only allows us a pittance to spend on something just to keep our existing roofs over our heads, then to me this doesn’t qualify as economic progress. And who among us would be genuinely happy to owe Feudal Obligations to people who by far are not exemplars of ethics and social responsibility like our corrupt elected government officials. If this does not qualify as gentrification, then I don’t know what is?
By: Vanessa Uy
Before we delve into the essence of what is Internal Revenue Allotment or IRA, lets briefly review the facts surrounding the current fiscal environment of the Philippine Government. Our country is in deep financial woe. The current marching order of the incumbent administration is to look for new revenue sources. This means the Philippine Government has to improve existing tax collection laws, which sadly it has failed to do during the past 30 years or so. Tighten up the government’s budget and maximize to spend what’s left on “concrete infrastructure” i.e. infrastructure projects that blend utility with public relations appeal. The benefits of maximizing spending is a proven idea that allowed the economist John Maynard Keynes to formulate plans that saved America from the Great Depression. In keeping with the subject at hand, just what is Internal Revenue Allotment?
According to the Section 284 of the Local Government Code of the Philippines (RA 7160), Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) is a local government’s share of revenues from the national government. It (the amount) is largely based on land area and population. LGUs (Local Government Units) also derive revenues from various sources. Typically, the IRA for municipalities accounts for 90% of total revenues. Since cities have more sources of local revenues like taxes collected from large business establishments, their IRA ranges from 50% to 70% of the total.
Recently, there’s a row over a number of municipalities being “fast tracked” by the national government to be declared as cities even though the annual average population and income of these municipalities barely meets the criterion needed for it to be legally declared as cities. The reason the national government did this so that they can save a bundle by reducing their IRAs to these municipalities. Other legal “loopholes” in the IRA law are exploited by the incumbent administration include the short - term financial incentives to a municipality’s bid for becoming a city despite a lack of existing taxable viable commercial infrastructure in the present and in the foreseeable future. Also, what about domicile data? Since the majority of Filipinos now work abroad, the average annual population of these municipalities could vary wildly because an overwhelming majority of these workers can go home only once every 18 months. Some of them even have to wait for 5 years just to go home. This government oversight – i.e. inadvertent omission or error – could result in long – term reductions in Internal Revenue Allotment of those municipalities.
To compensate for lost revenue, these city / municipality hybrids will fall back on the methods that will work expediently under the current political climate is by increasing the rates of real estate tax. Surely this will lead to gentrification since our tropical climate has become a Mecca for Western tourists. It won’t be long that only “expats” (ex patriots / rich foreign nationals) can afford to keep their homes while the long - term native residents (ordinary Filipinos like you and me) will be driven to the “poorhouse” thanks to exorbitant real estate taxes.
If I sound unduly alarmist, it is because the Internal Revenue Allotment existing “legal loophole” has shed light on the fact that our country’s outlying municipalities had inherited – by legislation – the proverbial “Bad Part of a Social Contract”. You know: that bad part of the social contract from the incumbent administration that willingly sidelines social justice issues just to improve the government’s revenue collection. Why should those citizens living in the outlying municipalities owe Feudal Obligations to the Makati Corporate Elite?
As of late, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her Public Relations Campaign Machinery has purchased TV airtime about how the majority of us Filipinos had benefited the previous seven years of economic progress that her incumbent administration had brought. You know that “Sa pitong taong nakalipas, ramdam namin ang asenso” TV adverts. You know, those public on air testimonials of Filipinos who benefited our country’s economic progress during the past seven years. Even though to me that particular advert reeks of jingoism, the truth can’t be denied. The problem is, does the extra money that us Filipinos earned during those previous seven years of economic progress will just be used to pay the coming exorbitant real estate tax increases? Just because the national government wants more revenue while the outlying municipalities be forced to increase real estate taxes just to keep their basic programs running. If our newfound prosperity only allows us a pittance to spend on something just to keep our existing roofs over our heads, then to me this doesn’t qualify as economic progress. And who among us would be genuinely happy to owe Feudal Obligations to people who by far are not exemplars of ethics and social responsibility like our corrupt elected government officials. If this does not qualify as gentrification, then I don’t know what is?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Fahrenheit 911: Did it miss by a Mile?
Once ridiculed as: “The proof that President George W. Bush piloted the plane that slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center building in September 11, 2001.” Is “Fahrenheit 911” a legitimate critique on the Bush Administration?
By: Vanessa Uy
I don’t know how many people in the United States are kicking themselves for voting Bush another term in office when the Hurricane Katrina/FEMA fiasco came out, are approval ratings a good indicator? Despite of John Ashcroft spontaneously bursting into song, Fahrenheit 911 just missed the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal by just a few months. That story could have added a “sense of legitimacy” to “Fahrenheit 911” that might convince hard core Republicans that they are betting on the wrong horse so to speak. Then came FEMA’s mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, then the sex scandals of Republican Congressmen with their pages with mounting e-mail evidence…then came Reverend Ted Haggard…
In Michael Moore’s credit, he really tried hard to tackle in presenting the evil behind relatively esoteric subjects like Halliburton that can easily hide their scandal via corporate rigmarole that can have most average citizens in need of legal assistance just to keep up. In all of this, I just wonder how many virgins did the Moral Majority/GOP sacrificed in order to postpone the arrival of Hurricane Katrina so that “she” won’t become a 2004-election issue?
By: Vanessa Uy
I don’t know how many people in the United States are kicking themselves for voting Bush another term in office when the Hurricane Katrina/FEMA fiasco came out, are approval ratings a good indicator? Despite of John Ashcroft spontaneously bursting into song, Fahrenheit 911 just missed the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal by just a few months. That story could have added a “sense of legitimacy” to “Fahrenheit 911” that might convince hard core Republicans that they are betting on the wrong horse so to speak. Then came FEMA’s mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster, then the sex scandals of Republican Congressmen with their pages with mounting e-mail evidence…then came Reverend Ted Haggard…
In Michael Moore’s credit, he really tried hard to tackle in presenting the evil behind relatively esoteric subjects like Halliburton that can easily hide their scandal via corporate rigmarole that can have most average citizens in need of legal assistance just to keep up. In all of this, I just wonder how many virgins did the Moral Majority/GOP sacrificed in order to postpone the arrival of Hurricane Katrina so that “she” won’t become a 2004-election issue?
Is Zimbabwe a Threat?
Is Zimbabwe qualified to head the UN’s Sustainable Development Program, or are the European Union’s concerns groundless?
By: Vanessa Uy
In May 4, 2007, Zimbabwe was elected to head the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Program via “Secret Ballot.” This made Francie Nhema, Zimbabwe’s environment minister very magnanimous in victory. But there are lingering questions on how Zimbabwe could head this UN program when President Robert Mugabe’s flawed land reform policy has transformed the country from “Africa’s Breadbasket” to a country whose agricultural system can hardly even feed her own people. And for the first time, the US Government showed concern on Zimbabwe’s human rights violations and the Mugabe regime’s treatment of the political opposition. US State Department’s Dan Reifsnyder voiced his concerns over Zimbabwe’s ability and qualifications to run the UN Sustainable Development Program. The British Government and the European Union have always been mindful of Zimbabwe’s human rights record of the past three years or so. Is President Robert Mugabe another Idi Amin in the making? Only time will tell.
Once upon a time, the former British colony called Rhodesia changed her name to Zimbabwe back in 1979 to assert her newly acquired freedom and sovereignty. In 1980, Robert Mugabe was elected president. That’s right people, he’s been running the country since that time. My “dogs-of-war” buddies have viewed Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe –at the time- as a model for African self-determination. But 20 or so years later it’s as if Zimbabwe has fallen from grace. President Mugabe’s heavy-handed approach to quell the political opposition has been criticized by the EU for a number of years now. And President Mugabe’s greatest folly is the expulsion of “white farmers” from their own farmlands. These lands were given to native Zimbabweans with no industrial- scale farming expertise. This policy has decimated Zimbabwe’s agricultural industry since then.
It’s good that the US Government finally gave a damn about this issue and voiced their criticisms over the Mugabe Regime. In the last 4 years, it seems like only 10 Downing Street gives a damn about the course of action President Mugabe takes. It seems that the policymakers on Capitol Hill are willing to overlook one more of Africa’s problems, like they did back in April of 1994.
By: Vanessa Uy
In May 4, 2007, Zimbabwe was elected to head the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Program via “Secret Ballot.” This made Francie Nhema, Zimbabwe’s environment minister very magnanimous in victory. But there are lingering questions on how Zimbabwe could head this UN program when President Robert Mugabe’s flawed land reform policy has transformed the country from “Africa’s Breadbasket” to a country whose agricultural system can hardly even feed her own people. And for the first time, the US Government showed concern on Zimbabwe’s human rights violations and the Mugabe regime’s treatment of the political opposition. US State Department’s Dan Reifsnyder voiced his concerns over Zimbabwe’s ability and qualifications to run the UN Sustainable Development Program. The British Government and the European Union have always been mindful of Zimbabwe’s human rights record of the past three years or so. Is President Robert Mugabe another Idi Amin in the making? Only time will tell.
Once upon a time, the former British colony called Rhodesia changed her name to Zimbabwe back in 1979 to assert her newly acquired freedom and sovereignty. In 1980, Robert Mugabe was elected president. That’s right people, he’s been running the country since that time. My “dogs-of-war” buddies have viewed Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe –at the time- as a model for African self-determination. But 20 or so years later it’s as if Zimbabwe has fallen from grace. President Mugabe’s heavy-handed approach to quell the political opposition has been criticized by the EU for a number of years now. And President Mugabe’s greatest folly is the expulsion of “white farmers” from their own farmlands. These lands were given to native Zimbabweans with no industrial- scale farming expertise. This policy has decimated Zimbabwe’s agricultural industry since then.
It’s good that the US Government finally gave a damn about this issue and voiced their criticisms over the Mugabe Regime. In the last 4 years, it seems like only 10 Downing Street gives a damn about the course of action President Mugabe takes. It seems that the policymakers on Capitol Hill are willing to overlook one more of Africa’s problems, like they did back in April of 1994.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
