Bail-out, Part II

The bail-out of the car industry continues. Even in Europe some rather established car makers have started to squeal for governments funds. Painfully, the venerable and capable Land Rover, now owned by Tata of India, is up for some financial loans to support it through a 35% dip in SUV and off-road vehicle sales.

In the previous posting in this web log, it was argued that GM and Chrysler in particular had been suffering the accumulated affects of mediocrity and feeble investment in R&D over many years. That view is maintained here. However, the emergence of brands such as Peugeot-Citroën, Land Rover and BMW in the cue of beggars for financial assistance, shows that we have now gone beyond reckoning with mediocrity. What we have here are economies of scale catching up with even the excellent.

By no stretch of logic can BMW be accused of mediocrity in any of its products. That firm has led the way in many aspects of the market sectors in which it competes with Mercedes, Audi, Lexus and a few others. Yet, it is expensive to operate at such levels of competence. The main market for BMW is the USA and with the bottom gone from that market - about 25% down - it becomes clear how top quality requires top quantity of sales to keep cash flow and balance sheet in check. It must be noted that in case of BMW, the appeal has been rather modestly for loan guarantees instead of the fat $15 hand-out package for GM.

Toyota suffered just under 26% in sales in the USA for 2008, while GM suffered 45% [Harold Tribute]. However, Toyota sits on $101bn of the international market whereas GM trundles about on a puny $1.5bn by comparison [Financial Mail]. Little surprise then that Toyota is not in the cue for charity, although it expects operating losses this year.

So, bail-out or not, the next scene in this economic pantomime is the big pruning and merging saga. Who floats and who drowns and who opportunistically sends out the rescue boats and tow-lines - that will be the question.

Rather telling in its absence from these reports, Porsche - quite small compared to BMW and (golly!) GM - recently merely announced a profit warning for the 2008 financial year. There is no substitute.

Bail-out

Robert Lutz is a respected man. My late father personally knew him when he was Managing Director of GM South Africa in the early Seventies. Mr Lutz has gone places and now is the vice-chairman of GM in the USA. Recently, GM deployed mr. Lutz in the wrestling over the Big Three Bail-out. Mr. Lutz gave the press his usual straight talk. But uncle Bob seems to miss the truth on the American automotive industry.

He claims that the big problem is the reduction in sales from 17million per year to 10.5 million per year. Right, that figure includes Honda and Toyota, two top sellers on the US car market. I do not recall any calls for bail-out from these foreign producers.

It has been said in a GM advertisement, that “We will continue to deliver personal mobility freedom to Americans using the most advanced transportation solutions,” according to the NY Times. Let us study the facts about the most advanced transportation solutions. To keep it simple for the likes of GM bosses, one may study key features of what may constitute advanced transport solutions. In fact, let us keep to the car and stay out of anything esoteric such as advanced public transportation.

Most petrol heads will agree, one may hope, that major advancements in automotive engineering include the following: Disk brakes, ABS brakes, crumple zones, air bags, independent suspension, electronic fuel injection, direct fuel injection for petrol engines and common-rail Diesel engines. Of these technological achievements, all of which enjoy broad commercial application, all of these features have been conceived, designed and developed outside the USA, and more specifically, beyond the realms of GM.

Disk Brakes: Jaguar (racing) and British Leyland (Austin Heally production car)
ABS: Mercedes Benz
Crumple Zones: Mercedes Benz
Air Bags: Mercedes Benz (1971 patent) and Porsche (first dual airbags appeared in 944)
Independent Suspension: Porsche (on VW Beetle with tortion bar springs)
Electronic Fuel Injection: Robert Bosch AG
Direct Petrol Injection: Robert Bosch (1955 Mercedes Benz), Mitsubishi (1996), VW/Audi (FSI system, 2000)
Common-rail Diesel Engine: VW/Audi

The above observations do not disprove the thesis by GM that they provide advanced automotive solutions. Such cars as GM manufacture in the USA do provide some of the above advanced features. However, GM does not lead the industry in any way whatsoever, since GM cannot claim credit for any these key developments.
Moving on from features, an important measure of advanced transportation is fuel efficiency. No GM car appears in the top ten. Figures in the table below are from Canadian sources and in litres per 100 km.

Car City Highway
TOYOTA PRIUS 4.0 4.2
HONDA CIVIC HYBRID 4.7 4.3
SMART FORTWO (CONVERTIBLE) 5.9 4.8
SMART FORTWO (COUPE) 5.9 4.8
TOYOTA CAMRY HYBRID 5.7 5.7
NISSAN ALTIMA HYBRID 5.6 5.9
FORD ESCAPE HYBRID 5.7 6.7
MINI COOPER 7.1 5.3
MINI COOPER CLUBMAN 7.1 5.3
TOYOTA COROLLA 7.1 5.3
TOYOTA YARIS 7.0 5.5
TOYOTA YARIS 7.0 5.6
HONDA CIVIC 7.4 5.4
HONDA FIT 7.1 5.7
HONDA FIT 7.8 5.6
MINI COOPER S 7.7 5.7

Quite frankly, for more than 30 years the US Big Three car makers have been dumping mostly rubbish on the American public, outpaced by all of the prominent overseas manufacturers. Reality has a manner of catching up with such mediocrity. Not even the might of Daimler Benz could rescue Chrysler, which unfortunate corporate marriage (1998-2007) only bled a few billion USD from Daimler Benz and ended in inevitable corporate divorce.

The recent fly-past of the three corporate princes in their corporate jets to Washington on a bail-out parade, did seem to push the American public to the point of epiphany. No, no, no: Adapt or die. So, what shall it be: A Darwin Award for GM, Ford and Chrysler, or a life-line?

Where the poppies bloom

Two shots rang out just after 10:45 on 28 June 1914, shattering the tenuous peace in Europe along every possible fault line. Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, Sophie, were dead. Shortly after, the Great War broke out.

The War to End all Wars they came to call it - the wretched beast that spred its wretched wings and reaped grim havoc from the Ottoman Empire in the east to the poppy fields of France in the west. Its brutal appetite was vast indeed. As many as 20 million casualties were suffered.

Tomorrow, we shall commemorate the dead and lost innocence of that dark moment in history that lingered on for four fierce years, and beyond. For the War did not end all wars. Merely 20 years later the young and brave stood once more in trenches on the fields of Europe, to shoot and hack and maim one another for God and country.

So it was in great hope and optimism that the 35th president of the USA drove out into the crowds one morning in 1963, barely 20 years after the end of World War II. A nation clung to the new promise of revival of the American Dream. But then, just after 12:30 on 22 November, three shots rang out in Dallas to extinguish the youthful hope of a nation.

In the years that followed, America mutated from the saving grace of WWII into a self-serving behemoth that invaded, occupied, cahooted across the world in a one-sided hegemony.

But one week ago, a new hope was born, of the restoration of America and the world. A young senator of Illinois became the first black president-elect of the USA. He rode in on a wave of restored democracy, carried forth by millions of individual contributions - the voice and support of the common person.

Tomorrow, we shall wear our poppies as we remember. Yet let our remembrance gather strength, and our strength give rise to hope - the hope that one man may inspire many to turn the world and, perhaps, end all wars.

The Blame Game

On Wall Street and Capitol Hill there seems only one game to play these days: The blame game. If only Sony or Nintendo could have come up with that idea, their share holders would have been delighted.

Since the swing has left the swagger in a sordid heap of despair, all along Wall Street and Main Street and about every street where you live fingers are pointing and daggers are being drawn. The executives blame the traders for their fantastically bogus financial instruments. The debt-stricken home owners blame the lenders; greedy shareholders and fat cat executives. The law-makers hold their heads and blame the credit rating agencies; traders; mortgage brokers; executives and everything else within range.

But no one blames the root of the problem: The borrowers. Dubious mortgage contracts would have no effect if no one signed them. Traders would not cause havoc with wizard's instruments if there were no stack of bad debt rolled up in those instruments. Fat cat executives would not crash the financial system purely on their extravagant bonuses were it not for the bad debt foundation of their businesses.

Perhaps it is not politically profitable to put the root blame at the feet of the individual borrower. After all, it the sub-prime borrower who appears now with a sad face in every interview vaguely interested in their sad story of naivety and deceit. Yes, it is that sad face who will cast a vote in November for the top job: US President. Right, so we are to believe the soap opera of suburbia. Well not all of us, one has to say.

According to Bloomberg.com, $523.1 billion has been written down over the past year due to collapsing sub-prime mortgages. That staggering amount was borrowed by individuals who had bad debt in the first place. Each one of those borrowers went out to buy a house on a history of bad debt. It means each borrower bought more than could be paid back on what income was available. On top of that spree, the borrower felt entitled to buy a home on mortgage under the circumstances. That decision appears purely irresponsible if not downright reckless. But it also smacks of self-indulgence.

Perhaps the American Dream has gone too far. The connection with reality has been lost. Unfortunately, reality has a cruel way of reinstating itself, often with a vengeance as in the current financial crisis. So instead of spend, let us save. Instead of consume, let us conserve. Smarter, rather than bigger, is better. And let instant gratification remain behind in the cradle with the dummy and the baby's bottle.

We will rock you

Shaken, not stirred: That is a fair description of the mood in South Africa tonight. Barely had one managed a breath after the momentous resignation of the president on Saturday, when 11 ministers and 3 deputy ministers resigned earlier today.

The loss of leadership includes the highly proficient finance minister, Mr Trevor Manuel, arguably the most significant loss of all. He has indicated his availability to serve under a new president.

But this entire affair reeks of rotten political manoeuvring. The executive committee of the ANC has acted with bewildering levels of blunder in their hurried decision to oust the president of the country. The departure of the members of the cabinet loyal to the president only serves to amplify the deep discontent within the party.

The prospect of replacements from the populist faction of the ANC, under leadership of the party's president, Jacob Zuma, leaves little room for optimism. It reminds with chilling coincidence of the rejection by the populist Bolsheviks of a tentative democratic government formed under the Czar of Russia in the wake of public unrest during 1916.

All major political parties in SA agreed that the events of today will prove to be pivotal for South Africa in years to come.

Rock-a-bye baby, in the tree top
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall
And down will come baby, cradle and all

Pumpkin time

The clock has struck twelve for President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. Yesterday, pushed by his party under the new leadership of the controversial Mr. Jacob Zuma, President Mbeki fell on his political sword with the announcement of his resignation. The wicked step mother, Mr. Zuma, and her ugly daughters, the ANC executive committee and the ANC Youth League, were clasping their hands in delight as the presidential coach turned into a pumpkin; the presidential robes, to rags. Tomorrow, Parliament will debate the resignation and most likely, accept it. A caretaker president will be appointed this Thursday.

The country is at once relieved and confused. Mr Mbeki has accrued for himself an unenviable array of discontent amongst many walks of the South African society during his two-term leadership of the ANC and the government. Even so, resigning six months before the natural end of his term in office, as stipulated by the Constitution, has left the country in unease over the choices before it.

Some would say that Mr Mbeki so much lacked any real leadership that his departure could not possibly cause any increase in the leadership vacuum that exists at the top. But be careful for what one wishes. Mr. Mbeki is a known quantity. With the likes of the volatile and recalcitrant Youth League as well as the rambunctious Mr Zuma at the spearhead of in-fights and power struggles, the country rightly stares concerned at the unfolding saga.

In fact, the resignation flows from allegations that Mr Mbeki has interfered with the judicial process surrounding an investigation of alleged graft by Mr Zuma as Minister of Defense. A court hearing found last week that the State could not proceed with its case against Mr Zuma due to evidence of political meddling in making the case. Plainly, Mr Zuma and Mr Mbeki represent two streams of political power on a collision course and the courts have become the battleground. This is a dangerous situation, but not entirely uncommon in the sleaze of politics.

Earlier today, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu expressed his deep sadness over the resignation of Mr Mbeki and called the situation entirely unnecessary and avoidable.

Tonight, a good friend from University, who works for Sappi, has mentioned that he is considering a job in Australia and will be in Melbourne for the next four days. The man lives a well-considered life. His move is sobering indeed.

There will be no prince to find Cinderella and bring her glass slipper. This political fairy tale of post-1994 South Africa has never been quite a fairy tale, no matter how it has been told in the press in the past. We all shall have to wake up to the reality of our beloved country. The dream is over.

Mad, mad world

Courtesy of the South African caroonist, Zapiro, I bring you a mad, mad world.


The Matrix, Reloaded. Can somewhat shut up that DJ?



Shame on Russia for treating Georgia so rudely. "I don't wanna dance..."

Enter, a brave new world...

Bang bang! Fall down, you're dead.

On the home front, Jacob Zuma - a man of the people, for the people. Sure. Which people?

And in good old England, Little Old Lady and the gentleman...

The Pot and the Kettle

Once upon a time there was a pot and a kettle. Both were paying regular visits to the old log stove, which left on each its black mark in equal measure. Yet one day, in a fit of vanity and self-righteousness, Pot launched a scathing attack on Kettle, accusing Kettle of being rather sooty - quite unbecoming amongst respectable utensils. Of course such hypocracy was utter folly, as Kettle retorted with indignation. And so a rather tense chill descended upon the kitchen for years to come.

On 7 and 8 August, Georgia attacked seperatists in Ossetia to which Russia responded by sending in the troops en force. The consequent, brief war that ensued drew the expected howls and strident rhetoric from the USA, calling the Kettle names while herself unbecomingly sooty from past and present military interference in the Middle East, Far East, Africa, and Central America. Nasty words went about, such as bully and intimidation. In fact, it seemed that the USA was picking a fight with Russia by proxy of the tiny Georgia.

If true, and recent movements [1, 2] seemed to suggest some truth in the notion, it would not be the first time the USA had picked a proxy war with some significant opponent by virtue of indirect campaigns. Usually, the front was the ever popular spread of "freedom and democracy", the holy grail of foreign, indirect interference. In the case of Georgia, it fitted the profile with excellence.

Stemming from American doctrines of the Cold War era in the sixties and seventies of the previous century, indirect involvement had become a favourite of cloak and dagger politics. Overtly in opposition to Soviet expansionism, or another dark force in more recent years, some ensnared and oppressed nation would be picked. By remarkable coincidence and without exception such a nation would also fall into the strategic importance category. The chosen nation could expect all kinds of covert and open support, viz. military; financial and economic favours from the USA and her partners. Support for and pressure on either ruling leaders or the opposition would attempt to steer social, political and ultimately, economic developments towards the strategic goals of the USA and her partners [3].

That leaves Georgia and the question where she fits into the above. The answer lies in the true consideration behind the overt goal of these covert involvements - resources.

With uncanning regularity, energy; mining and industrial interests correlated in the past with indirect involvement. Georgia hosts an important gas pipeline from Central Asia to the West. Russia sits on at least 30% of the world's oil and gas resources and it has become less generous to the West since the restoration of order in the Russian post-Soviet economy. One senses a few probable causes for instigating a proxy fight with Russia on Georgian ground. So Georgia has become a chosen one, receiving significant aid from the USA since independence from the Soviet Union.

Of course there is always enormous economic benefit in bolstering the old dragon, fear, within the public, at home and abroad, which in turn open their wallets in support of the military industrial complex - to fend off new threats in the East. Such a windfall can only be good, given the horrid economic outlook in the USA at present, as long as it can be financed still.

That was the Pot, so what about the Kettle you may ask? Well, perhaps the tale should be retold as the Joker and the Dark Knight. It is left as an exercise to the reader to pick the cast.
----------
Footnotes:
[1] The USA bolstered Georgian defences with military equipment and training over the past decade and pushed a NATO ascension program for Georgia.
[2] The USA military transported Georgian troops from Iraq to Georgia around the time of the conflict.
[3] A careful reading of the history of Afghanistan, Angola, Chile, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, Somalia and Vietnam would support the foregoing opinion. Sometimes the pot boiled over and direct war with the USA errupted as in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam.

Out of Africa

African politics is a quagmire of contradictions. Frankly, it has never been a model of consistency. Ever since the advent of the so-called modern age in Africa that followed more or less on the demise of colonialism on the continent, there has been inordinate levels of turmoil that ebbed and flowed. From all of that in the past came a potpourri of declarations and announcements. And through it all one was left wondering where exactly African nations saw themselves in the order of the world. Indeed, one still has no real clue.

The whole Mugabe affair has exposed the incongruous state of African politics on a continental level as well as on a national level. For one, the latest announcements from African leaders around the Zimbabwe debacle raise the question whether African nations somehow regard themselves as from another planet, where quite different rules and norms apply. Utterings such as "African problems must be solved in an African manner without external interference" appear at odd with reality.

Africa is not a federation where states deal with local matters as internal to the federation. It is not even a union such as the EU. In fact, it is a loose club of nations sitting on the same continent, sharing a similar history in some cases. But the divides and fault lines run very clearly and indeed sadly through that very fabric. Moreover, Africa in all its diversity of nations, finds itself in the world of today. The individual African states are each as much part of the world order as any state on another continent. And in the words of president Mugabe himself, Zimbabwe for example, is a sovereign state. That said, every other African state is a sovereign state in the global context, no more and no less. Therefore, any other nation that adheres to the principles of international law and human rights has an equal voice in expressing concern and requesting action against an unjust sovereign state, such as Zimbabwe that brutalises democracy and its very citizens.

Surely, Africans are not suddenly claiming some racist exclusivity for themselves as if nations not from the continent are somehow unqualified to comment or apply international measures to African leaders, governments and states? It is high time African states acknowledge that each African state is within the global order of this world and therefor subject to international scrutiny.

If Africans expect equal treatment with the rest of the world, then Africans should accept equal measure went it comes to their actions.

The state of the nation

This week the African Union gathered in Egypt for a summit. And a rather prickly item on the agenda was the desparate situation in Zimbabwe. Present in all his grimness was the so-called president of Zimbabwe, Mr Robert Mugage himself. So-called, because since the March elections this year, Mr Mugabe has not been president based upon a clear majority, but rather a minority leader hanging on for dear life. Such is the dawn of despots and the sunset for a once respected liberation leadership.

The cynic's take would be "there we have it - another chapter in the history of African politics". Nevertheless, the question before us all is what now, what next? Send in the troops a la Iraq or DRC? Continue quiet diplomacy, as is the tune of President Mbeki of South Africa? In the mean time lucrative mining deals are being closed by Anglo American in Zimbabwe. One may yet ponder the connection to the political turmoil in that state of such investments and potential returns.

In fact, one may ask what is the state of the nation for many countries in the world today as turmoil seems to follow the prospects of natural resources. The list makes for somber reading. Nigeria, the sixth largest oil producer, is in constant political turmoil. The DRC, rich in diamonds, copper and forestry, is emerging from a bloody civil war. In South Africa, stupendously rich in many commodities, political undercurrents and a power struggle are threatening the fledging democracy while the BEE program creates new fat cats on a gravy train surpassing the old National Party edition.

Central Asia, endowed with rich natural gas fields, is experiencing sudden surges of public and political unrest, with so-called democratic movements opposing rather authoritarian governments. It strikes one as odd that Mongolia, not usually a front page hit but sitting on a pot of resources, suddenly seems to be up in arms over so-called fraudulent elections, now that the latest run on resources is increasingly frenetic.

False correlation, one may say. Yet, when it comes to spreading and practicing democracy, all are not quite well. Special interests, lobbying, cronism, nepotism have infested the once noble structures of the Enlightenment. Subversion and intervention seem to be well and alive, even as current, disreputed leaderships have been tolerated or even condoned in the past by those instrumenting a change of guard.

One common theme appears to be a sudden upsurge in opposition parties and public disquiet, followed by an election the outcome of which only to be called into disrepute. It seems voting has become a futile interlude before a pre-designated elite of rulers take over the reigns. To be sure, many of the current governments in these troubled states do perform rather poorly. Many of these were installed with and though external meddling. The DRC, Nigeria, Sudan and Chile are examples. It strikes as odd the frequency with which election results are being questioned and especially where there is much internationally to be gained from installing specific figures into power. Russia, Gaza, Venezuela and Pakistan come to mind.

As it were, democracy worldwide today is in a rather bad shape, in need of an overhaul. The state of the nation is troubled to say the least. The eyes of the world turn to the presidential race in the USA in hope of a new beginning for democracy - of the people for the people. Or as the French would have it: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

When Darkness Falls

Darkness has descended upon southern Africa. These days there is barely a spot of peace in Zimbabwe. How terrible and sad is the descent of that once pristine and prosperous country. It is often spoken of the Breadbasket of Africa that is no more. But Zimbabwe, to all accounts from those who have long since fled to safer shores, was more than productive farmland. It was a lush and peaceful place for years before and after the troublesome revolution of the late 1970's. Yet the wheels have come off and in a very bad way too.

After years of neglect from most of the world, suddenly the UN has woken up, stepped up and made a firm declaration against the utter outrage that prevails in Zimbabwe today. Alas, it is a bit too little, too late, many would argue. Common citizens are being tortured, intimidated, brutalised by thugs and cronies of the ruling party, ZANU-PF.

The despot president himself, Mr Robert Mugabe, has degenerated into a rambling megalomaniac, foaming at the mouth on every opportunity. Heaven forbid - the man has even reached to the divine by proclaiming to all and sundry that only God can remove him from power - what desperate dribble. Right, well perhaps God has given us democracy to remove the likes of him from power and yet Mr Mugabe reckons he'll declare war if the opposition MDC would win the presidential run-off elections on Friday and thereby put him out of power.

At stone-cold stiff long last, the pussyfooting South African president, Mr Mbeki, has begun to make cautious utterances over the dire situation in Zim. Still, it is the current leader of the ruling party, Dr Zuma, who today has expressed a clear denunciation of the farce unfolding in Zimbabwe. Several other African countries have already denounced the current situation in Zim.

Meanwhile, thousands of Zimbabwean refugees stream into South Africa, raising stress levels in a local economy already overstressed. Johannesburg is degenerating faster than ever. It's inner city resembles a Nairobi or a Kinshasa, not the financial capital of South Africa, the richest and most powerful country in Africa. Nervous inhabitants hide themselves at night in gated communities on the outskirts and cautiously commute to work and home on roads fraud with hijacking.

Cry the beloved country, indeed.

A New Hope

Today there is a new hope in the American and international politics. Notwithstanding the relentless efforts of the empire of established interests in the US, headed by Sen. Clinton and her clan, Sen. Obama has made it through to become the Democratic Party nominee for president of the USA in the coming elections this November. And these efforts were fierce and foul. Nothing was spared - from cheap tears to soppy, fear mongering advertising. Every strand of possibility to tarnish the first Black candidate for president of the USA was tried. But through sheer competence and superb profesionalism, Sen. Obama has prevailed. Today the international world can take a pause and ponder tomorrow. The American presidential race has not joined the dark side.

Yet there is a disturbance in the force of change. Last night, Sen. Obama delivered an astonishing speech to AIPAC. In an obvious bid for support from an extraordinarily influential lobby group, the senator who had ridden in on the ticket of no pandering to the lobbyists, did just that: He pandered most pathetically to every cliche of the AIPAC agenda. In the most absolutist terms Sen. Obama underwrote unquestionable alliance with one of the most unjust regimes in the world: The state of Israel. In a shattering display of inconsistency and paradox, he proclaimed in the same breath a willingness for firm diplomacy with Iran and yet declared Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel,immidiately alienating millions of potentially agreeable Arabs and Palestinians in particular. Perhaps he was already repaying the one lobby group that did provide him the final push beyond the reach of Sen. Clinton, behind the scenes of course.

What credibility as a peacemaker he had built up over his campaign thus far, was thoroughly shaken by last night's unfortunate speech. It leaves one wondering how many other lobby groups may stand in line now for some acknowledgement plus some more. It will seem that the forces of the dark side are indeed powerful. Perhaps the young knight of the new hope is not quite the prince of peace for whom we have waited. But then, he still has much to learn and may yet shine.

The empire strikes back

All is not well in the inner circles of the Washington establishment. Frankly, it seems there simmers a great deal of unease with the remarkable success of Sen. Obama's campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential candidacy.

Here is a man, until recently quite obscure and unknown to the broader public, who suddenly is taking the country by storm. He has a new vision of the American Dream - a vision in which the establishment of Ivy League and corporate cronies is not enshrined. He blatantly speaks out against the entrenched interests of corporate America, which until now has been very much outside the reach of the democratic vote to alter the vestibules of power. He outright condemns a foreign policy more akin of a teenage boy on steroids than a mature country at the lead. He refocusses resources on education and training and by implication away from the military industrial complex. He aims to reduce the reign of the energy sector by changing the playing field of energy use and resource.

Worst of all for the establishment - the public and especially the younger members of public buy into his message of change and a new vision. The voters and consumers of tomorrow are taking heed of his new direction. It must be most troubling to those fat cats with their bulging retirement packages made up of tonnes of their corporate shares and stock options. The private libraries and studies of the mansions of power must be black with cigar smoke and concerned whisper in equal measure. Why, the entrenched dynasties that have formed since the inception of the USA are suddenly not so sure of their unbridled rule over the free. Because none is more lethal to entrenched rule of the elite than the poison of a fresh idea. Ask the French.

So, now the empire strikes back. My word, Mrs Clinton has become all too strident with a particular bitchiness barely concealed under her makeup. Shame on the Clinton camp - once the stalwart of the Democratic Party of the USA, to endulge in the same fear smear of which they so recently accused the Republican candidates. Now, suddenly, Texans must be treated to a soppy ad in true Hollywood style with the message of who would you trust with your dear little children's security in the face of the gruesome Gollywog at the borders. Of course, the experienced Ms Clinton comes galloping to your rescue. Experience? I beg your pardon, madam. You were the wife of the president, not the president himself. You have never commanded troops or been Commander in Chief of anything more than a bloated household bursting with servants.

Now, Sen. Obama's experience with leading the country and, lest we forget, those armed forces and their Pentagon brigade, is suddenly put up for scrutiny. Rather, all of this sudden concern with experience is none other than the concerned spasms of the establishment. Experience is code for entrenched interests. And not only the corporate interest groups are squirming quite visibly, but also other interest groups - most noticeably the Jewish lobby.

For too long the state of Israel has nestled like little brat brother under the armpit of big brother. Suddenly, there is chance of a presidential candidate who will bring fairness and balance to world politics, including the Middle East. No wonder, Mrs. Clinton has suddenly found her war chest bursting with a most welcome $35 million.

But a word of caution to Sen. Obama: Sir, just as you stand firm against the corporate lobby should you stand firm against any other lobby, including the Jewish lobby. Let democracy return for once to the USA and peace to the world. Such a chance does not come around too often. Yes, you can.

Yes, we can and we should too

Decision time is coming up. The presidential election will happen November 2008. It is fair to say that there is a fork in the road for the USA. More so than in a long time in US history and the history of the world, the status quo just is not sustainable, neither on a national nor an international scale.

The country faces an unprecedented debt crisis of several trillion dollars. Its national infrastructure is out of date and dilapidating at an alarming rate. Its international image is in tatters and its military is overextended through involvement in too many wars and conflicts on foreign soil. Its economy wobbles on the edge of a credit precipice. It is consuming more per capita than any other country in times when all crucial resources are under serious threat of total exhaustion. Its democracy has been taken hostage by a few powerful industrial complexes and its government is invested and infested with eager lobbyists that serve their masters and not the interests of the common voter. In short, the country behaves under the delusion of infinite resources and capacity for growth, come what may. Reality has begun to catch up with this fallacy.

The world faces an unprecedented crunch in resources as awakening nations, such as China and India, join the First World with rocketing demands on energy, commodities and natural resources. International politics are fraud with failing democracies, remaining autocracies and theocracies. Matters are worse for the constant interference and manipulation by members of the G8 for their own interests of troubled societies outside the G8. Blatant exploitation via so-called direct foreign investment of resources in these countries stands side by side with ruthless military intervention masquerading as democracy riding in on a white horse. Yet the bluff is slowly being called upon such exploits as citizens of these countries begin to question the real benefits of such foreign presence.

Against the above bleak backdrop and onto such a sombre stage enters the unlikely presidential candidate like a fresh breeze into a stale room: Sen. Barak Obama. Here is a man, who holds a degree in civil rights law from Havard, but who is not an Ivy League boy. He is a senator in the US government, but has not sold his soul to the corporate league. His message is fresh and inspiring. His sentiments appear devoid of ulterior motives and a self-serving sense of entitlement. He calls for a new chapter in US and international history to begin February 2009, when the new administration in Washington DC will commence in all earnest.

The US can save herself and the world economy from collapse if and only if a majority of citizens realises that we are living on limited resources. We cannot just borrow and spend as the whim takes us. We cannot grow indefinitely given limited resources. We cannot spend ourselves out of a financial and economic situation that stems from long-term overspending. We cannot continue to run the world by proxy of our politicians, military and corporations.

Can we get by with yesterday's iPod? Yes we can.
Can we wait until we have saved enough before we go on vacation? Yes we can.
Can we withdraw from foreign countries and begin to respect differences? Yes we can.
Can we stop the international bombast and sit down to listen? Yes we can.
Can we walk 0.5 km to the shop instead of driving? Yes we can.
Can we buy a station-wagon instead of an SUV to carry the children? Yes we can.
Can we put the corporations, such as the military industrial complex and pharmaceutical industry, out of controlling the halls of Washington? Yes we can.

It will require a major change of heart at grass-roots level and leadership at the top.
Yes we can and we should too.

A fixer for the hangover

Alcoholics know the drill: Take a fixer for the hangover. Matt Frey of the BBC in Washington has suggested that the US is suffering from a huge financial hangover because of a 15 year financial binge. Now the President, Mr Bush, has prescribed a fixer. He should know - his turbulent youth provides ample experience of binging. The stimulate package for the US economy sounds more like a fixer than a fix. Spend your way out of your overspent situation. That must be Bush logic to take the biscuit.

The US is over its ears in debt. National debt runs into tens of trillions of dollars, depending upon who does the actuary calculus and the spin. The national deficit is at three trillion dollars. Personal debt has landed the country and the world in the current financial melt-down through reckless personal credit at the bottom of an equally perilous pyramid of financial instruments. Living too high means falling very far.

Instead of proposing an austerity package to turn the page from overindulgence and extravagance to a more moderate live style, the President thought it good last Friday to prescribe further indulgence. In fact, it is quite amusing amidst the dismay. I wonder if there is an Alcoholics Anonymous for Financial Gluttons.

A Tear in Time

For Ms Clinton and her run for presidential candidacy, a tear in time saves nine it would seem. Probably only on these shores of the world would such a soppy stunt bring such bullish benefits as have been demonstrated in the New Hampshire Primaries. Elsewhere, the audience would have been either indifferent or embarrassed, either of which response would not have given Ms Clinton any advantage over her significantly more composed opponent, Mr Obama.

In fact, so far Mr Obama has been the more convincing, mostly because of his sincerity. Especially, Mr Obama is definitely not from the Establishment. He is not an Ivy League boy even though he holds a law degree from Harvard. He smiles with warm conviction at the crowds; not with the plastic grimace of his main opponent.

Mr Obama's message of change may be ringing with some rhetoric, but his focus is outwards, his aim apparently for the people, not his own entitlement. In contrast, Ms Clinton seems almost petulantly bent on getting her way on her way to her presidency. She is to her neck steeped in the Establishment - what she calls experience. Such experience leaves one wondering just how much change her presidency would bring. After all, the Establishment prefers the status quo in order to stay established.

So, in the aftermath of the Iowa win for Mr Obama over Ms Clinton at the Democratic caucus, Ms Clinton seemingly got a bit overwhelmed by matters and decidedly soppy on TV - in a calculatedly constrained manner. In a country where everyone seems to relish a tear or two on TV when given the chance and the circumstance, such display was a certain card towards gaining support from sop suckers. Call me cynical, but this is the country that has given us show biz and Hollywood.

After the narrow loss in the New Hampshire Primary, Mr Obama's concession speech was a model of confidence and gallantry. This man must pose the most serious threat to the Establishment since John F. Kennedy. If one person could break the hold of Corporate America on this heralded but undermined democracy, it would be Barack Obama.

Change has a face with an honest smile for once.