absolutely alex’s adventures & times

If only President-elect Barack Obama had the magnanimity to give Princeton professor Paul Krugman a job in his cabinet.

Krugman, a leading light in international trade and economics who recently received a Nobel Prize in Economics, wrote a scathing and courageous column in today’s New York Times.

In taking on a topic no one on Capitol Hill seems to want to touch with a 10-foot pole, Krugman took the President-elect to task for implying that he will not investigate the corruption, deception and sleaze that have sprung up during the eight years of the Bush administration.

“I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” Obama responded in a question to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week”, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Driving home the point that to be the President’s prime role is to protect the Constitution, Krugman states that:

And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that’s not a decision he has the right to make.”

Tough words, but so true. Krugman rightly insists that letting sleeping dogs lie would only imply that “this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.” You’ve said it, Krugman.

Unfortunately, the problem might not just be that of the Bush administration. The Democrats are also complicit in so many ways in the whole sorry saga and would prefer to sweep things under the carpet so that their own behinds are protected.

Others may think that with so much to deal with, especially the tanking economy, the country simply does not have the energy nor the resources to be bogged down by an investigation and drawn out drama of taking the assorted culprits to task.

But Obama was elected on the promise of enacting change in the political system. His vision is one of not having politics as usual. By looking the other way and crouching it as “not looking backwards”, it taints the claim that his administration will give the US people a clean break and a fresh start that they so badly want.

It’s already happened one time too many: new administrations promising to “clean-up” and make things right become only too happy to forgive and forget. If perpetrators are not taken to task, we should not be surprised when history repeats itself time and again.

Bill Clinton and the country was dragged through the mud for a personal peccadillo — sexual infidelity — but the Democrats are going to close their eyes on a war fought on fraudulent, even fabricated evidence, graft that’s gone way out of control and the erosion of Americans’ civil rights? No wonder it deserves to ridiculed as the party of weak-spined losers.

Sure, some people will say that Krugman’s on a warpath against the soon-to-be Obama administration because he is sore about not having been appointed to a top-notch Cabinet position. Krugman was firmly in Hillary Clinton’s corner during the Democratic primaries and wrote columns highlighting the weaknesses of Obama’s economic proposals. So perhaps nothing has been forgiven between the two sides.

Still, we need a voice of courage and clarity like Krugman. Let him continue to be a thorn on Obama’s side. We have had enough of the media being muzzled and comatose for the last eight years. Bravo for brilliant and brave minds like Krugman. Keep asking questions, Professor Krugman.

The Thai powers-that-be must be regretting slapping corruption and other charges on former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, paving a way for his triumphant return to his homeland yesterday.

After a military coup deposed of him 17 months ago, Thaksin had gone into self-imposed exile, living in London and Hong Kong, declaring that he was done with politics and busy with the English Premiere League football club Manchester City he bought.

But those generals probably never had guessed that in the country’s recent elections in December, Thaksin’s allies could regroup into the People Power Party, win convincingly, and get back into power. One of Thaksin’s key allies, Samak Sundaravej, is now the country’s prime minister.

Thaksin faces two counts of corruption and conflict of interest in the purchase of land from a state agency while he was in office. His wife is a co-defendant. He is out on bail, but has been barred from leaving the country without the court’s permission.

It is now tough territory for the court, which could put him behind bars for up to 10 years if he is found guilty. Their task is hard as the charges are seen as politically-motivated. It is made even worse considering the public outpouring of emotion for Thaksin, who arrived in Bangkok to a hero’s welcome, with thousands of his supporters cheering and dancing when he touched down, praising him for his achievements and calling him the best prime minister the country has ever had. The court must be mindful of the potential backlash and violence if the still highly-popular Thaksin is convicted in what is seen as flimsy charges.

Thaksin’s timing in going back to Thailand now, is a wisely-calculated move, as the government is friendly to him and the judicial system is largely seen as being amenable to the current political climate. The military coup against him has also backfired, with many of the electorate upset at the ineffectiveness of the military junta, thus helping Thaksin seem like an even stronger leader in comparison.

Though no saint, Thaksin has done more than previous administrations to help the country’s rural poor, with populist policies such as handouts and loans. His dynamic, though abrasive style of governing, has also been credited with spurring Thailand’s economic boom. Yet the elites in the country’s urban areas, such as Bangkok, oppose him for what they view as his corruption, enriching himself and family through the government, such as through the sale of the share of the country’s telecommunication company and the human rights violations from his anti-drug campaigns in the south. They are also likely to be miffed that he had not had to count on their traditional patronage, drawing his power base instead from the rural poor.

Still, many Thais see Thaksin as a force of change for Thailand’s political culture for the better. While wary of the centralization of power he had presided over, they acknowledge the lift he has given to the political culture of Thailand, animating Thai opposition parties and spurring them on to be more creative to keep up with the ex-prime minister’s innovative tactics.

No one seems to believe Thaksin’s claims that he will no longer be a player in the political scene, not when he was a big political donor to the winning political party and the puppet-master pulling the strings of the present cabinet’s appointments.

He had said he would be the country’s economic adviser, which is the closest he has come to admitting playing a role in the process.

For now though, he seems to be content with clearing his name and unfreezing his $2 billion worth of assets.

But whether he jumps back into the political fray, Thaksin remains as polarizing a figure as ever, with the powers-that-be at a loss at how to deal with him.

At this juncture when things are going downhill at a faster pace than the Bush administration can take a breather and when it needs the support of Congress to remain in Iraq more than ever, why did it stupidly allow the State Department to grant immunity to the Blackwater security personnel in the case under investigation? Have the Bush administration and the State Department lost their minds? Or are they just so arrogant that they just don’t give a damn?

It’s a mistake so glaring that other government officials are even calling it a misstep, or have said it would hinder or compromise investigations by the FBI. Some are even incredulous that the State Department had the temerity to grant the immunity. Perhaps I was sleeping during my government classes, but since when did the State Department have the right to grant immunity when cases are under investigation? Isn’t that the Justice Department’s duty?

Pardon me, I forgot that obstruction of justice, corruption and non-accountability are the modus operandi of this administration. It is so above the law that it can hand out immunity to its cronies any time, and get away with it. By now, we should have been used to tactics like pardon and immunity being trademarks of this administration to cover up for any type of wrongdoing.

Perhaps they are too busy congratulating themselves on doing a heck of a job and have totally forgotten to think about the consequences of granting immunity to thuggish behaviour that could have caused the death of 17 innocent Iraqi civilians. Or maybe they do know deep down – even if they aren’t willing to admit it to themselves – that the Iraq war is lost for good, so who cares about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi civilians anyway?

It’s just a shame that they’re way too stupid and short-sighted to realize that they’re making things even worse than it is, especially when the issue at hand involved defenseless civilians being killed. Wake up! Just wait for the outrage and retaliation that will erupt from the Iraqi side at the news of the immunity. The troops over there will have to pay the price, with their lives.

That brings me to the next question – why are these contractors, who are getting a handsome salary for their “work”, granted immunity and can’t be held accountable, while our troops, who likewise risk their lives and are not paid anywhere near the contractors, are not protected the same way? I’m not suggesting that crimes ought to go unpunished or swept under the carpet. I am just curious about the double standards here, especially the hypocrisy, when the line is always that we support the troops.

Giving immunity to the likes of the Blackwater hired guns will just perpetuate the arrogance that they have not failed to display. It will make them think they’re above the law and allow them to carry on with their trigger happy ways.

It’s pretty obvious that the State Department doesn’t want investigators to get to the bottom of this incident. Or it’s payback time to Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, who has given tens of thousands of dollars to the Republican Party.

Does shame really work as a deterrent?

Perhaps in Asian societies, it would both be a deterrent, and a negative incentive, to behave. Or at least not to get caught.

At least that’s the thinking of the new Thai acting chief of the Crime Suppression Unit in Bangkok.

In an acknowledgment that the police forces need policing themselves, the chief has introduced an element of shame and pop culture to the officers who turn up late at work or park in the wrong places. He’s issuing pink Hello Kitty armbands, adorned with hearts, to errant officers.

AP Photo

Hello Kitty is a worldwide phenomenon with children, especially girls. Known as the cartoon cat that has no mouth but allows fans to project all sorts of emotions onto it, it seems like a strangely inappropriate but also logical cartoon character to pick for shaming errant Thai male officers.

“This new twist is expected to make them feel guilt and shame and prevent them from repeating the offense, no matter how minor,” the acting police chief told the International Herald Tribune. “Kitty is a cute icon for young girls. It’s not something macho police officers want covering their biceps.”

True. But an earlier incarnation of the same idea — singling out offenders with an armband, previously in tartan fabric — didn’t work. Offenders actually took the armbands home as souvenirs.

Not that they won’t do the same with the pink Hello Kitty ones. Police officers’ daughters could be enamored with it. After all, Hello Kitty is a huge hit with young girls.

Tourists who might not be aware of the armbands’ implications, might also find the idea too cute and even start asking to take photos with the officers. It’s not too far-fetched. Last year, when the Thai military overthrew former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in a coup, soldiers on the streets of Bangkok were posing for photos with tourists.

Going back to whether shame is an effective deterrent, it might work for a short while. But as the practice becomes the norm eventually, it might lose its sting.

The Thai police ought to think of a combination of sticks and carrots, not just sticks.

It is well and good to shame offenders, but more effective would be rewarding them for good behavior.

Why not have special mentions of good officers? Or reward them with financial incentives? These are probably more likely to motivate people to better behavior, especially cash, in a developing country where the members of the police force are unlikely to make very much.

Positive reinforcements would be a much better way to change behavior and lift the morale of all those involved, spurring them on to good practices.

It’s time to cut the paternalistic attitude. Treat the officers like the adults that they are, and stop using guilt and shaming tactics. If they were treated with the right respect, and incentivized to work hard and follow the rules, it would be a much better thing for the Thai police force, and Thailand, as a whole.

Deposed Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is mad and he is fighting back.

And he will soon be making a bold, even risky, move.

Thaksin said he would go back to Thailand to fight a case that the military government, which ousted him in a coup last September, will soon be filing against him. The government has charged Thaksin and his wife for their involvement in buying land from the central bank. Bloomberg reports that the specific charge involves the violation of an anti-corruption law that bans a spouse from entering into contracts with government departments under their spouse’s direct supervision. Their case involved the alleged purchase in 2003 of land from the central bank’s Financial Institutional Development Fund for 772 million baht ($22.4 million) by Thaksin’s wife, it adds.

Thaksin has been living in exile London since his ouster. But he has been keeping a high profile, from attempting to buy a UK football club, to addressing his supporters in Thailand last week through a video-conference link, when he lashed out against the military government. His latest action was prompted by the freezing of around $1.5 billion of his assets by the Thai government.

Thaksin still has considerable popular support, especially from Thais in rural areas. Many had benefited from the populist measures that he enacted during his time in government, such as offering micro credit plans to the poor to start businesses.

Tens of thousands had recently braved possible arrests and crackdown by the ruling military junta by turning up at rallies decrying the government’s action against the political party Thai Rak Thai, which is led by Thaksin. A Thai court had ordered that Thai Rak Thai be dissolved for election law violations and barred its leadership of 111 people, including Thaksin, from public office for five years.

The military government had said that they would be willing to negotiate with Thaksin about his assets, with an eye shrewdly on appeasing the large numbers of supporters the deposed leader still commands.

Thaksin’s return to Thailand to face trial could prove a two-edged sword. On the one hand, there is a strong possibility of his being detained, with all his and his family’s assets frozen and being powerless to leave the country.

However, there is also a likelihood of Thaksin and his advisers recognizing the still considerable support he has playing to his favor. Don’t be surprised if they are making a calculated move to rally more people to him with his return, and even possibly stage a comeback.

Thaksin might have promised to quit politics and asked the military to “let me live peacefully, like someone with dignity.” But provoked to fight, and with public sentiment souring considerably against the military junta in recent weeks, he might just be tempted to capitalize on it.

It had to happen sooner or later, and for China, it’s finally waking up to the ugly realities of the danger of its production methods, especially in the area of food and medication.

The past few months have exposed an embarrassing but chilling series of food and product safety neglect by China’s manufacturers. First there was the pet food recall in the US, when those made in China were found to contain melamine, and more recently, toothpaste that contained harmful substances was found in the US and a few Latin American countries.

The international headlines screaming the dangers of these products from China and their harm to the buying public’s health had finally shamed the Chinese government into doing something about its food and drug safety regulations as the authorities announced plans to introduce nationwide inspections.

Ambitions plans were also declared by the Chinese authorities, such as the establishment of a new food and drug safety guarantee system. It promised to have new controls on food and drug imports and exports and increase random testing on medicines by 2010. And the government planned to conduct safety checks on a large majority of food makers while its regulators would crack down on the sale of counterfeit drugs and medical devices.

It all sounds good on paper but with pervasive corruption and the vastness of China being the reality, it remains to be seen if the enforcement would be rigorous enough.

Sadly, China’s society is gripped by a relentless materialistic mentality. With communism’s erosion and the absence of religion as a guiding force, mammonism is more often than not the people’s inspiration.

Officials can be easily bought over with bribes, especially those outside of big cities, while greedy businessmen disregard health risks and have no qualms about unethical business practices and cutting corners to save costs and make a quick buck. Workers hired on the cheap are often too ignorant, afraid or weak to know better or resist when pressed into complicity and wrong-doing.

But more distressingly, deep down the Chinese authorities’ attitude had hardly changed either.

Its first reaction to any accusations to the harm of its food or medical exports, as always, is to just plain deny anything.

It’s reminiscent of how it mishandled the SARS epidemic, which spread a lot further and infected more than it should have, as China kept mum and buried its head in the sand, pretending nothing is going on and refusing to issue warnings to contain the spread.

The Chinese authorities still haven’t learnt its lessons very well, as seen in its handling of bird flu, but constant international pressure is making it rethink its strategy a little more.

If there is one tactic that the Chinese psyche would respond to, it would most likely be shame.

Naming and shaming, and bringing to light the wrongdoings of its manufacturers, have more often than not succeeded in making the Chinese authorities take action.

Unfortunately, the shady practices and unscrupulous businessmen have been around for ages, and their activities are only recently surfacing as China goes international with its products.

For years, it has been lax about goods for domestic consumption. There have been various cases of inferior or downright dangerous materials being included in food and medication produced in China. One famous case was the sale of infant formula that was watered down and substituted with bogus materials, which led to the deaths, organ damage and malnourishment of a large amount of babies in China. That case caused anguish and provoked condemnation in the country but it hasn’t made the authorities do much.

Another case involved slimming pills, which contained a variant of fenfluramine, an appetite suppressant that had been banned in the US for damaging heart valves. The pills led to deaths and health problems to its users, mostly women. Those pills were exported to Singapore and caused a death there too, along with health complication in others. One of the victims took the case to court in Singapore, but only the Singaporean importer of the pills was punished.

With China’s growing economic might and as its products find their way to more countries, more needs to be done by its authorities to ensure that stringent standards and proper procedures are followed by its manufacturers. It will definitely be a tough and expensive job for the Chinese authorities as its regulatory system is weak away from the center, and local officials are often fiefs that do not strictly follow central orders.

But if it is serious about growing its economic power, maintaining credibility with importers of other countries and ensuring that a “Made in China” label does not become equated with inferior or dangerous goods, China will have no other choice but to get tough and crack down on errant manufacturers and corrupt officials. It will have to do it soon too, before the mistrust of Chinese products spreads even more and clips its fast-growing sector of economic growth.

While we celebrate Memorial Day with our backyard barbecues, I thought I’d share this poignant, heartfelt and devastating commentary by a father who’s lost a son in the Iraq war, first published in the Washington Post.

________________________________________________________________________

I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, May 27, 2007; B01

Parents who lose children, whether through accident or illness, inevitably wonder what they could have done to prevent their loss. When my son was killed in Iraq earlier this month at age 27, I found myself pondering my responsibility for his death.

Among the hundreds of messages that my wife and I have received, two bore directly on this question. Both held me personally culpable, insisting that my public opposition to the war had provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Each said that my son’s death came as a direct result of my antiwar writings.

This may seem a vile accusation to lay against a grieving father. But in fact, it has become a staple of American political discourse, repeated endlessly by those keen to allow President Bush a free hand in waging his war. By encouraging “the terrorists,” opponents of the Iraq conflict increase the risk to U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment protects antiwar critics from being tried for treason, it provides no protection for the hardly less serious charge of failing to support the troops — today’s civic equivalent of dereliction of duty.

What exactly is a father’s duty when his son is sent into harm’s way?

Among the many ways to answer that question, mine was this one: As my son was doing his utmost to be a good soldier, I strove to be a good citizen.

As a citizen, I have tried since Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a critical understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I know that even now, people of good will find much to admire in Bush’s response to that awful day. They applaud his doctrine of preventive war. They endorse his crusade to spread democracy across the Muslim world and to eliminate tyranny from the face of the Earth. They insist not only that his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was correct but that the war there can still be won. Some — the members of the “the-surge-is-already-working” school of thought — even profess to see victory just over the horizon.

I believe that such notions are dead wrong and doomed to fail. In books, articles and op-ed pieces, in talks to audiences large and small, I have said as much. “The long war is an unwinnable one,” I wrote in this section of The Washington Post in August 2005. “The United States needs to liquidate its presence in Iraq, placing the onus on Iraqis to decide their fate and creating the space for other regional powers to assist in brokering a political settlement. We’ve done all that we can do.”

Not for a second did I expect my own efforts to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others — teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks — to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as “the will of the people.”

To be fair, responsibility for the war’s continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son’s death, my state’s senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son’s wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don’t blame me.

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove — namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.’s life is priceless. Don’t believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier’s life: I’ve been handed the check. It’s roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation’s call to “global leadership.” It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It’s the way our system works.

In joining the Army, my son was following in his father’s footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier — brave and steadfast and irrepressible.

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

Andrew J. Bacevich teaches history and international relations at Boston University. His son died May 13 after a suicide bomb explosion in Salah al-Din province.

So the donor conference for education fell short of delivering funds to the tune of $9 billion annually to provide universal basic education for 80 million children around the world by 2015.

Rich nations have been blamed for turning their backs on poor nations and in turn, their citizens, who won’t be able to escape the yoke of poverty through education.

While I applaud the efforts of organizations like the Global Campaign for Education to goad rich nations into contributing money to poor nations to fund basic education, I can’t help but think that it’s misplaced to blame rich nations for the world’s poor going uneducated and being mired in a vicious poverty cycle.

Shift the blame to the governments of the poor who have failed their own people. Why should they be spared the blame? They ought to be held accountable for failing their countrymen.

One can hardly blame rich nations for being leery of giving money away – who hasn’t heard of money for development and other good intentions ending up in the pockets of corrupt governments instead of going to those who truly needed it?

I’m a firm believer in the pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality. It’s no use waiting for rescuers to come. Stop blaming those who didn’t show up to help you, we are not entitled. Start helping yourself.