Sunday, June 28, 2015

Keep smiling if you want a job in 2015

Ironically, the more humans naively / foolishly think that they are making the world a better place through technology & the world is becoming a better place to live, the more human suffering has increased. The mantra of work-life balance is for foolish people to believe in, since it doesn't actually exist.

What's the point of such "modern" world, where people don't have any life? Work, work & more work. Both parents are working to make ends meet. As soon as kids are old enough to work, they are out earning their share, too. All the while, humans are expected to work at the same speed as machines (computers).

Most of the inspirational quotes / thoughts from rich business elite is "you gotta be driven to achieve success" & "success comes to those who relentlessly work hard to achieve it" etc. But in practical life, that's the farthest from truth. Rich business, & even political, elite got whatever they got in this world through their networks; not by hard work. Levels of success are constantly changing & bars are constantly rising.

So, for the majority of the world citizenry, they are expected to keep working round the clock, but they will never taste the sweet taste of success (assuming they don't have the right network). That will only drive people to more stress & depression. Then, people are told to not take stress or be depressed. What an utterly moronic advice !!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This year ought be a great moment in the history of work, by which I mean there shouldn’t be very much work to do. 85 years ago, John Maynard Keynes predicted that the problem of future generations would be too little rather than too much work: not a bad problem to have. Technological development & compound interest would mean that we in the 21st century would be “only too glad to have the small duties & tasks & routines” of the rich, as paid work would take up an ever diminishing part of our time. We might be needed on the job for 3 hours a day.
 
While Keynes’s prophecy hasn’t come to pass, he was right in a sense: machines can do many things – more all the time – better, cheaper & more efficiently than people can. Algorithms write share reports for the Associated Press with a flat clarity; computer-controlled robot arms bend & weld the bonnets of Minis at the BMW pressings plant in Swindon. But in Swindon, & pretty much everywhere else, the robots’ human designers & repairers aren’t yet on a 15-hour week. Why have machines, & an evermore productive economy, led not to the world Keynes foresaw, in which work is a shrinking part of life, but to one in which work seems to be colonising life?
 
In the past, you could tell what work was partly because it consisted of tasks you wouldn’t do at home, where there are no crops to harvest or assembly lines to man. Economists think of jobs as belonging to 1 of 3 broad sectors: agriculture, industry & services. Agriculture employs very few people today, industry takes on far fewer workers than in the past, while the service sector has nearly doubled in size.
 
In 1948, teaching, nursing, retail, administration and so on employed 44% of the workforce; today, the service sector employs 85% of workers across the UK. This shift has meant 2 things for what work feels like in offices, shops & factories across the country: an upsurge in the sort of jobs that use our emotions instead of our bodies; & the crumbling of the divisions between work & life.
 
Over the last 50 years or so – when, not coincidentally, women have become a permanent fixture in the workplace – jobs have more & more required doing the sort of “women’s work” formerly associated with home life. Work increasingly consists of doing things you already do for love (for want of a better term), not money. Call centres, cafes, homes, boardrooms, classrooms, waiting rooms: working in these places demands caring, smiling, anticipating someone’s feelings or, indeed, changing them.
 
We know there is work behind the relentless cheerfulness we buy along with our morning coffee ... but we don’t often think about what goes into that alacrity. Perhaps we don’t want to be scowled at when ordering a cafe creme, ... but what’s the cost of the manufacture of feeling that, increasingly, we are all required to do?
 
What does work feel like now it has so much to do with feelings or, we might say, the presentation of feelings?
 
Women’s work – “care work” or “affective labour”, as academics often call it – is no longer just for women. The call-centre worker had to be good humoured & reasonable at all times, but also talked of being signed off with depression, of drinking more than he used to, of his son trying to convince him that work was closed today. The creative director in advertising had to leave her young son for several weeks while she shot an ad across 4 continents. She described her work as talking, “from the moment I get in until the moment I go home”. A social media entrepreneur relied on her iPhone calendar to know where she had to be every day & while her tote-bag office could be set up in a park or at a cafe or on a hot desk, she had to be instantly & always available for her employer.
 
For this is another way in which the boundaries between work & “life” have broken down. The working week refuses to get shorter & sometimes seems to have burst its boundaries altogether. Everyone who works in an office feels they must answer emails outside the office too, because jobs are no longer for life & we must constantly, & anxiously, prove ourselves. Work has become both less remunerative – wages are down 8% on 2010 – more pervasive & less secure.
 
Though no one I spoke to yet worked Keynes’s 15-hour week, I did find someone who worked only a 24-hour week, in 2 shifts. Ina, born in Bulgaria, has done sex work from a flat in central London for 5 years. She holds her 2 nights of work apart from the rest of her life: partly because not everyone in her life knows what she does, partly because that’s the way she sees things: “I tend not to take home my work,” she says. “Like even when you work in an office or a restaurant, don’t take it home with you, don’t take the stress with you at home.”

... Whether through smartphones or zero-hours contracts, work has seeped into all the corners of our lives: we need to collectively resist the idea, ... that work is all there is & that workers are all we are. Not-just-workers of the world, unite!

Joanna Biggs is the author of All Day Long: A Portrait of Britain at Work

"Heckler & Koch in Mexico" by Rainer Hachfeld

"Heckler & Koch in Mexico" - Rainer Hachfeld, Neues Deutschland, Berlin, Germany

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Era of loneliness? More than 66% of British adults are lonely

Ironically, "social media" has made the developed world (where social media is used the most) a lonely place.

What I disagree with the most in the article is the generalization that younger people who use social media the most are the most lonely. Now, admittedly, I don't know what is the definition of "using social media the most." I use social media often, even though, I am not lonely, & I dislike talking to people, other than my family, because I find most people morons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



More than two thirds of adults in the UK feel lonely as social interaction appears to be on the decline. Younger people who use social media & technology daily experience the most loneliness, a study has found.
 
A nationwide study conducted by The Big Lunch found that 68% of adults in the UK say they feel lonely either often, always or sometimes. This is most acute among 18 to 34 year olds, with 83% of this age group experiencing loneliness.
 
More than a third (38%) said they now have less interaction with people they know than they did 5 years ago, while a quarter (27%) only interact socially with others once a week or less.
 
The research also found that adults in Britain spend only 4% of their time – around one hour a day – engaging in social interaction &, in a typical week, interact with only 6 friends, family members or neighbors, either in face-to-face conversations, a phone call or chatting online.
 
On average, women spend 15 minutes longer interacting socially each day than men.
 
Dr. Rebecca Harris, a psychologist at the University of Bolton, said: “The findings show that we’re spending less time having social interaction than we used to, we have fewer friends than we’d like & we’re finding it harder to make new friends. This decline in social contact could be contributing to the rise of loneliness in the UK.”
 
Loneliness is far more complicated than people imagine. It’s often seen as a one dimensional state, either ‘lonely’ or ‘not lonely’ & that just isn’t the case,” she added. “It can be a temporary state, but when prolonged, it’s a serious issue.”

While social interactions are declining, many also find it harder to make new friends. A third (33%) admitted they now find it harder to make new friends than they did 10 years ago.
 
The majority of UK adults have a small number of close friends. One in 10 even said they do not know how to start friendships any more. More than 40% of 18 to 34 year olds wish they had more friends, while 15% say they are “too scared” to talk to people they don’t know.
 
Young people feel lonelier than the elderly, the study suggests. Around half (48%) of people aged 55 and over say they never feel lonely. In comparison, 16% of 18 to 34 year olds said they always feel lonely.
 
Commenting on the research, Dame Esther Rantzen DBE, Founder of ChildLine & The Silver Line, said: “Loneliness has become an epidemic in the UK. This survey highlights how loneliness affects both young people & the older generation, while other research shows that it can contribute to depression & other serious risks to health.”

Noam Chomsky interview to RT

Chomsky ... always hits the nails on the head. As I always have said in my blog that there's no such thing as "democracy" in the so-called Western, developed countries. The government does whatever it feels like to do, either domestically or internationally, while the public feels something else completely.

Millions of Americans don't have enough food. Almost 60,000 Americans are homeless in NYC alone (since 2004). But billions were spent on Iraq & Afghanistan wars. Thousands of American soldiers died. For what? Taliban are back in Afghanistan. Drugs production is back in full force, & actually, even more than Taliban time. Iraq & Syria are completely broken down now. Prominent Americans, e.g. Donald Trump, himself are saying that the world was better off with tyrants like Gaddafi & Saddam than what we have now.

At this point, we can only reiterate that age-old proverb to Americans & Europeans: "you reap what you sow"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Major American media organizations diligently parrot what US officials want the public to know about global affairs, historian Noam Chomsky told RT. To US leaders, any news outlet that “does not repeat the US propaganda system is intolerable,” he said.
 
The culpability of the West – namely the US – for world affairs, such as the Ukrainian conflict or tensions with Iran, is another idea that is not permissible in leading American media, Chomsky said, adding that world opinion does not matter when that opinion counters US strategy.

The West means the US & everyone else that goes along,” he said. “What’s called the international community in the US is the US & anyone who happens to be going along with it. Take, say, for example, the question of Iran’s right to carry out its current nuclear policies, whatever they are. The standard line is that the international community objects to this. Who is the international community? What the US determines it to be.”

He added that, “any reader of [George] Orwell would be perfectly familiar with this. But it continues virtually without comment.”
 
The most interesting one is the charge that Iran is destabilizing the Middle East because it’s supporting militias which have killed American soldiers in Iraq,” Chomsky told RT’s Alexey Yaroshevsky.

That’s kind of as if, in 1943, the Nazi press had criticized England because it was destabilizing Europe for supporting partisans who were killing German soldiers. In other words, the assumption is, when the US invades, it kills a couple hundred thousand people, destroys the country, elicits sectarian conflicts that are now tearing Iraq & the region apart, that’s stabilization. If someone resists that tact, that’s destabilization.”

Chomsky also related American media propaganda to recent moves by US President Barack Obama to reach out to Cuba, which the US has long considered a state sponsor of terror while instituting a harsh embargo regime. Chomsky said top American media outlets go to great lengths to pit Cuba -- & not the US -- as the isolated party in the Western Hemisphere.

The facts are very clear. ... We know what happened. The Kennedy administration launched a very serious terrorist war against Cuba. It was one of the factors that led to the missile crisis. It was a war that was planned to lead to an invasion in October 1962, which Cuba & Russia presumably knew about. It’s now assumed by scholarship that that’s one of the reasons for the placement of the missiles. That war went on for years. No mention of it is permissible [in the US]. The only thing you can mention is that there were some attempts to assassinate [Fidel] Castro. And those can be written off as ridiculous CIA shenanigans. But the terrorist war itself was very serious.”

Obama has changed course on Cuban policy not for reasons pursuant to freedom or democracy, as is peddled in the US media, Chomsky said.

There is no noble gesture, just Obama’s recognition that the US is practically being thrown out of the hemisphere because of its isolation on this topic,” he added. “But you can’t discuss that [in the US]. It’s all public information, nothing secret, all available in public documents, but undiscussable. Like the idea -- & you can’t contemplate the idea -- that when the US invades another country & the other resists, it’s not the resistors who are committing the crime, it’s the invaders.”

As for international law, Chomsky said it “can work up to the point where the great powers permit it.” Beyond that, it is meaningless. Thus, is international law an illusion if the US picks & chooses -- while exempting itself -- from what is enforced?

To say that [international law is] dead implies it was ever alive. Has it ever been alive?” he said, citing US stonewalling of the world court’s demand in the 1980s that the US halt its war on Nicaragua & provide extensive reparations for damage done.

International law cannot be enforced against great powers,” he said. “There’s no enforcement mechanism. Take a look at the International Criminal Court, who has investigated & sentenced African leaders who the US doesn’t like. The major crime of this millennium, certainly, is the US invasion of Iraq. Could that be brought to the international court? I mean, it’s beyond inconceivable.”

Chomsky said the so-called American Dream & US democracy are in “very serious decline,” as social mobility is among the worst among the richest nations. He added that, formally, the US retains a democratic veneer, but actual manifestations of democracy are dwindling.

Basically, most of the population is disenfranchised,” he said, referring to public polling. “Their representatives pay no attention to their opinion. That’s roughly the lowest three-quarters on the bottom of the income scale. Move up the scale, you get a little more influence. At the top, essentially policy is made. That’s plutocracy, not democracy.”

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Respect women's right to wear veil in court

A great article & a good piece of advice from a competent person with years of experience in the legal sphere.

However, a majority of people in the West will start saying that how a court can pass a judgement when the witness is hidden behind a piece of cloth. Heck, in Canada, the current government of Mr. Harper & Co. have already brought a piece of legislation in the parliament, to ban veil in citizenship oath ceremonies, just so the judges can see that everyone is actually reading the oath. What's next? Keeping tabs on all immigrants, to see if they do really love their country & are loyal to it (sort of like North Korea).

If loyalty is to be measured by actually reading the oath, then what about all those rich Canadian business elites who stash their billions in offshore havens, & avoid paying taxes like the plague, but still use all the amenities of being a Canadian citizen. Are they loyal Canadians? Anyway, I digress.

So, on one end, public complains that people who have years of relevant experiences (to the given subject) & competencies should make such calls. When one makes such a call, then they decry why he/she is saying such things. So, the public will be happy as long as the person, saying something important in public sphere, merely confirm their biases. Anything other than that is a blight on that person's competencies.

One other common comment, which really rile me up, in such situation is said by the common public, is why don't these immigrants go back to their own countries, if they wanted to keep following their native country's cultures & norms. Good question.

My answer is no immigrant want to leave their beloved country & start a whole new life in another country, especially, since, their adopted country don't even accept them as full citizens. Developed countries stop interfering, politically & militarily, in developing countries' affairs & let them sink or swim. A majority of immigrants will stop migrating themselves.

After all, UN was made to end international wars & bring peace around the world. Well, the world history of the past 60 years has shown something else ... there are now more displaced people than ever & human suffering around the world has only increased in the past 60 years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Judges must show respect to women who choose to keep their faces covered due to their religious beliefs, the UK’s most senior judge has said.
 
Lord Neuberger said judges must have “an understanding of different cultural & social habits” in their bid to show fairness to those involved in trials.
 
Addressing the Criminal Justice Alliance, the supreme court president said: “It is necessary to have some understanding as to how people from different cultural, social, religious or other backgrounds think & behave & how they expect others to behave.

Well-known examples include how some religions consider it inappropriate to take the oath, how some people consider it rude to look other people in the eye, how some women find it inappropriate to appear in public with their face uncovered, & how some people deem it inappropriate to confront others or to be confronted - for instance with an outright denial.”

In 2014 Judge Peter Murphy upheld a ruling allowing Muslim woman Rebekah Dawson to stand trial wearing a full-face veil.
 
The 22-year-old waived her right to give evidence in her defence, however, after it was ruled that she would have to remove the niqab, which made only her eyes visible, if she took the stand.
 
She later admitted witness intimidation after denying the charge during a seven-day trial.
 
In a lengthy speech entitled “Fairness in the courts: the best we can do”, Neuberger accepted that judges tended to come from privileged backgrounds & warned of the dangers of this. “A white male public school judge presiding in a trial of an unemployed traveller from eastern Europe accused of assaulting or robbing a white female public school woman will, I hope, always be unbiased,” he said.

However he should always think to himself what his subconscious may be thinking or how it may be causing him to act; & he should always remember how things may look to the defendant, & indeed to the jury & to the public generally.”

Neuberger said judges & lawyers should always keep in mind how “intimidating” the court process could be for those involved in trials, including “the parties, their families, the victims, the witnesses & the jurors”.

Speaking in the context of legal aid cuts, he said ensuring all parties involved in a case understood the goings-on in a court had become more important because “people are having to choose between representing themselves or not getting justice at all”.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

"Incitement to Violence" by Pat Bagley

"Incitement to Violence" - Pat Bagley, Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City, UT, US

Private jets & cushy dorms: colleges indulge the 1% as inequality deepens

A great article on how post-secondary education keeps getting more & more expensive to the point where 2 separate classes are distinctly forming. This is for those who are trying to get education so they can move from one social class to another, but education is now so expensive (student debt in America has reached $1.3 Trillion) that a kid from the middle class background has 2 choices when entering the university; either take out a loan (which he/she will be paying until kingdom come) or work your ass of in a low-wage part time job while trying to balance your studies & work (which is only going to adversely affect your studies). Since, the wage is so low, that even with that job, that student can't make the tuition payments & cover living expenses.

Consider this fact from the article that Stanford just announced that anyone whose family income or assets fall below $125,000 won’t have to pay a dime in tuition, & those making less than $65,000 will get free room & board as well. While, Princeton doesn’t charge tuition if your family makes less than $140,000.

Let that sink in. A 6-figure family income is still considered as "poor". It used to be upper middle class. In poorer countries, like Pakistan, poor kids who are smart & intelligent, used to study with their tuition fully paid by the university.

What's the future is going to be for so-called, seemingly fair & equal, developed countries, esp., considering that this is happening currently & there are no signs on the horizon of any improvements. As I've said many times that the world is going back to the feudal systems & medieval times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



For high school seniors, spring brings college acceptance letters – & financial aid packages, full of forms to fill out. For high school juniors, it’s the season to visit those institutions they dream of attending 18 months from now, to talk to admissions officials & tour the campuses.
 
Of course, for those lucky enough to be in the top 1% of wealthy Americans, the whole process will be infinitely easier.
 
Even the endless process of visiting one campus after another – an arduous ritual in many families – is turned into a smooth process for those able to write a check for the equivalent of a year’s tuition at some top-notch colleges. Magellan Jets is offering “1%” families a special college tour package: 10 Hour Jet Cards for $43,500, entitling buyers not only to 10 hours of private jet time but to the help of the company’s logistics team to organize a customized itinerary & arrange car service at your destinations. (Those car trips will include guided tours of the local town, if you’ve got the time.)
 
Once you’ve finished a visit, the company will leave notepads at your seat for you to jot down your thoughts – & then condense the fruits of all those notations in a summarized overview of your visits for you. Oh, and if you’re interested in athletics, Magellan promises to arrange a meet & greet “with high profile alumni”.

We’ve become accustomed to the idea that we need to find ways to improve primary & secondary education, giving very smart & highly motivated kids like the young Sonia Sotomayor (today, a supreme court justice; in the 1960s, the daughter of a single mother living in the housing projects in the Bronx) a way to move from the economic & social margins of American society to the mainstream.
 
But as the wealth gap has widened steadily, to the point where the median net worth of upper-income families is nearly 7 times that of a middle-class household, & 70 times what a family like Sotomayor’s might earn today, according to a report from the Pew Research Center, the college experience is mirroring that. The 1% may fly on private jets to check out prospective campuses – including some where their parents may have made substantial donations to build computer labs, athletic facilities or other facilities, turning them into so-called “development applicants” & giving them a leg up. For some members of the bottom 1%, whose family budget may not even stretch to a bus ticket, the first time they visit a college campus may be the day they arrive to register & move into their dorms, long after they have been accepted.
 
Naturally enough, the money race starts with the application process itself. A member of the 1% can pay $14,000 or so to participate in a four-day “application boot camp” sponsored by an admissions counseling firm whose charges run up to the equivalent of a year’s tuition.
 
It’s true that most top-tier universities want diversity, & will actively seek out members of – well, let’s call them the bottom 1% – to balance their student body & to ensure that the best & the brightest have access to a great education. We may well applaud moves by colleges with big endowments, like Stanford, to make their education more affordable by offering full tuition. Indeed, Stanford just announced that anyone whose family income or assets fall below $125,000 won’t have to pay a dime in tuition; those making less than $65,000 will get free room & board as well.
 
After taking a few moments to ponder the irony that $125,000 – a decidedly middle-class income – is now “poor” enough to get you a free ride at Stanford, while Princeton doesn’t charge tuition if your family makes less than $140,000, let’s consider what the university experience is like for members of the two extremes – both the upper & lower 1%.
 
Many universities have rushed to install amenities for the top tier, knowing that it’s one way to compensate for the lack of an Ivy League name. Princeton can get away with its ho-hum dorm rooms – they were never designed to be luxurious. ... But elsewhere? These days, it seems, the sky is the limit when trying to appeal to the top 1%.
 
You can see the arms race most clearly in dorm rooms, rather than in academics. Imagine a cafeteria that dishes up tortellini with walnut pesto sauce, a climbing wall & a “bouldering cave”, a fireside lounge, tanning facilities, an Olympic-sized lap pool &, ahem, “spherical nap pods”.

Some of the new amenities aren’t even necessary. Wichita State built a new $65 Million residence hall, complete with all kinds of technology, at the heart of the campus. It costs nearly twice as much to live there as it does to live in older dorms – which have vacancies. So why build it? Because students want more, & they and/or their parents will pay more to get it.
 
It isn’t just the universities that are catering to this top 1% demographic. Private developers have woken up to the fact that parents sending their children away to college want them to live with the comforts of home, & in smaller communities, like Columbia, Missouri (home to 3 separate universities), they are racing to build luxury apartments – & offering video game rooms, theater rooms, golf simulators & “the most over the top amenities”. Some students actually figure they probably won’t bother going to classes, & just treat their college experience as a vacation, even as the community itself worries about the lack of affordable housing for year-round citizens & working families.
 
And if you’re the upper 1%, of course, you can have access to a personal concierge, just as if you lived at the Pierre or the Ritz. The same demographic who tour their prospective colleges by personal jet can have their concierges decorate their dorm rooms, get hold of tickets to concerts or sporting events, or arrange parties – a phenomenon that didn’t even exist a few years ago.
 
Meanwhile, the bottom 1%, too, is starting to be heard, at last. For this group, college has never been easy. Not being able to afford textbooks meant that some freshmen or sophomores always were behind their peers – however hard they studied. Juggling jobs & a heavy course load reduce the odds that they’ll do well in school – & even if they aren’t paying tuition, they still have to find a way to live in costly cities. And few colleges are as generous in offering full tuition packages as Stanford & Princeton are.
 
For the bottom 1%, a college diploma is supposed to be their ticket to the top 1% – or at least, to the top 10%. But in a recent op-ed in the Columbia Spectator, a first-year Columbia University student bluntly laid out the reality of being a member of the bottom 1%, living in an environment dominated by the top 1%, with their casual assumptions.

What was once a straightforward concept of upward mobility is no more,” the author writes. It has been replaced by “upward friction”, as “the answer many low-income students get when discussing their struggles is ‘work harder’.”

While their affluent peers enjoy the rock-climbing walls & personal butlers, some members of the bottom 1% literally wonder where they’ll be sleeping at night, or where their next meal is coming from. One student posted on the Columbia University Class Confessions Facebook page about tradeoffs like losing an hour’s pay to meet with a professor – only to have the professor forget to show up.
 
The big tuition checks that the top 1% are writing may be helping to subsidize the ability of the bottom 1% to attend college at all, but telling the latter group “just be glad you’re here; now, figure it out”, doesn’t seem like the right approach, even as colleges & private companies bend over backwards to accommodate their wealthier peers. Just offering families more ways to save for college expenses, & suggesting that they save more, isn’t enough: college costs are rising too rapidly & total student debt now has topped $1.3 Trillion.
 
Maybe we should look at what is happening in Europe, where colleges in Germany, Denmark & Sweden offer free college tuition. Of course, it comes without frills. There are no lavish dorms, no lap pools. And there’s no bottom 1%, worrying about where they’ll sleep.

Monday, June 22, 2015

In Mumbai, the wealthy elite's willingness to show off has reached new extremes

A great opinion piece. Although, its focus is Mumbai & the rising social inequality there, this rising social inequality is visible in almost every metropolitan city, from Los Angeles to New York to Rio de Janeiro to Lagos to Johannesburg to Dubai to London to Moscow to Beijing to Kuala Lumpur to Sydney.

Politicians & governments are only interested in how much money they can stuff in their "pockets" (i.e. bank accounts) from companies, industries, & lobbyists. They will sprinkle some money on a few projects in the development, & even then those projects need to be highly visible for elections & public.

Western countries have already gone through this large & increasing divide between the 99% & 1% of the country (remember Occupy Movements around the world about 5 years ago?) but talks of recession ending & new economic growths have only helped fuel the divide now. Western governments didn't bring any new legislation to resolve this divide. All of the countries, both developed & fast developing ones, are turning back to the medieval times.

According to a report from New York's Coalition for the Homeless, 60,000 people are sleeping in city shelters every night – almost double the amount since 2004. Let that sink in for a minute. Homeless people in NYC have DOUBLED in the past 10 years ... & there's no end to it.

Recession didn't even dent the increasing wealth of the business & political elites. While their wealth increased several folds between 2007 & 2014, the middle class is not only getting wiped out from society, the poor are barely hanging on to life.

This is all happening, & will definitely keep happening, in the so-called seemingly equal, fair, developed countries of the West. So what & how can one expect something better from developing countries like China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Russia, Vietnam, Pakistan etc.?

BUT, what rich are not seeing, by getting blinded by their fast rising tower of wealth, that you can only push the poor down to a limit. The numbers of poor are fast increasing in the urban cities all over the world. Those human beings will try to fight back for their survival when the survival of them & their families is severely threatened.

This will become the scene from the French Revolution, except it won't be happening only France, but all over the world. Are governments & politicians ready for this Revolution? Can the rich business & political elite handle the onslaught of poor on them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In Christmas 2007, I found a nightclub in London selling the most expensive cocktail in the world. I was reporting a piece on the gulf between the super-rich & the rest of society ­– and here was a liquid metaphor.

Hand the barman at Movida £35,000 & he would mix up a shot of Louis XII cognac, some Cristal Rose, a few flakes of edible gold leaf & at the bottom of the glass a diamond ring. During both mixing & drinking two security guards would keep watch.

Running around Mumbai for the past few days has sometimes felt like travelling back in time to that credit-crunch Christmas. Not because I think a banking crash is just around the corner, but because of the size of that gulf between those right at the top of this city & everyone else.

On Thursday afternoon, an events organiser for Mumbai’s wealthiest told me stories of children’s birthday parties in which a Bollywood celebrity was hired at huge expense to sing & dance ­– for a group of eight-year-olds. Of crores of rupees (hundreds of thousands of pounds) being spent on wedding dancers alone. She herself would rank among the city’s elite. For her two-year-old’s birthday, a swimming trip & family lunch was planned & yet friends would ask, “Aren’t you doing anything to celebrate?

As India’s commercial capital, Mumbai has long been home to some of the richest people on the subcontinent. But in all my travels back & forth to India, I’ve noticed across big cities over the past decade or so a much greater willingness by the wealthy to show off. In Mumbai, that has reached extremes. On our first day here, the cabbie showed us Nariman Point, the Hanging Gardens, the Taj & the Gateway of India – then drove us over to Antilia, reportedly the most expensive home in the world. Owned by Mukesh Ambani, it is worth an estimated $1bn, is 27-storeys high & has 3 helipads.

However extreme, Antilia is hardly anomalous. A half hour away from where I am writing this, a new residential estate is up for sale, offering seaview flats alongside access to private jets & yachts. The black & gold billboards read: For Kings. For Queens. For Royalty.

The bit of this that really reminds me of London before The Fall is the way those enjoying this lifestyle assume that everyone else is getting a bit of it, too. I am thinking here of the property developer who is now in New York for 5 days’ shopping ­– his second trip there in 2 months. Just before he left, he told me that he regularly took 10 holidays a year – but then went on to talk about how his cook had also been to South Africa. Except, it turned out, his servant had gone there for work.

In the 90s, as the second great wave of globalisation got under way, policymakers thought they knew who the winners & losers would be. On the debit side were the blue-collar & manufacturing-workers of the west, whose jobs were going to move east. But that was all worth it, we were assured, as long as people in developing countries got richer. But what a visit to Mumbai shows you is the vast inequality in how those riches have been spread around. You see it in the physical infrastructure: all those new flyovers sprouting up around the city to enable the chauffeur driven classes to get about more easily, even while the commuter trains are still bursting; the crowded, chaotic public hospitals that get by while gleaming new private hospitals open up.

Unlike in Britain or America, the middle classes in urban India are still far better off than they were 10-15 years ago. But in Mumbai, you see how they also struggle to pay for their English-medium schools & non-government doctors. I am thinking here of a family I met last night who were adamant that that they were middle class & yet were also open about how much they were struggling to afford even the basics for their children.

At the end of our chat, the party planner began angsting out loud about what kind of society Mumbai was becoming. “At the top, we’re creating a generation of brats. If they have iPads & birthday extravaganzas now, what will they demand when they’re teens? And at the bottom, can you imagine how much resentment they must be carrying?”

"US Economic Growth" by Jimmy Margulies

"US Economic Growth" - Jimmy Margulies, NY, US

UK supermarkets sourcing salad & vegetables from 'modern day slaves'

With the unrelenting drive for the modern day business for profitability, these findings should not be surprising. Be it the garment industry (Canadian companies sourcing from South Asia, esp. Bangladesh & the Rana Plaza incident) or fishing industry (slave labour being used in South East Asia for the cheap fish we get on our food tables in North American & European markets) or agribusiness in North America & Europe, companies involved in these industries are always looking to reduce their wages / costs, & hence, they turn to abusing human rights to achieve that.

There will always be people who will exploit their fellow beings for their own good. Ethics & morals are out the window. After all, "it's nothing personal, it's just business." Poor have, are, & always will be exploited; be it sex slavery or product manufacturing slavery. On top of that, poor also don't get any protection from the justice system (as I blogged from a story on discrimination against the poor in US in the justice system) & other social systems to support them (education, healthcare, welfare etc.) are slowly getting out of their reach.

But, rich keep getting richer ... by killing the rights of millions of poor ... in foreign & in their own lands.

Now, as you may have read already, Europe has a migrant crisis. Thousands of migrants are flowing in everyday. Where those migrants are going to go for jobs? To make some money so they can buy some food for themselves? They are illegal aliens, after all. Ironically, they will be employed by these kinds of unscrupulous employment contractors / agencies to provide, effectively, slave labour, for these kinds of work. What happened to that modern world where there's not supposed to be any slavery?

Some critics of this will offer solutions like the public should eat local & organic food. Yes, that will avoid the problem of slave labour. BUT, we should not forget that locally grown organic food is also relatively much more expensive than imported food. Since, the majority of the general public is losing jobs (or have low-paying jobs) & with the recession in the world not going away for the past 8 years now, & governments' austerity drives everywhere becoming the new norm, how can general public buy healthy, locally grown, organic food, then?

Billions are given as state subsidies to industries in arms manufacturing & oil & gas, but then why can't a few millions be given to municipal governments to invest in local farms?

Others will say why can't these farm workers go back to their own countries. Well, as I blogged with another article about how developed countries (US, Russia, UK, China, Canada etc.) have increased their weapons sales to developing countries, so chaos, killings, & murderous rampages take place in those developing countries. Their public will then emigrate to these developed countries, where the majority of these migrants will be put to work in these conditions. There will be complaints & inquiries but "out of sight, out of mind." Soon, the general public in the developed countries will forget these poor souls & will keep enjoying their cheap shirts, fish, vegetables, & fruits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Salads & vegetables in UK supermarkets are grown by migrant farmworkers who are underpaid, treated like slaves, forced to subsist in filthy conditions & regularly develop health problems associated with pesticides, an investigation suggests.
 
The deplorable working conditions were uncovered by a Channel 4 News investigation ... .
 
An army of migrant workers who produce vegetables exported to the UK said they are forced to work in unsanitary conditions & must use bushes close to where vegetables grow as a toilet. In the event nature calls, they said they are forced to do without water or soap to wash their hands.
 
Many live in dirty, makeshift shacks constructed from plastic sheeting & wood close to the fields they tend in southern Spain. They are hired by agencies to produce & prepare the vegetables & salads consumers see on supermarket shelves across Britain.
 
Some laborers say they are forced to work in the vicinity of noxious pesticides, which cause respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis & sinus problems. Others say they are regularly underpaid.
 
Prices wars & poor ethics
 
The revelations uncovered by Channel 4 News will likely shock British consumers, who are regularly assured by UK supermarkets that their food is produced & sourced ethically. However, critics say competition sparked by Lidl & Aldi’s low prices have prompted supermarkets in Britain to engage in exploitative practices in a bid to slash the cost of their produce.
 
All major UK supermarkets claim to source food responsibly. They are compelled to promote workers’ rights under a worldwide initiative known as the Ethical Trading Initiative.
 
Nevertheless, agricultural firms, which supply vegetables & salad to Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Tesco & Asda are implicated in the allegations uncovered by Channel 4.
 
Reflecting on the ... findings, a group of British MPs called for an urgent investigation. They described the evidence uncovered by Channel 4 as “appalling” & that it reveals “slave labor.”

Out of sight, out of mind?
 
Channel 4’s allegations focus specifically on workers based in Murcia & Almeria in southern Spain. Each year, millions of pounds worth of salad & vegetables are exported to Britain from these regions.
 
The worker said other laborers for the company, located in Almeria, were also sprayed with pesticides, but didn’t complain because their names would be added to a blacklist known as “the list of rotten sardines.”

Channel 4 News’ investigation highlighted similar concerns about laborers for Agroherni – a large firm, which sells £22 million worth of herbs, salads & vegetables annually to leading supermarkets in Britain such as Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer.
 
One ex-employee said she was left in horrific pain & required multiple operations on her sinuses, which were aggravated by working in fields where pesticides were routinely sprayed. The woman, who wished to remain anonymous, added: “All that matters to them is fulfilling their clients’ orders.”

Agroherni sources its workers from an employment agency called Integra Empleo, but the laborers claim the agency regularly fails to pay them. One worker said if staff work 26 days, the agency notes this period as 16 or 18 days – deducting up to 8 days salary in the process.

‘Supermarkets must explain themselves’

Reflecting on the allegations, Conservative MP Richard Drax, a former member of the Environment & Rural Affairs Select Committee, said: “If true, these allegations are appalling. It sounds like effectively slave labor producing food in 2015 which is utterly unacceptable.

Supermarkets must explain themselves. It is up to them to know who is producing their food & in what conditions.”

Fellow Conservative Neil Parish, who currently serves on the committee, was unsurprised by Channel 4 News’ findings.

There is always a price to pay for cheap imported food; whether it is poor quality, low animal welfare standards or, in this case, the appalling treatment of workers,” he said.
 
Both Agroherni & Integra Empleo reject all allegations leveled at them. However, both firms have launched investigations into the claims uncovered by Channel 4.
 
Agroherni told Channel 4 News it adopts strict practices when using pesticides, & is unaware of the incidents cited by current & ex-laborers. The firm denied that it maltreats or exploits agency staff, & stressed the just treatment & wellbeing of workers is a priority. It has severed links with Integra Empleo, & is now expected to employ staff directly.
 
A spokesman for the British Retail Consortium said workers’ rights are a leading concern for British supermarkets.

Ensuring workers are treated fairly in our supply chains is a key concern for retailers. We know all supermarkets will examine these allegations closely,” he said.
 
A spokeswoman for Tesco told RT it has requested its suppliers “suspend all imports from Agroherni.”
 
Our suppliers will only resume working with [related firms] when we are confident the issues have been properly addressed,” she said.

Our standards make it crystal clear that we expect suppliers to treat their employees fairly. Suppliers who work with Tesco know that compliance with our standards are a non-negotiable part of our long term partnership,” she added.
 
A spokesman for Sainsbury’s confirmed the supermarket will conduct an in-house probe into the allegations.

We expect our suppliers to adhere to the highest quality & welfare standards, regardless of where they operate in the world. We are taking these allegations very seriously & will be conducting our own investigation,” he said.
 
A spokesman for Waitrose also confirmed the supermarket plans to carry out an internal investigation into the claims.

Worker welfare is very important to us – our supplier is investigating these allegations & will ensure that our high standards are being met,” he said.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Snitch fact

This is what the country gets when the justice system gets greedy. Prisons have become for-profit businesses. State & Federal Attorney Generals have aspirations to become governors etc. & hence, their performance is based on how many people, innocent or guilty, get in the prison system. Judges are paid well to hand down harsher sentences for misdemeanors.
 
Result is that prisons are getting filled up. For-profit companies are using those prisoners in those prisons as slave-labour to manufacture products. Judges & AGs are being perceived as increasing safety & security for the ordinary citizens.
 
The losers are people who make one mistake in their life & will pay very dearly for that one mistake until their death; be it financial, social, economical cost (unemployed, discriminated etc.).
 
IMDB          RottenTomatoes          Wikipedia

Walter Scott died because of ... American exceptionalism

A good opinion piece. Nothing much to say for me than to highlight the fact that almost 1100 Americans were apparently killed by cops in 2014. And Americans (with people in other developed countries) think the West is "civilized".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Walter Scott, a retired Coast Guard sailor, was stopped by the North Charleston police for a broken taillight, & was dead moments later. He was shot in the back. One more name, one more civilian killed by American exceptionalism.
 
No one is sure exactly how many people die at the hands of the police in the US every year. Last month, a White House task force created by President Barack Obama in the wake of the riots in Ferguson, Mo., recommended that the federal government should try to count, by collecting these data from local police forces. Notionally, the FBI already has this responsibility & it reports that the number hovers around 400 deaths per year. But an online effort to collect media accounts of fatal police encounters, & to crowd-source the fact-checking, has arrived at a much more grim & more widely accepted figure: more than 1,100 killed in 2014.
 
There are many factors that help to explain why American police kill civilians at a dramatically higher rate than in any other developed country, but 3 deserve special attention as being unique to the United States.
 
First, there are more guns per capita in the US than in any other country in the world. Estimates vary from 270 million to 310 million legal & illegal guns in circulation. This provides almost one gun for every man, woman & child. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health reported that 1 in 3 households contains a gun. This is down from 1 in 2 in the 1970s, but gun ownership is still 35% higher than the next-highest country: Serbia.
 
This directly changes the way that American police forces operate. With so many civilians carrying guns, is it surprising that the police shoot first & ask questions later? In fact, American police are at relatively more peril than their counterparts elsewhere. According to the FBI (so perhaps take this with a grain of salt), approximately 50 officers are “feloniously killed” in the line of duty each year.
 
This has, understandably, created a police culture that is both defensive & aggressive. One small example that illustrates this involves car chases. In the United Kingdom, police cars box in fleeing vehicles & use “rolling roadblocks” to force them to stop. But American police, assuming all suspects are armed, use the more violent & potentially lethal “PIT manoeuvre” to swerve into the rear bumper of the car being chased, sending it crashing off the road.
 
The second factor is that America remains one of the most racially divided countries in the world. Last year, the Public Religion Research Institute released a study showing that the average white American has 91 times more white friends than black ones. In fact, three-quarters of whites don’t even have 1 black friend. This racial divide has real consequences. For most white cops, their references for understanding black Americans must come from second-hand sources or popular media; in other words, from rumour & rap songs. This is something that needs to be considered when trying to understand why young, black males are 21 times more likely to be shot by the police than their white counterparts, as revealed by the analysis of independent news organization ProPublica.
 
The third uniquely American factor is the embattled-hero mythology that surrounds the police. In no country are the cops as lionized as they are in the US. Not even Canadians, who place the “Mounties” at the centre of their national identity, elevate the police to such heights. From The Lone Ranger to Hill Street Blues & CSI: Miami, American culture has constructed a pervasive narrative of the imperilled but noble police officer, courageously risking his life every day on the thin blue line between civilization & murderous chaos.
 
But this portrayal is very misleading. In reality, America is not being threatened by criminal anarchy. While the number of civilians being shot by police has never been higher, incidents of violent crime have dropped more than 50% since the 1990s. Yet local police increasingly arm themselves with preposterously lethal equipment. Consider the small town of Sweetwater, Fla. It has a population of only 13,000, slightly smaller than that of Kenora, Ont. Yet the local police force has its own SWAT team, a mine-resistant armoured vehicle, a “commando” armoured car, 4 light attack helicopters, 20 M16 machine guns & a grenade launcher. These weapons were never designed to “serve & protect”; they are only suited for killing & conquering.
 
And the myth of heroism? In spite of all the guns, being a policeman in America is actually a relatively safe profession. Loggers, roofers, carpenters, farmers, construction labourers, even garbagemen, are far more likely to be killed on the job. But when they die in the service of the community, there are no televised funerals, no flag-draped coffins.
 
Alexis de Tocqueville was right when he wrote about American exceptionalism in 1835. It is a remarkable nation with countless unique qualities that other countries struggle to emulate. But it has uniquely dangerous problems, too, which can combine into toxic moments, such as the one we watched last week, as Walter Scott ran away, stumbled, then fell, 6 bullets in his back.

Outlawing Public Opinion in Spain

Is this the modern democracy where public opinions matter less & less, perhaps, of no value. "Elected" governments might as well be dictatorships, because laws are being made "for the safety of the public," but they are that much against the "safety of the public."

Public is not stupid that they can be lulled into thinking that invading armies are standing at the borders & we need these strict laws against public opinions (e.g. Spain's Citizens' Security Law or Canada's anti-terrorism law). The general public is made busy by the government into surviving for themselves that they don't have time to do anything else but work, work & more work.

Is this really the modern world? Have we really progressed in a millennium when Kings used to rule the citizenry with a heavy hand?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When Spain first started making noises about an impending "Citizens' Security Law" that would criminalise various forms of popular protest, optimists may have assumed the flirtation with overt fascism couldn't last. At the very least - they might have reasoned - the government would have to retreat to semi-fascist mode.
 
Not so.
 
Approved on March 26, & expected to come into force on July 1, the law might be mistaken for something out of the Franco playbook. Dubbed the "gag law", it prescribes fines of up to 600 euros ($635) for disrespecting police officers, up to 30,000 euros ($32,000) for disseminating images of state security forces that might endanger them or their operations, & up to 600,000 euros ($635,000) for unauthorised street protests.
 
Inverse logic
 
These punitive measures are especially handy, of course, in an era of brutal austerity measures, home evictions, & other government efforts in Spain that have triggered collective action on a mass scale. In 2012, evictions were reportedly occurring at a pace of 500 per day.
 
While conveniently pre-emptively criminalising protests against the legislation itself, the gag law relies on an inverse logic, in which the real threat to citizens' security comes not from the lack of a roof over one's head or a physically abusive police force but rather from opposing the injustice of such realities.
 
In an open letter to the European Parliament, human rights groups warned that targeting those who disseminate images of police "could hinder the documentation & reporting of abuses committed by law enforcement personnel & reinforce the climate of impunity".
 
Expelling justice
 
Tacked onto the bill as a last-minute bonus is a provision validating the summary expulsion of migrants who jump the border fence between Morocco & Spain's African outposts of Ceuta & Melilla.
 
After all, we can't possibly have "citizens' security" with too many black folks in the mix.
 
As noted on the website of the International Federation for Human Rights, the move not only "restrict[s] the right to seek asylum & violate[s] the principle of non-refoulement & the prohibition of collective expulsions" but also "exposes migrants to a serious risk of torture & ill-treatment by denying them the possibility of filing a claim against law enforcement personnel in case of abuse".
 
But the anti-migrant provision is merely the culmination of an already common practise of automatic deportation along the Spanish frontier. In October 2014, the AFP reported on a video of truncheon-happy Spanish police beating a young, barefoot Cameroonian man & then escorting him, in an apparently unconscious state, back to Moroccan territory.
 
Another good reason to discourage filming the police at work - & another reason the 600-euro fine for disrespecting the police seems a tad steep.
 
The old terrorism card
 
Of course, no citizenry would be completely secure without robust protections against "terrorism" - that time-honoured threat that has, particularly in the post-9/11 era, been invoked to justify the trampling of rights worldwide.
 
In addition to the Citizens' Security Law, the Spanish government has also approved reforms to the nation's criminal code that will greatly enhance its punitive capabilities.
 
For example, folks will now be eligible for prosecution as terrorists for such behaviour as regularly visiting websites deemed to be terrorist-friendly. Helpfully, the criminal code's definition of "terrorism" is sufficiently sweeping to prevent any potential offenders from slipping through the cracks.
 
Included on the list of terroristic acts are efforts to disrupt government functions & "the public peace", as well as "the commission of any serious crime against … liberty".
 
A recent article on the Spanish Gizmodo website points out that internet activity alone "can be punished with 1 to 5 years in prison".
 
Makes you wonder about the whole "liberty" clause.
 
The next step
 
Last month, the Guardian quoted Jorge Fernandez Diaz - Spain's interior minister & the curator of the Citizens' Security Law - on the merits of the initiative: "It's a law for the 21st century. It provides better guarantees for people's security & more judicial security for people's rights."
 
In a matter of 3 seconds, an item worthy of interment in Franco's mausoleum was thus recast as the pinnacle of modernity & justice.
 
By this logic, regression is progress, slavery is freedom, & black is white.
 
Meanwhile, according to the Spanish daily El Pais, a December survey indicated that 82% of respondents believed the law needed to be abandoned entirely or at least modified, while 79% considered the prescribed fines excessive. 71% contended that the project did not aim to ensure public security but rather to protect the government from protests.
 
It seems there's only one thing left to do: Outlaw public opinion surveys.


 Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.