Gigabyte Gamble of Global Giants

A challenge has been mounted by the technology giants against the economic giants on the global digital battlefield, in the name of online free speech protection, privacy of communication, and against governmental intrusion. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft have joined forces to enforce a Code of Conduct that would govern the Global Network. How this will be received by countries alluded to in the enactment of the code; or how it will resist powerful political pressure at the local level by partners of the business behemoths, has not been detailed. Enacting a code is one thing, enforcing it is another.

The signing of the Global Code of Conduct attempts to end internet censorship and other forms of government witch hunts and interference. It seeks to limit what data should be shared with authorities where the integrity of free speech may be threatened. Human rights groups have hailed this as a recognition of the need for a collective response and more aggressive stand versus unwarranted demands on user privacy and restrictions on free speech. Google had been accused of agreeing to filter searches for such topics as democracy or Tiananmen; Microsoft had been pilloried for blocking the blog of a media practitioner who posted on the management purge at the Beijing News Daily; while Yahoo's disclosure of personal information led to the 10 year jail sentence of reporter Shi Tao.

Their alliance under the Code provides a certain clout for the implementation of its provisions. It seems that, as Jerry Yang of Yahoo puts it, their actions match their values. The tech giants are gambling on the fact that internet users in China are the youth , students, and young professionals - the generation that will sustain the country's powerful growth. The massive number of users is being staked against China's political will to interfere and protect what they feel is their secret. China's non-acceptance will create discord and distance between the government and people, putting their future in jeopardy. But China's acceptance will not be a victory for the alliance either, they will simply enforce their willful interference clandestinely, by pressuring or threatening the local partner quietly into submission. Having declared their acceptance of the Code to the world, coercion would then be rampant. Any disclosure of these threats can be claimed as an "isolated case".

The millions of users in China may also be used by the authorities against the alliance. Can these three giants afford to lose such a massive market? Also, what if China puts up a similar operation as they have that will serve their country's needs - reaching out beyond the urban areas where these giants operate? After sometime, they could terminate the operations of 2 of these tech companies with the one remaining becoming vulnerable to pressure. The Code's absence of an implementation mechanism weakens its resolve to accomplish what it claims it will. Perhaps they have realized it is unenforceable, and merely went through the motions to assuage human rights groups. There are strong indications that this alliance is merely a gesture that will cast these tech companies in a good light, after the bad image generated by past actions. Nothing more.

The fact that China seems to be singled out is also disturbing. Other countries are equally guilty of interference such as Russia, Serbia, Nigeria, and most of all the United States. It was the USA that removed privacy of communication as part of its intelligence gathering efforts for the War on Terror. That whole package of lies to spy on its own people has more cases that warrants investigation than China. On the other hand this whole alliance on the Code of Conduct is also being used to preempt whatever regulatory oversight may be initiated by a likely Obama government, because of how they assisted the trampling of America's civil rights in support of the War on Terror.

It's just so uncharacteristic for these companies to initiate actions that will damage their relationships with their major markets. Secondly, it does not make sense for them to dive into ideological issues that would virtually be imposing a political philosophy on a sovereign country, regardless of how universally righteous that philosophy is. Their business in service, not politics. This Code is a dangerous gamble if they are truly serious.

In the political battlefield, the tech companies are mice by comparison. Three mice that roar, even in blended three part harmony, cannot be that powerful in the real world. Against an army of more than a hundred million, all they can do is squeak!

Haaarrrrwwwk...Twooooooph...Ting!

Recession Rocks the Republicans

The pained expression on the face of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke when he addressed a Congressional Committee last week spoke volumes about the state of the US economy. The hopeful but cautious forecasts that marked his previous announcements since the collapse of the mortgage markets could no longer be viable as possibly true. When he said that "A recession is possible in the first half of 2008", it was the best phrase he could muster on the subject. He knew, America is already in it.

Lay-offs, the final factor of a deep recession was not on the radar screen of economic statistics since it is normally a lagging indicator; and as long as there are no reports of jobs being slashed, there was hope for a measure of growth. But the Labor Department's release last Friday of 3 consecutive months of job layoffs since January doused all hopes. A total of 232,000 jobs were shed in the first quarter (March - 80,000; February - 76,000; January - 76,000) across several sectors. The unemployment rate, covered by a separate household survey rose to 5.1%, with 434,000 Americans reporting that they were unemployed.

America's longest war (Vietnam) and costliest war (WW II) have been exceeded by the War on Terror. Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the US half a trillion dollars of borrowed money, when 2001 estimates were only at $50 billion. The budget deficit could run up to $350 billion this year including the stimulus package of $160 billion of which only 20% will return to the government by way of taxes. Yet this return will still not pay for the borrowed amount plus interest of the savings lent by other nations. America will have to create more wealth to pay for the war, the deficits, and the stimulus package; but with jobs being slashed and the non-reversal of big business strategy of outsourcing jobs abroad for higher profits - there is little it can do to increase GDP from its present 18%. It may even shrink further. Eighty two percent of what America consumes is imported.

Cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve spur the economy, but it is a contributing factor to a weak dollar. Sustaining the wars will drain resources and increase borrowings, further weakening the dollar. Collapse of the mortgage markets have generated losses to financial institutions whose default or deferment of loan payments to foreign banks add to the weakening of the dollar. Unemployment and job loss will generate delinquencies in payments for credit cards, auto loans, educational loans, among others, which are securities held by banks that back up their portfolios. These will also weaken the dollar. A weak dollar will raise the prices of gas, oil, energy, commodities and the 82% of items that America imports. Should Asian and Middle Eastern countries opt to dump the dollar in exchange for the Euro, the American Economy may collapse.

The recent CBS News and New York Times survey point to an increasing disenchantment of Americans with the way the country is being run. The Republicans cannot escape accountability for this one. That Bill Clinton's term should have stopped Osama bin Laden from bringing in 9/11 is a childish argument. They had the means to stop it but they failed. They had the support after, to manage the assault, but they bungled it. They raised fears so that Americans would give up some of their civil liberties, which they abused. They lied about many aspects of the war from the most critical to the most trivial. Now, Americans may be stunned in disbelief, but hopefully not indecision.

If they had a fool for a President, they can at least prove to the world that American citizens are not insane. Unless of course they choose a leader who will pursue a crazy war.

Haaaarrrwwwwk...Twooooooph...Ting!

Bye Bye to the Beleagured Boar

In about 22 hours, we will be saying goodbye to the Year of the Boar. Like other years, there were events that were positive as well as events that remained a bitter memory; the effects of which were felt in specific regions of the world. This particular year of the Boar however, has left major unresolved issues that would impact on the entire planet and its growing population.

Foremost among this is the unresolved issue of reductions in toxic emissions that closed the year with only an agreement to hold more talks. The United States refuses to commit to specific target reductions as well as to provide the technology for the developing nations to reduce their respective CO2 emissions. The State of California was denied by the US Environmental Protection Agency of its request for a waiver, normally an automatic grant, for the state to set its own standards of toxic emissions for cars and trucks. The State's standards are even greater than those set in Bali, since California's air quality is at dangerous levels. The EPA cited a national strategy of reductions rather than a patchwork of standards set by individual states as a better alternative. California will sue the government for its refusal.

The other unresolved issue is the War in Iraq, a war with no end in sight and no clear victory to claim. Soldiers fighting in that country are increasingly anxious about home. Some were even mandated to extend their tour of duty. This puts the future of these young men in harms way physically and mentally, as in Vietnam. George Bernard Shaw once said "We learn from history that men never learn from history".

The continuous rise in the price of oil, affecting all nations, remains a hurdle for many economies that find difficulty in coping with its inflationary impact and reduces its capability to support social programs. The price increases, logically, should spur development of alternatives; but this is too slow in coming as it gets inadequate support.

Poverty, disease, and hunger that stalk the regions in Asia, Africa, even parts of Europe and the Americas remain unresolved. Eight (8) years into the new Millennium and the world still fails to provide adequate food for its population. Science and technology offer genetically modified substitutes from bio-engineered products, but its safety and fitness for human consumption remains questionable amidst contradicting claims.

The death of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan has placed that region in chaos, impacting on America's war on terror. The tattered foreign policy of the US here would affect its operations in Afghanistan as well. America could find itself fighting in 3 fronts, including Pakistan.

Security of all nations against terrorism cannot be contained since the acquisition of fake documents, or, authentic documents with different names and faces, is still beyond control. Terrorism is an effect, the cause is oppression and inequality. Religious beliefs are merely the medium by which the act of terrorism is carried out. A way of life cannot be destroyed by terrorism, neither can obliteration of the terrorists prevent the rise of new warriors. A global system of equitable distribution of the world's wealth and the right of people to live free and exercise their choice of religion, without suppressing individual choices of faith, is a means of ending terrorism. My only question is why is it called War on Terror? Just like War on Corruption, War on Drugs, War Against Illegals, or War on Environmental Destruction, why is it that nations are so enamored with war. Its good if those that make these declarations are the actual people who go to battle, but its always the young men that get maimed, killed or go nuts that fight. Is it because the economy is dependent on war. The classic military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower asked America to guard against decades ago, has it grown more pervasively? Don't they realize that the words of Benjamin Franklin "There never was a good war, or a bad peace", ring true to this day?

Its good that the Boar goes tonight. If he remains a minute longer, I'm going to roast that fat pig and serve the resulting dish among neighbors and friends for New Year. That will definitely resolve a major issue.

Haaarrrrrwwwk...Twoooooph...Ting!