RSS
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri despotic. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan
Menampilkan postingan yang diurutkan menurut relevansi untuk kueri despotic. Urutkan menurut tanggal Tampilkan semua postingan

Perceptions of Reality Different between US and Imperial Palaces in DC

Last year, as my wife, five kids, and I were all wandering around Washington DC, I though the following (from Deep Thoughts on DC Trip- LaHood, Palaces, Rainbows, Washington, and Lincoln):

Washington DC is booming. I think it is one of the few states in the nation to actually have increasingly employment, job growth, and GDP growth. There are signs everywhere of prosperity and building- roads are being repaired, monuments are being revamped, buildings are adding on, and fresh paint and plaster is in abundance. On a guidebook of DC I read that our capitol was designed to look like the capitols of the Emperors and despots of Europe, but it was okay because we lived in a free nation that celebrated liberty and property. Well, as our country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, it is going to look increasingly like those capitols of the old days, when the Emperor took money from the countryside to build himself new statues and bigger palaces.
A new POLITICO poll proves that while the countryside is being plundered, the Democratic lords and Emperor Obama are living in a different world based on luxury, hope, and change. In Washington, Obama is far more popular than he is in the rest of the country, while Palin, the former Alaska governor, is considerably less popular in DC than in the rest of the country. To the vast majority of D.C. elites, the tea party movement is a fad, but for the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is a revolutionary phenomonum.

From the Politico story on the poll:
According to the poll, roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way. Seventy-four percent of those 'Washington elites' surveyed said the economic downturn has hurt them less than most Americans.

Sixty-five percent of the general population views Social Security as “very important,” compared with only 41 percent of Washington elites. The same goes for immigration — 53 percent of the general public says it’s very important, compared with 36 percent of Washington elites — and family values — 62 percent versus 23 percent, respectively.

Taxes are another issue where Washington does not appear to have its finger on the pulse of the country. Fifty-three percent of the general public ranked taxes as a “very important” issue, while 37 percent of elites said the same.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is viewed favorably by 45 percent of Washington elites but by only 23 percent of the rest of the country. When asked which party they would vote for if November’s midterm election were held today, the general population is split among Democrats and Republicans, 32 percent to 31 percent. Washington elites however, chose Democrats by 53 percent to 26 percent for Republicans.
Yeah, it's pretty clear that Washington DC, the home of the imperial palaces of our rulers, is living large on taxpayers money and enjoying doing so. Therefore it isn't surprising that the lords and ladies that inhabit our nation's capital-of-consumption have different views than the rest of the reality-based Americans out of DC.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Obama Bows to Chinese Communist President

The President of the United States recently bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. Then the President of the US bowed to the Emperor of Japan. Neither of these people bowed to our President, and in fact, no other chief of state ever bows to our President. And yet, our President bows to these people, in order to show 'proper respect' to them. And now President Obama has done it again, bowing to the the Communist Chinese President Hu Jintao during the official arrivals for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington.

President Obama did not bow, tilt his head, lean over, or make any motion that resembles a bow when he met the leaders of America's top allies and friends. But he did bow and scrape and act like an obsequious doggie when he met a despotic king, an emperor of a nation that fought us in a world war a generation ago, and the ruler of a communist nation. Obama believes that the United States should now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world, because, not only is the United States is a country like any other country, but we are worse, because we have so much for which to apologize, and thus he bows to foreign leaders (but not to foreign leaders who are our friends and allies). Obama is not a humble man- just the opposite, he is very arrogant and believes strongly in himself- but he is willing to humble himself to tyrants and dictators, and that will not make our nation a stronger and better place.

Here is Obama bowing to the the Communist Chinese President Hu Jintao, via the AP.

Also keep in mind that President Obama has also bowed to Burger King. The photo of that is here.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Big Energy Corporation Guarantees $10 Million to Democratic Party; Kickbacks and Corruption to Follow?

Duke Energy Corporation is going to be guaranteeing a $10 million line of credit from Fifth Third Bank to the Democratic National Convention, which is apparently the first time such an arrangement has been used by any Democratic convention organizers and which has never been done ever by Republican organizers.

By extending a line of credit, Duke is either currying favor or looking for a particular kickback, both of which are even more evidence that the America of the modern-day Democratic Party looks a lot like despotic governments of the past or (Detroit of the recent past) in that it is pay-to-play and a gangster economy out there, and you get benefits and advantages not by producing a better product more cheaply and efficiently, but by bribing Democratic officials. It is either one of these explanations, or a third possibility, which is that rich Big Energy executives are using a company that they don't own as collateral against loans from a Big Bank to support a political party that their company does not necessarily support. That would be wrong too. There is no other explanation that I can think of.

This makes a mockery of the current attack on Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia for their votes on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission. Democrats (like popular leftwing blog The Blue Voice) whined and cried endlessly about how conservatives and Republicans support businesses being more involved in politics and how that is just so wrong and that they hate having businesses dirty money in politics- and yet, demonstrating their utter hypocrisy, they then turn around and welcome far more business money and involvement to run their very convention.

I wonder- is Obama going to bemoan corporate donations reading from a speech on a teleprompter backed by $10 million line of credit from Fifth Third Bank backed by Duke Energy Corporation?

According to experts, Duke's involvement can only help Duke in seeking energy subsidies from the Obama administration, although if the Republicans win the White House, it is all but guaranteed that such shady inside corrupt deals will not be rewarded with government contracts. Democrats though are hoping that Obama's ability to... to... to do something or other will win him a second term of office so that he can continue to spend my grand kids wealth so that the new normal of our economy continues and the world becomes a little bit more of a dangerous place.

This sort of behavior should not be tolerated in a free society, and by that I don't mean that Duke Energy Corporation did something wrong. They should be able to dump as much money as they want on any political party they want- it's a free society. But it shouldn't matter- factions should be checking factions, fighting over the abilities of a weak and limited government that has no powers to award contracts or give out favors in a free and prosperous society. Democrats and liberals have created a tyrannical government, the kind feared by our founding fathers, the kind that can be bought off, but more so, once bought off can use its connections with government to corrupt and subvert free peoples and their labor for their gain. Democrats and liberals need to be thrown out office, at every level, consistently for several decades, as Tea Party battles Republican in a battle to restore life, liberty, and protection of property to the free and prosperous people of America.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Extremophile Journalism

From a 2007 Seed Magazine piece:

...in many cases science journalists from the developing world face a series of hurdles that I, comfortably ensconced in Washington, D.C., simply never encounter. For some of these writers, basic research resources like cheap and reliable telephone service, libraries, and even dictionaries can be scarce. And while the physical act of researching and writing can present dramatic logistical challenges, science correspondents in some parts of the world are also faced with the worry that offending despotic or corrupt governments will result in retribution. The number of journalists imprisoned and killed worldwide every year is testament to the dangers implicit in the trade.
More here.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Changing Development Discourse in Africa

Issa G. Shivji argues that:

The state itself has to be reformed and restructured. The despotic colonial and the authoritarian post-colonial state cannot play a popular developmental role. Its limits have been reached. The reformed state must have its roots in the people and must seek legitimacy from the people. It must seek a new social consensus and build its legitimacy not only on the economic terrain – development – but also on the political and legal terrain of popular participation, freedoms, rights and stable constitutional orders...Africa has to go beyond liberal to social democracy which would address not only the question of formal equality but that of social justice and equity as well...The experience of the liberalisation of the state over the last couple of decades does not inspire confidence or hope. Popular democracy, grassroots democracy , local democracy, new democracy, etc. are the new concepts being discussed and debated.

via Pambazuka

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Africa's Becoming more Despotic and Nepotistic

Nkwazi Mhango writes in the African Executive:

Though Africa is more democratic than it was 40 years ago, its future has nary treaded water with me. How can it make sense if it still has stinking legacy of having dictators that ruined their countries for over 40 years such as Gadaffi, Omar Bongo, Gnassigbe Eyadema and other that have been in power for over thirty years?
How can Africa make it democratically if all we see is the coming back of ruling dynasties hell bent to prolong and extend their stays in power in order to conceal their dirty linens-by the way of passing the batons over to their kids or cronies?
More here
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

'Defeating Dictators' by George Ayittey

In Up Station Mountain Club Peter Wuteh Vakunta reviews George Ayittey's Defeating Dictators:
After publishing Africa Betrayed (1992) and Africa Unchained (2005), intellectual gadfly, Professor George B.N.Ayittey has crafted yet another masterpiece, Defeating Dictators: Fighting Tyranny in Africa and Around the World (2011) in which he adumbrates the deceptive habits of highly defective despotic regimes in Africa and beyond. Ayittey contends that a dictator is a dictator. He further points out that “The only good dictator is a dead one”(218). The crux of the argument in his book is that Africans and other people chaffing under the yoke of despotism should steer clear of confusing ideological with systemic dictatorship—dictatorship that emerges from faulty institutions and systems. Any political system that concentrates power in the hands of one person, he argues, will inevitably degenerate into a dictatorship. The culprit is the system—not ideology or culture...[continue reading]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Obama Orders Reversal of Bush Era Policies Regarding Wilderness Lands

Back in the hellish years of Republican domination of our nation, back when economic growth was a respectable number, unemployment was low, and things generally were happier, there was a period of time for several months when our nation debated rules regarding whether or not public lands should be developed and how that development should work. Columnists wrote about it, policy advisers debated it, talking heads discussed it, and a rousing public debate was held in an open and free society on the issue. Ultimately, in 2003 Bush decided to order the Bureau of Land Management to allow more forests and wilderness lands to be open to road building, so that firefighters could more easily fight deadly forest fires that destroyed these forests and wilderness lands, and to restore the power to manage wilderness areas and forests back to the states, which had held this power from 1866 to 1979.

Look back at the historical record- go to http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Bush', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2002 to 2004, and you'll see this debate, see the analysis, see all the time and effort and due thought that a guy like Bush put into this small but important change on federal policy.

Today, with no discussion, analysis, thought, regard, public debate, open forum, editorials, round-table discussions, or any real analysis, the Obama administration decided to suddenly announce that the federal government was claiming once again the sole power to decide how all lands in our nation should be managed, including lands that environmentalists and fanatics think about pretending to claim are 'wilderness' or 'forest land', and in doing so will result in lower economic development of these lands, less jobs, less prosperity, more forest fires, less access to these lands for citizens enjoyment, less ability to manage them, and a general worsening of society. As is usual with Obama, his attempts through this policy to make the world a better place will in the end result in the world a far worse place, and as is usual with Obama, his actions were conducted in a manner more fitting of a despot or dictator than the leader of a free nation.

By contrast, type in http://www.google.com/, type in search terms like 'wilderness' or 'public lands' or 'Obama', customize your search by date, and narrow it down from the years 2009 to 2010, and you'll see the lack of debate, the absence of analysis, no time and effort and due thought that a guy like Obama put into this small but important change on federal policy- par for the course for a despotic dictator, but not at all what a nation of free people should tolerate from our President. Of course, liberals and Democrats cheer this, but then again, they cheer and support and like it when unelected bureaucrats, life-time appoint judges, and dictators make choices for free people, usurp their authority, and violate their sovereignty.

Our nation slips bit by bit into tyranny, and the damage to our Republic is growing so great I fear that we will never again be able to recover from it. The damage comes in ways large and known, such as Obamacare or the Porkulus bills, and in ways small and hidden, such as the EPA unilaterally rejecting Congress' role in our system of government and deciding that it will install cap-and-tax on us, or the EPA violating the 10th amendment and attacking Texas, or the FCC seizing control of the internet in violation of a liberal Congress' will. Obama is a Democrat, his actions can not be checked because citizens of some states voted Democrat in the last election, and our only hope that actions such as these can be mitigated is because some residents of some states voted Republican. Republicans have their problems and commit their fair share of blunders and bad decisions to, but it is the Democratic Party and their elected officials who today represent the greatest threat to your life, liberty, and property.

Not sure if this was one of the decisions that made it in Bush's book- I still need to read Decision Points.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

US Gov: System of Looting and Transferring Wealth?

Today on the Ed Schultz show Ed was interviewing some expert, and the two liberal Democrats agreed with one another that the problem with our current political system was not the fact that our national government is exceeding its limited powers and spending too much money, but rather the problem with our current political system is that our national government is not efficiently and effectively systematically looting the wealth from productive members of our society and giving that wealth to those who are politically favored.

Is this what modern day liberalism is? Is this what the modern day Democratic Party has become? Is this the goal of President Obama and the new-Democrats in Congress? Is this what their policies and laws and orders are attempting to achieve?

Oh, I know that Schultz and the expert (I didn't catch his name) don't 'represent' the Democratic Party any more than Rush or Sean do the Republican Party. But even still, it is a sign of what I am fighting against and what I am pushing back against, and it is distressing to hear that these people support what President Obama and the Pelosi-led Democrats in Congress are trying to do- they are pushing for the United States government to put in place laws and policies that more efficiently and effectively loot the wealth from those people who have earned it in order to transfer that wealth to those people whom it favors.

That's tyranny and corruption and despotism, boys and girls, plain and simple, and I mean to fight it, just like my forefathers did before me. Although the Republican Party is not perfect- far from it- it is the only party in our system that serves as a means of blocking the attempts by Democrats and liberals of turning me into a slave of the state- voting Republican in the upcoming elections is the only real way today of making it so that my labor and time and effort and energies are my own and serve my purposes and that the fruits of my labor and the product of my time and effort and the wealth that my energies produce are not taken from me to be given to someone else.

Let's dress up this pig here and put some lipstick on it- the election of 2012 is a going to be a key one, an election that will determine the future of our nation, and it is not simply enough for President Obama and the Democrats to lose- no, the Democrats must suffer historic losses such that they learn that the purpose of the United States government is not to systematically loot the wealth of others in order to give it to those who did not earn it, but rather the purpose of the United States government is to protect my life, liberty, and property so that I may achieve the fullest of my God-given abilities.

This two party system has run its course, and the modern day Democratic Party must be destroyed, to be replaced by a Tea Party dominated conservative party that will battle for offices and power with a moderate Republican Party. No longer can our nation tolerate people on the radio who advocate for higher taxes so that older people can live comfortably on wealth they did not earn; no longer can our nation tolerate politicians who advocate for more land regulations and environmental policies so that property ownership becomes more costly; no longer can our nation support people who want corporations and businesses to pay so that they can collect money in the form of unemployment insurance and welfare even when they did not pay for these things; and no longer can the debate be about how tyrannical and despotic the government should be but rather why we should allow people who dodge taxes to create our very tax policies.

Liberals and the party that they have seized control of might believe and argue that the United States government should systematically loot those who have property and transfer it to others- but I don't, and I ask you to support me in 2012 by rejecting Democrats up and down the ballot by voting Republican.


  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Inspired Comments on a Friday

There are certain ideas, certain beliefs, that should be the basis of every political conversation that you have, that mark your every political speech. These ideas came to us from our ancestors, who fought the most powerful nation in the world and through the grace of God won, winning more land, richer land, than any nation has ever won before or since. And it was the generations before us who toiled on this land, expanding it, enriching it, all while following the ideas of our founders.

We must never forget that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God with rights which can not be taken away, and that some of these rights- the most important ones perhaps- are the right to live, the right to live in freedom, and the right to keep and own property.

These rights existed before government, and government has no moral claim on them- only a tyrannical government can ask you to kill your unborn baby or not seek medical care when you are old, only a despotic government will take away your personal responsibility and ability to make choices, and only a bad government will pretend that it is entitled to your property.

It is very important that we remember these things, because if we stray from our founding beliefs, than our prosperity and safety will disappear. As our nation does stray into these bitter times, many our once again remembering how bold, how controversial, how radical our founding fathers were, believing those ideals so enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. It is in our hearts and souls that we know these words were correct when spoken, and we know that government is put among men only to protect life, liberty, and property, and not to provide homes, healthcare, education, welfare, or consumer goods.

Our ancestors established America and gave it to us, so that their descendants could enjoy the dream that they had won. They did not really want us adding or subtracting to the meaning and intent of their dreams- they wanted us to stick closely to the dream, the freedom, the liberty, the protection that they had won with the grace of God.

This is still a great nation, and we can keep in great, but only if we keep the Declaration of Independence in our hearts and speak it often. When in public meetings or when making a public comment, try to work in the words "all men are created equal," or "right to life, liberty, and property," or "government's purpose is to secure these rights". There is no need to re-invent the wheel- there is only the need to re-remember our Founding.

These comments were inspired by The Bible, Deuteronomy 4.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Tomás Ávila Laurel vs Teodoro Obiang of Equatorial Guinea

Parvati Nair writing in the Guardian:
On 11 February in Equatorial Guinea, a writer by the name of Juan Tomás Ávila Laurel embarked on a hunger strike to claim justice and democracy for his people, too. The despotic ruler of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Obiang, has been in power since seizing it from his uncle Francisco Macías, another dictator who took power after the country gained independence from Spain. Massively rich in crude oil, the wealth of the nation lies in the hands of a minority elite while most Guineans suffer the indignities of hardship, repression and an appalling record on human rights – not to mention one of the lowest levels of development in Africa. Oil companies do business with the likes of Obiang and family, who are well served by the income generated from the country's rich natural resources. To quote Human Rights Watch, the "dictatorship under President Obiang has used an oil boom to entrench and enrich itself further at the expense of the country's people''.
More here
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

What do African leaders think?

Dozie Azike asks the question What do African leaders think? "...We have megalomaniacs leading as leaders. Leaders who have stolen the wealth of their countries and kept them in foreign accounts and are begging for debt forgiveness. Leaders who are richer than their counterparts from developed countries they are asking for debt forgiveness. Leaders who are living more lavishly than their counterparts from creditor nations. Leaders who are richer than their countries. Leaders who go on vacation to developed countries, because there are no infrastructures. Leaders whose kids have gone abroad to study so that they will come back and take over from them. Leaders who are so myopic and uninformed. Leaders who see grants and loans as free gift because they will ultimately end up in their own pockets. Leaders who can go to IMF and World Bank to borrow money to construct palaces and houses for their wives and concubines, to construct mushroom projects that might have been awarded to their cronies. Leaders who are despotic. Leaders who glorify that their own people have not seen the light. Leaders who cannot be differentiated from devil..."

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Africa's Becoming more Despotic and Nepotistic

Nkwazi Mhango writes in the African Executive:

Though Africa is more democratic than it was 40 years ago, its future has nary treaded water with me. How can it make sense if it still has stinking legacy of having dictators that ruined their countries for over 40 years such as Gadaffi, Omar Bongo, Gnassigbe Eyadema and other that have been in power for over thirty years?
How can Africa make it democratically if all we see is the coming back of ruling dynasties hell bent to prolong and extend their stays in power in order to conceal their dirty linens-by the way of passing the batons over to their kids or cronies?
More here
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

UNESCO and the Obiang Nguema fiasco

In the Economist:

Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo during a meeting...Image via Wikipedia
President Obiang Nguema
Whichever bright public-relations firm advised the unappealing president of Equatorial Guinea that he could spruce up his international image by throwing $3m the way of a UN agency must now be licking his wounds. Obiang Nguema, the despotic president of the tiny (but oil rich) African nation since 1979, is best known for the nastiness of his rule (especially in his prisons), the clumsy way he rigs election results (typically claiming the support of nearly 99% of voters) and the breathtaking corruption which sees the ruling family syphoning off a large share of government cash for its own ends. After achieving some notoriety in 2004, when posh British mercenaries bungled a coup attempt against him (the Wonga coup), Mr Obiang set about trying to improve his image. The latest wheeze was to offer cash to UNESCO...[continue reading]
Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Africa Needs Tough Love

Eric Grover writes:

The symptoms and underlying causes of Africa’s malaise are widely understood. Nevertheless for almost half a century, in addressing the African malaise the West has stubbornly indulged in counter productive feel-goodism. Now, acknowledging the worsening human tragedy Western leaders, myopically, and a bit piously, call for more of the same. This is deceptive feel-good fodder for the casually concerned. For political, media, religious and business leaders paying attention, this is a cynical hamster-wheel prescription. This Western folly consigns hundreds of millions of Africans to generations more of shortened, impoverished and less free lives, and unrealized dreams.
Africa needs tough love from the West, not more charity. Corrupt despotic regimes must be changed and the institutional plumbing of economic and political freedom installed, forcibly in at least a few of the worst cases. Does the West have the confidence, will and interest in pursuing such a course? Probably not.

via Blacklooks

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Emperor Obama Builds Palaces in Washington DC as it Becomes the new Wealthiest City in the US

In July of 2010 in response to a Politico poll that showed how out of touch the elites in Washington DC were from the rest of the nation I wrote "while the countryside is being plundered, the Democratic lords and Emperor Obama are living in a different world based on luxury, hope, and change."

Turns out that I was right- while the rest of the nation has been battling unemployment, falling salaries, and a feeling that things are going in the wrong direction, Washington DC has become the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area according to recent Census data. Whereas in years past wealthiest metropolitan areas were based on producing goods and services, Washington DC has become the nation's wealthiest area on the backs of booming salaries and employment for government workers and booming employment and a growing concentration of lawyers and lobbyists.

Unlike recently passed Silicon Valley which built its wealth on innovation and production of computers or historic wealthy areas like Oakland County Michigan which was built on money generated from automobile production, under President Barack Obama (Democrat, President since 2009) and the Democrats (control of House from 2006-2011 and Senate since 2006), Washington DC simply vacuums trillions of dollars from taxpayers and trillions more in debt in order to give high salaries to ever more inefficient government employees and to distribute gifts and favors and contracts to special interests.

With about 5.6 million residents, the Washington region has an aggregate household income of about $221.4 billion. The San Jose area (Silicon Valley) has about 1.8 million people and income of $67 billion, according to census figures gathered from the American Community Survey. Although there is considerable income disparity in Washington DC (in the District of Columbia almost 11 percent of the city’s population qualifies as “very poor"), total compensation for federal workers (including health care and other benefits) soared last year to an average of $126,369, compared with $122,697 in 2009 and even less than that in years before that. In addition to soaring federal pay, employment has been stable as well- the unemployment rate in the Washington metro area was 6.1 percent, compared with nationally joblessness at 9.1 percent (source).

In addition to booming salary and jobs for federal workers during this recession, there has also been a stunning rise in the number of lobbyists and lawyers working over the federal government- spending on lobbying efforts reached a new record of $3.51 billion last year and in 2010 there were a new record number of registered lobbyists (12,964), with most working in or around the nation’s capital. This is likely the result of the Democrats crony capitalism policies, which award contracts and business to those who are politically connected and make campaign donations to Democrats (see Solyndra or the bailout of General Motors for examples of this).

I personally saw this sort of corruption when I visited our nation's capitol last. After that visit, I was moved to write this:

Washington DC is booming. I think it is one of the few states in the nation to actually have increasingly employment, job growth, and GDP growth. There are signs everywhere of prosperity and building- roads are being repaired, monuments are being revamped, buildings are adding on, and fresh paint and plaster is in abundance. On a guidebook of DC I read that our capitol was designed to look like the capitols of the Emperors and despots of Europe, but it was okay because we lived in a free nation that celebrated liberty and property. Well, as our country becomes more despotic and tyrannical, it is going to look increasingly like those capitols of the old days, when the Emperor took money from the countryside to build himself new statues and bigger palaces.
There is no way to sugar-coat this sort of thing or make it appear to be some sort of sign of progress. President Obama campaigned on cleaning up Washington, and he has done the exact opposite, making Washington a rising cesspool of corruption and money while the rest of the nation struggles to make ends meet. There needs to be a house-cleaning in 2012 to get rid of the people who have been in charge there over the last couple years when the problem has gotten dramatically worse, and since Bush and the Republicans are not in charge any more, that means the Democrats (who control the bureaucracy, Presidency, and Senate) should be thrown out of their fancy palaces in DC so that they can find real jobs making goods and providing services in good old productive American cities.

Mark Levin probably agrees with me- check out his book Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Strengthening African Leadership

Africa has long been saddled with poor,even malevolent, leadership: predatory kleptocrats, military-installed autocrats,economic illiterates, and puffed-up posturers. By far the most egregious examples come from Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Zimbabwe—countries that have been run into the ground despite their abundant natural resources. But these cases are by no means unrepresentative: by some measures, 90 percent of sub-Saharan African nations have experienced despotic rule in the last three decades. Such leaders use power as an end in itself, rather than for the public good; they are indifferent to the progress of their citizens (although anxious to receive their adulation); they are unswayed by reason and employ poisonous social or racial ideologies; and they are hypocrites, always shifting blame for their countries’ distress. Under the stewardship of these leaders,infrastructure in many African countries has fallen into disrepair, currencies have depreciated, and real prices have inflated dramatically, while job availability,health care, education standards, and life expectancy have declined. Ordinary life has become beleaguered: general security has deteriorated, crime and corruption have increased, much-needed public funds have flowed into hidden bank accounts, and offcially sanctioned ethnic discrimination—sometimes resulting in civil war—has become prevalent. This depressing picture is brought into even sharper relief by the few but striking examples of effective African leadership in recent decades. These leaders stand out because of their strength of character, their adherence to the principles of participatory democracy, and their ability to overcome deep-rooted challenges. The government of Mozambique, for example, brought about economic growth rates of more than ten percent between 1996 and 2003, following the economic catastrophe wrought by that country’s civil war (which ended in 1992). And in Kenya, President Mwai Kibaki has strengthened civil society, invested in education, and removed barriers to economic entrepreneurship instated during the repressive rule of Daniel arap Moi.The best example of good leadership in Africa is Botswana. Long before diamonds were discovered there, this former desert protectorate, which was neglected by the British under colonialism, demonstrated a knack for participatory democracy, integrity, tolerance, entrepreneurship, and the rule of law. The country has remained democratic in spirit as well as form continuously since its independence in 1966—an unmatched record in Africa. It has also defended human rights, encouraged civil liberties, and actively promoted its citizens’ social and economic development.
GOOD APPLES
What has enabled Botswana to succeed where so many other African nations have failed? Some observers point to the relative linguistic homogeneity of the country. But Somalia, which remains unstable despite a similar uniformity, shows that this factor is far from sufficient.Others point to the century-old teachings of the congregational London Missionary Society—the peaceful, pragmatic outlook that is inextricably bound up in the country’s political culture. But this explanation also fails to explain why the same positive effects have not been witnessed in other countries with a history of Christian teaching, such as in neighboring Zambia. Nor are Botswana’s plentiful diamond reserves responsible:Angola, Gabon, and Nigeria all have abundant natural resources, but none has seen comparable returns for its people.It is Botswana’s history of visionary leadership, especially in the years following independence, that best explains its success. Sir Seretse Khama, Botswana’s founding president, came from a family of Bamangwato chiefs well regarded for their benevolence and integrity.
When Khama founded the Botswana Democratic Party in 1961 and led his country to independence, he was already dedicated to the principles of deliberative democracy and market economy that would allow his young country to flourish. Modest, unostentatious as a leader, and a genuine believer in popular rule, Khama forged a participatory and law-respecting political culture that has endured under his successors, Sir Ketumile Masire and Festus Mogae. Although operating in very differerent circumstances, Mauritius’ first leader,Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, held to the same leadership codes as Khama.Ramgoolam gave Mauritius a robust democratic beginning, which has been sustained by a series of wise successors from different backgrounds and parties.Both Khama and Ramgoolam could have emulated many of their contemporaries by establishing strong, single-man, kleptocratic regimes. But they refused to do so.Effective leadership has proved the decisive factor in South Africa, too: without Nelson Mandela’s inclusive and visionary leadership, his adherence to the rule of law, his insistence on broadening the delivery of essential services, and his emphasis on moving from a commandeconomy toward a market-driven one, South Africa would probably have emerged from apartheid as a far more fractured and autocratic state than it did.Too few African leaders have followed the examples of Mandela, Khama, and foreign affairs . Ramgoolam. Ghana, Lesotho, Mali, and Senegal are all showing promise. But in many other African countries,leaders have begun their presidential careers as democrats only to end up, a term or two later, as corrupt autocrats: Bakili Muluzi of Malawi, Moi of Kenya,and, most dramatically of all, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. Other leaders, such as Sam Nujoma of Namibia and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, may be heading in the same direction.
A BOLD INITIATIVE
To build on the positive leadership examples, a select group of prominent past and present African leaders who met over the last year decided to confront the continent’s pathology of poor leadership with deeds as well as words. At the conclusion of a series of private meetings(the final one of which was held in Mombasa, Kenya), they established the African Leadership Council, promulgated a Code of African Leadership with 23 commandments, issued a Mombasa Declaration promoting better leadership,and proposed a series of courses to train their political successors in the art of good government.Members of the council believe that absolute standards of leadership are both appropriate and attainable. Good leaders deliver security of the state and of the person, the rule of law, good education and health services, and a framework conducive to economic growth. They ensure effective arteries of commerce and enshrine personal and human freedoms. They empower civil society and protect the environmental commons. Crucially, good leaders also provide their citizens with a sense of belonging to a national enterprise. Conscious that Africa’s poor are getting poorer and that good governance is essential for successful economic development, the council sees itself at
the vanguard of fundamental reform in the continent. Its approach certainly goes far beyond the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (nepad) and proposals for the African Union. The Code of African Leadership, for example, says in its first commandment that leaders should “offer a coherent vision of individual growth and national advancement with justice and dignity for all,” implying that most leaders today do not. Other commandments demand that African leaders encourage “broad participation,” adhere to the letter and spirit of their national constitutions (especially term limits), encourage dissent and disagreement, respect human rights and civil liberties, strengthen the rule of law, promote policies that eradicate poverty and improve the wellbeing of their citizens, ensure a strong code of ethics, refuse to use their offices
for personal gain, oppose corruption, and bolster essential personal freedoms. This uncommonly bold agenda seeks to avoid renewed patrimonial leadership debacles, such as those presided over by Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire, Moi in Kenya, Idi Amin in Uganda, and Jean-Bedel Bokassa in the Central African Republic. The council is highly conscious,too, of the hijacking of Zimbabwe’s government by Mugabe, which has resulted in starvation and drastically reduced living standards.The council is chaired by former President Sir Ketumile Masire of Botswana and includes former Nigerian head of state General Yakubu Gowon,Vice President Moody Awori of Kenya, former Prime Minister Hage Geingob of Namibia, and a dozen other present and former prime ministers and cabinet ministers from Sierra Leone to Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda. All are regarded throughout Africa as men of unusual personal probity and esteem and as accomplished proponents of good governance. The council intends to recruit additional members from the ranks of Africa’s outstanding democratic leaders, Francophone and Anglophone, female and male. Together they will serve the continent by advising international organizations, individual countries, and donor agencies on how to improve leadership. The group stands ready to assist civil societies in countries undergoing serious leadership crises. It will also urge greedy national leaders to attack corrupt practices and adhere to term limits (the current presidents of Gabon, Malawi, Namibia,Uganda, and Zambia, for example, have all had pangs of desire for illegal third terms). Next year(2005), it expects to begin holding special seminars for cabinet ministers and others. The council’s curriculum emphasizes constitutionalism, the rule of law, ethics, accountability,diversity, good fiscal management, coalition building, and the fundamentals of modern micro- and macroeconomics. Training courses will soon be launched.Whether the efforts of the African Leadership Council will reduce bloodshed,diminish corruption, and encourage more prosperity for citizens across Africa is by no means certain. But as a unique African response to the continent’s immense needs, this innovative endeavor is a promising, dramatic step forward.

By
Robert I. Rotberg

Reprinted with permission
Copyrighted 2004 Council on Foreign relations Inc. All Rights Reserved

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

Government's & Accountability

Jen Brea writes:

Governments are only effective and accountable to their people when they are forced to deliver. Introduce external sources for the services and security that a legitimate government is supposed to provide and you give bad or despotic regimes a permanent lifeline.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Changing Development Discourse in Africa

Issa G. Shivji states that:

the state itself has to be reformed and restructured. The despotic colonial and the authoritarian post-colonial state cannot play a popular developmental role. Its limits have been reached. The reformed state must have its roots in the people and must seek legitimacy from the people. It must seek a new social consensus and build its legitimacy not only on the economic terrain – development – but also on the political and legal terrain of popular participation, freedoms, rights and stable constitutional orders.

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS

The Ideology of Development

William Easterly writes:

Like all ideologies, Development promises a comprehensive final answer to all of society’s problems, from poverty and illiteracy to violence and despotic rulers. It shares the common ideological characteristic of suggesting there is only one correct answer, and it tolerates little dissent. It deduces this unique answer for everyone from a general theory that purports to apply to everyone, everywhere. There’s no need to involve local actors who reap its costs and benefits. Development even has its own intelligentsia, made up of experts at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and United Nations.

via PSD Blog
See also Black Star Journals Developmentalism as neo-colonialism?
image courtesy of Foreign Policy

  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • RSS