Maritime shortcuts

September 10th, 2009
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

world map in Arabic
Creative Commons License photo credit: mikel_maron

I know I am missing several pieces of information but I cannot help wondering about the curious case of Arctic Sea, the ship which was hijacked or not hijacked while carrying weapons to Iran or timber to Algeria, depending on who you ask. The whole thing seems so bizarre with all its claimed hijackings and connections to Israel etc. that it seems almost impossible to take a grip on it all (more info, though, about the incident can be found  here and here and in plenty of other places as well.

There are so many things that just do not fit. Take the route for example. If you want to smuggle arms from Russia to Iran, why do you wanna go through the Atlantic, Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean when you can just row your boat over the Caspian Sea? It is not only quicker, but I suppose a lot easier as well, no need to worry about the coast guards and inspections of god knows how many different, more or less well-functioning states?

Then again, if the missiles or arms to be taken to Iran were in Kaliningrad, I suppose there was no other option. But if so why go to Finland to get timber, why not just get the “fake” cargo directly from Kaliningrad, im sure you can buy timber from there as well..

Ok, maybe that was done in order to lose the real “origin”of the cargo. Finland and timber, I do not think it can get any less suspicious than that. But what the hell was this hijacking thing then? Hijack timber in the Baltic Sea? Just buy an axe and go to Lapland and you’ll get it lot cheaper and easier.

In any case, let’s suppose there was no “real” hijackers, let’s assume it really was Mossad or some Israeli organization who was behind it all. But then again, why let the boat leave the harbor in the first place, why not just make a call to Lavrov or some other Russian authority when the boat was already in Kalinigrad and say: “hey, some of your general or someone is trying to smuggle your missiles?” Or later on in the port of Pietarsaari in Finland? One could assume this would be of interest at least to the Russian authorities… “Really? Well, we better take a look then before it sails..” would seem like a likely answer..

Then again, I quess it is possible that the whole thing was approved by the Russian authorities. However, that takes us back to the first question, why not just sail across the Caspian Sea? Could not get much more simple and quicker than that. Or maybe it is just that the weather in the Caspian Sea can get really nasty..

Or maybe it is possible it really was just timber. But in that case why hijack (or whatever you wanna call it), and why switch off the tracking device? And how incompetent is the captain if he ends up in Cap Verde when he was supposed to go to Algeria? I have heard of drunken seamen but this has to be the record. Furthermore, the market price for timber has to ridiculously high if it is worth on the part of the Russian authorities to send so many vessels after it (including two nuclear subs..) and then fly the suspects on three different army jets back to Russia.

No wonder everybody is so interested to know what really happened, even though it is also possible one will never know for sure. There is no shortage of trying though, Google News gives the words “Arctic Sea” and “ship” English newscount of 1.639. That also goes on to show, that if you wanna do something in secret, this really is not a good way to do it..

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)


  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Blogosphere News
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Meneame

Related Posts

  • Science of Choosing.. A few days ago I came across with a statement made by a an ex-rally driver and a current  member...
  • To worry or not..? [/caption] There is something odd in the swine flu, yet it is somewhat hard to point out what the odd...

Breaking the Bedplate of Economics

September 9th, 2009
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Shanghai skyline
Creative Commons License photo credit: johnkoetsier

As the Climate Conference of Copenhagen keeps approaching the conversation on who should do what and who pay for it all heats up as well. The argument coming from many of the developing countries (and up till recently the US and few other industrialized countries as well) is that tackling climate change is something they cannot afford. Furthermore, it has been stated by for example China that since a lot of this warming has been caused by the emissions made by developed countries historically they are also the ones who should fix it. The argument continues by saying that developing countries can take part, yet their primary concern lies in reaching same prosperity levels that people have accustomed  in the developed countries.

Nobody seems to really disagree about the overall importance of slowing down climate change. It just seems to be very much a question of financial resources, and as always, it seems to be the economy that has the upper hand over environment. Developing countries are not wrong either by stating the historical facts that point responsibility towards the industrialised countries. Something has already been to that, for example the EU set out a 15 bn € climate aid plan. It is very much under what the developing countries hoped for, but still a start (even though one could question some developing countries ability to make sure that money goes into good use).

Unfortunately, climate change is not a question on who is right and who is wrong. It is bound to take place no matter whose fault it turns out to be. Excuses won’t do any good either. The statement on “cannot afford” does not hold much water either, not on the long run. The view over economy prevailing over environment is even more ridiculous. One has to remember, that climate change as such has nothing to do with people’s right to get rich, even though indirectly it might seem so on short term. Curiously enough, if the climate changes ‘sufficiently’ and environmental destruction keeps on continuing, it might make the question on who is rich and who is not even quite irrelevant.

How so? For one thing, putting economics on one side and environment on the other is a very outdated way to view the world. Tackling climate change comes with a cost, but according to the Stern review and others doing nothing is going to be even more expensive. Therefore, the latter option is simply bad business and bad for the development. Furthermore, the longer one waits the more one pays. Better still, wait long enough and there might be even no price to be paid anymore, since there is nothing or very little that can be done in the first place.

Second, as Stern and comp.  show with their report, economics and environment are not separated from each others, they are very much interconnected. Moreover, uncontrary to the understanding of many, it is the economics that is the luxury good in the world of environment, not vice versa. Our, and everybody’s economy is very much built on the proper working of the environment: to be able to work, start a business, do research one has to have air to breath, food to eat and water to drink, just to remain more or less healthy. All these things depend on the environment, more so than from the economics. Economies, big and small, developed and developing,  are ultimately built on the bedrock of the environment, not the other way around.

Thus, it makes little sense to argue whose fault is all this. No matter how justified that might be, at the moment it seems more of a luxury we can concentrate on after having first dealt with the problem itself. Furthermore, even for the developing countries (or especially for them) it makes good economic sense to participate in full in order to stop climate change and environmental degradation . China, among others, should do so already for its own sake, some years ago 16 of of the 20 most polluted cities in the world were in China, and river pollution threats sixth of its population.

Eventually it is of little use to have a nice car or a house or whatever if you cannot breath, drink or eat. And it might not be much better if you have to spend all the fortunes you made on a tank of fresh air and bottle of fresh water. Then again, who knows, if you are rich enough you just might be able to buy a decent carrot to go with that water.

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)


  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Blogosphere News
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Meneame

Related Posts

  • The Google Conspiracy Source: StatCounter Global Stats - Search Engine Market Share Few days ago I came across with the graph above. I...
  • FuTrends1: Europe as a Miniworld Some years ago I did an internship with the task of trying to "predict" the trends of the future. I...

And yet… it moves?

September 2nd, 2009
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Marx und iPod
Creative Commons License photo credit: myuibe

Just finished reading Thomas L. Friedman’s “The World is Flat”. Interesting book, the only thing is that I probably read it few years too late, many of the things mentioned in the book have become so common that saying them out loud seems almost like stating the obvious (which actually goes on to show how rapid the change has been, point mentioned in the book as well). However, the book has its moments even now, and one of them especially caught my attention.

After few hundred pages of examples and explanations how more and more people across the world can now participate to the global economy and how the world is truly becoming connected and globalized (or “flat” as Friedman puts it), Friedman interviews Michael J. Sandel, political theorist from Harvard University. He points out that the first to foresee all this was, somewhat surprisingly, Karl Marx, who described it in his “Communist Manifesto” together with Engels. The text seems to match the way things are now relatively well.  The manifesto states for example the following:

“The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie (a.k.a. the capitalists) over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere [...] industries[...] no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. [...] The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production…[...] It (the bourgeoisie) has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.” (The whole manifesto can be found here).

The curious thing is (and one that Friedman’s book does not mention) that for Marx, capitalism was not the final destination but only a stop on the road towards communism and economic socialism. After the fall of communism in Europe in the early 90′s it was widely seen that Marxist theory on economic socialism and the socialist/communist world order was pretty much over and done with. However, since Marx’s and Engels’ views describe well the way things are now, it might prove out to be an interesting  thought experiment to ponder that what if the era of socialism that Marx “foresaw” was not due to start in the beginning of last century but is yet to come?

I hope this would not mean USSR 2.0 or any of the current communist states for that matter, I think the results of these experiments have not been too promising. There are, however, quite a few (e.g. Noam Chomsky) who consider that in practice Soviet Union or any of the others were not really socialist or communist states at all. Thus, we are still to be seen a “true” communist state and if this really is the case, the question is not only what would it be like but also which one of the world’s states will then turn out to be the world’s first truly communist state in a genuine marxist spirit?

In relation to the first question, I suppose it might a be good idea to take a look on Marx’s writings, something I have not really done. What comes to the second one, well, all I can say is that I would put my 2 cents on China. Why? Because out of all the states in the world it seems to match most the marxist views on a capitalist state. Therefore, if capitalism is only a phase as Marx predicted, China seems to be well prepared to move on to the next stage. Furthermore, there is also the case of pure irony: after taking a U-turn on many of the socialist and communist policies and heading towards market economy and capitalism, just imagine the irony if China found itself from the place it originally wanted to go and later on depart?

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)


  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Blogosphere News
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Meneame

Related Posts

  • Paving the Way [/caption] This is based on 5-minute-thinking in the sofa, but why is it that everytime there a new "occupational category"...
  • Culture and Web Design Back in Finland web design always used to pay quite a lot of attention to usability and functionality. Even though...

FuTrends3: Mental warming

August 1st, 2009
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Discusiones de pareja
Creative Commons License photo credit: sergis blog

Few weeks back the heat really started to kick in and made it rather unpleasent to go around the city. It became practically impossible to walk few steps outside without breaking a sweat, literally. The interesting thing is, though, that it was not just the temperature that increased. Also the people got more hot-headed as well.

With more heat, or at least so it seemed in our neighborhood, became also more arguing, shouting, insulting and even on some occasions physical fighting. People tended to get annoyed a little bit easier, and in some cases it did not seem much that finally made them lose their temper. True, I do  not know for sure if it was the heat that made all this, but the two phenomenons coincided timewise almost perfectly.

I took a deeper look into the topic and find out that there was actually some research that pointed to the same direction. It has been shown that people tend to lose their nerves easier when put into a hot room, as well as that within the US cities with hotter climate had a higher violent crime rate. Others say that the heat factor might not be that significant after all, but admit that is not insignificant either. Furthermore, it makes common sense that when you are thirsty and have your clothes glued on you because of sweat and feel anxiety as well as uncomfortable and tired it can be very little that push us to explode.

I suppose the good news is that every heat wave has its end. However, as noted in the link above, with global warming that heat is going to get even hotter and more common. The trend therefore is that due to rising temperatures there is going to be an increase also in losing temper, which leads to more quarreling, more arguing, more fighting and in the worst case more violence and even killings.Having said that, it is not hot climate alone that leads to this, things like poverty and lack of opportunities (among many others) can be seen as equal culprits as well. However, maybe it should be taken into consideration that in crime fighting cooling down weatherwise could be one part of the solution.

If nothing else, more air-conditioning might help also, even though only temporarily, more air-conditioning would likely end up meaning more energy consumption and more climate change. Thus, it just might be that all we can do is to get ready and used for the unpleasent neighbor to become a little bit more unpleasent, the rude client becoming even more rude and watching our back few times more often when walking in the street.

Mental Warming: Do you find this trend likely?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)


  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Blogosphere News
  • MySpace
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Meneame

Related Posts

  • Quality did go out of style The opposite of the title use to be the slogan of the famous jeans and clothing maker Levi Strauss. However,...
  • Breaking the Bedplate of Economics photo credit: johnkoetsier As the Climate Conference of Copenhagen keeps approaching the conversation on who should do what and who...

Green Web Hosting