Chxta's Space (22 Viewers)
- Thread starter Chxta
- Start date
The tube network is gradually getting back to normal after the strike, but be warned that you'll still face major delays on your way to work, and probably still have the opportunity to watch some fights.
I came into the UK for my MSc. programme on 4 September, 2006, that means that yesterday made exactly a year since I have seen home, and like I said a mere two months after, I miss home. Thanks to the RMT though, yesterday morning I saw something that reminded me of Lagos, and this morning on my way to work, I took my camera along hoping to feast y'all on some nice images. Sadly though, there was no fight to photograph this morning, and the strike is off. Yesterday (and the evening before) was divine though. Crowded trains and buses, people gasping for air at every stop, and two full grown men complete with suits and laptop bags coming to blows at Clapham Junction...On a more serious note, a maro na ndi ocha ne ri ego. The story behind the strike which crippled London for almost 48 hours reads like a Lucky Igbinedion-eqsue piece of action.
A quick summary (no expose, I'm at work): there was this firm Metronet which was responsible for the maintenance of most of the tube. According to the gist, the company was running well over budget, and this was set to continue until somewhere along the line their position became untenable because someone high up said enough is enough and refused to keep putting more money down the toilet. The company went into administration, that fancy British method of saying that the company went bankrupt.
The problem with this administration thing is that on the one hand, a new company would take over and as is usual in such matters, a lot of people would loose their jobs. Problem with that is that the day to day workers are the ones who usually get the hard end of the stick, loose their jobs, and pensions, while the fat cats get golden parachutes for essentially leading the company into failure. This is where the RMT stepped in and began their equivalent of 'we no go gree'. And London suffered.
For me, one big question arises though, how did a company which was once reported to be making as much as £3 million a day go bust? Who has eaten the money? Other than that, I am cynically looking forward to the next strike which is scheduled for Monday, and as we speak is still on. This time around, I must take my camera along. Who knows, I might bump into a potential World Heavyweight Boxing champion...
I came into the UK for my MSc. programme on 4 September, 2006, that means that yesterday made exactly a year since I have seen home, and like I said a mere two months after, I miss home. Thanks to the RMT though, yesterday morning I saw something that reminded me of Lagos, and this morning on my way to work, I took my camera along hoping to feast y'all on some nice images. Sadly though, there was no fight to photograph this morning, and the strike is off. Yesterday (and the evening before) was divine though. Crowded trains and buses, people gasping for air at every stop, and two full grown men complete with suits and laptop bags coming to blows at Clapham Junction...On a more serious note, a maro na ndi ocha ne ri ego. The story behind the strike which crippled London for almost 48 hours reads like a Lucky Igbinedion-eqsue piece of action.
A quick summary (no expose, I'm at work): there was this firm Metronet which was responsible for the maintenance of most of the tube. According to the gist, the company was running well over budget, and this was set to continue until somewhere along the line their position became untenable because someone high up said enough is enough and refused to keep putting more money down the toilet. The company went into administration, that fancy British method of saying that the company went bankrupt.
The problem with this administration thing is that on the one hand, a new company would take over and as is usual in such matters, a lot of people would loose their jobs. Problem with that is that the day to day workers are the ones who usually get the hard end of the stick, loose their jobs, and pensions, while the fat cats get golden parachutes for essentially leading the company into failure. This is where the RMT stepped in and began their equivalent of 'we no go gree'. And London suffered.
For me, one big question arises though, how did a company which was once reported to be making as much as £3 million a day go bust? Who has eaten the money? Other than that, I am cynically looking forward to the next strike which is scheduled for Monday, and as we speak is still on. This time around, I must take my camera along. Who knows, I might bump into a potential World Heavyweight Boxing champion...
So the iPhone is coming to the UK in just over a month. Am I the only one that feels shafted already? For a princely sum of £269 we'd get our grubby hands on Steve Job's second youngest child. Apple's preferred operator in the UK is o2, and they've announced that the device would come with contracts of £35, £45 and £55 monthly. Of course, it wouldn't be available for pay as you go users like my miserly self who would rather see the money being spent on air time than have someone deduct it from our accounts.
Permit me if I am cynical about this, but this is just another effort to shaft the British public up the arse with yet another spiked dildo. You see, because of the rather silly tax regimen that they have here, prices for every and all things in this country are way too high already. Now let's look at this 'offer' well: a spanking new iPhone in the US goes for $399 (£200), and as far as I know, you can walk in off the street and buy it without the strings of an o2 contract. Here, you get to buy the shyte for £269 ($538), then you are tied to o2 for 18 months at a minimum of £35 ($70) per month. Which translates to £630 ($1260). For that sum, I could get someone in the US to buy me the iPhone thingy, send it over to Otigba for some boys to unlock it, and send it back to the UK to use with my T-Mobile line. After all that long story, I will still have change to buy me a brand new laptop and a video iPod.
Permit me if I am cynical about this, but this is just another effort to shaft the British public up the arse with yet another spiked dildo. You see, because of the rather silly tax regimen that they have here, prices for every and all things in this country are way too high already. Now let's look at this 'offer' well: a spanking new iPhone in the US goes for $399 (£200), and as far as I know, you can walk in off the street and buy it without the strings of an o2 contract. Here, you get to buy the shyte for £269 ($538), then you are tied to o2 for 18 months at a minimum of £35 ($70) per month. Which translates to £630 ($1260). For that sum, I could get someone in the US to buy me the iPhone thingy, send it over to Otigba for some boys to unlock it, and send it back to the UK to use with my T-Mobile line. After all that long story, I will still have change to buy me a brand new laptop and a video iPod.
But you're African. Your stereotype tells you to party all night long when you've got some dough. You should be squandering everything and be happy alltogether when you're dirt poor. And you should conclude your rich man adventures with some African saying like: "I'm not meant to be rich, but what can you do about it, huh?".
ok
In the last few days there has been a lot of trouble in Pakistan. The story methinks is well known, and I have neither the time nor the energy to delve into it. I just want to point out that General Musharraf has suspended the constitution of his country, and is as we speak taking on the legal system of his country simply because they appear to oppose his attempts to elongate his rule by any means possible. Aside from the token noises, the powers that be in the International Committee of Nations has just stood by and watched. Can we compare this with the reaction to Saddam Hussein?
Indeed it should be clear to all but the least discerning minds that promoting democracy comes a distant second to promoting self interest as far as the U.S government is concerned, and Dr. Ms. Rice would continue to simply be 'deeply disturbed' by the events in Pakistan, while those on the ground would be beaten to submission. I don't think there will be any elections in January. If in the event that they do hold, General Musharraf would metamorphose to Mr. Musharraf, and would continue to be an important ally in the 'war on terror', one of whose targets is the democratically elected government of the Islamic Republic of Iran!
My main fear from all this is that there are/may be some army officers in countries such as Naija who are watching the situation with keen interest, and learning that 'valuable' lesson that provided they are on the good side of the Western powers, that it is okay to be very undemocratic. Indeed, this blatant self interest by the powers that be actually helps more than any other force to prop up some of the most undemocratic institutions that have ever straddled the plane in some of the less developed parts of the world, and the regime of Mobutu Sese Seko immediately springs to mind, as does the current monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Double standards is indeed the way to go in the promotion of the 'strategic energy interests of America'.
These double standards bring us to the main topic of concern, AfriCom.
The United States Africa Command is to be responsible for U.S. military operations in and military relations with 53 African nations - except Egypt who are being grouped with the Middle East - and it is meant to be fully operational by September 2008.
The first commander of Africom, General Ward recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Africom would first seek "African solutions to African problems." This makes Africom sound like a magnanimous effort by the United States for the good of Africans, since we are incapable of solving our own problems. Permit me to say that this is horse shit.
As far as I am concerned, Africom is a dangerous continuation of US military expansion around the world. I do not understand how permanently stationing American troops in African countries would help protect American security, which should be the concern of the American military.
This militarization of Africa is rationalized by no less a persona than Mr. Bush(!) who claims that "Africom will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote the goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth". What he forgot to mention is that securing and controlling African natural resources such as the oil from Nigeria, Angola and Sao Tome is vital to US trade interests, especially given the growing competition from China. The major multinationals are beginning to increasingly rely on Africa for oil, given the instability in the MidEast which according to Rt. Gen. John Abizaid, may last for at least half a century! Nigeria and Angola alone currently provide up to 15% of America's crude oil imports, and that figure is expected to rise to 25 % by 2015.
That is the real reason for setting up Africom. No one should be deceived about the sudden 'magnanimity'.
On the face of it, a strong military presence in Africa may appear to be the way to go in bringing about stability to the continent, and one thing I know for certain is that the sudden interest in African resources has led to so many multinationals coming in, which in turn has led to a slight improvement in our hithero very bad methods of doing business (although their own methods of dealing with our governments encourages a lot of corruption), but more importantly, their entry into the African (read Nigerian) market place has led to improved employment opportunities for a lot of our youths.
However we must take into account our own history, and the history of US military involvement in Africa. The mix has been terrible. During the cold war, African countries were used as pawns in post-colonial proxy wars in order to counter Soviet expansion. The preferred method of countering the Soviets was to sponsor and then prop up some of the most repressive dictators the continent has ever known. I mentioned Mobutu earlier. It was American and Belgian agents that killed Patrice Lumumba, an elected Prime Minister, simply because his political leanings were distinctly non-capitalist. It is unarguable that the Congo has never recovered from the resultant conflict, and this is a country that is so resource rich it makes even Nigeria's claim of natural resources look like a child's empty boast! Washington has backed monsters such as Savimbi and Sam Doe.
The experience of American intervention (or lack of it) in African affairs had a devastating impact on African democracy, peace and development. Washington tacitly backed the apartheid regime in South Africa until it became politically inconvenient to do so. This rather 'proud' history also includes cases of looking the other way while atrocities were being committed because it was deemed not to be in American national interest to intervene. Cases that immediately come to mind are Nigeria (1966-70), Ethiopia-Eritrea (1961-1991), Chad (1965-1993), Namibia (1966-1988), Mozambique (1977-2002), Idi Amin, Rwanda (1994), Liberia (1989-1996), Sierra Leone (1991-2002) and the ongoing slaughter in Darfur! I think that an increased US military presence in Africa will likely follow a pattern of extracting resources while playing God. There will be the divide and rule thing, where factions would be set one against the other, and the result would be further destabilization of the region.
We must also keep in mind that we have shown before that we are capable of sorting ourselves out, and that despite the propaganda you see on CNN and the BBC, it was Nigeria that ended the wars in both Liberia and Sierra Leone, a situation which in 1996 led a bemused Larry King to say that, "Nigeria is a funny country, they export what they don't have (democracy) and import what they have (oil)."
It is the opinion of this writer that if America really wishes the 'helpless' people of Africa well, there are better ways to go about it than militaristic expansionism. Fairer trade policies as opposed to protectionism for American manufacturers is one such way to go in my view. We must also be mindful that the two most powerful and influential sub-Saharan African countries, Nigeria and South Africa have made it clear that they are against the whole Africom parade. The question that should then come from that is this: if both countries which are potentially invaluable allies are against it, then why go ahead with it?
That brings me back to Julius Caesar's dialogue with Canidius: the presence of the army makes the law legal. The presence of American troops on some other country's soil would dramatically increase American influence in that country. America has an empire of bases around the world at the moment. Of all the countries in the world, there are only 46 that do not have a permanent (or semi permanent) American military presence, and most of these are in Africa. If American troops are permanently stationed on African soil, we won't just be under their influence, we would like Britain and the Western Europeans find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to do their bidding.
Indeed it should be clear to all but the least discerning minds that promoting democracy comes a distant second to promoting self interest as far as the U.S government is concerned, and Dr. Ms. Rice would continue to simply be 'deeply disturbed' by the events in Pakistan, while those on the ground would be beaten to submission. I don't think there will be any elections in January. If in the event that they do hold, General Musharraf would metamorphose to Mr. Musharraf, and would continue to be an important ally in the 'war on terror', one of whose targets is the democratically elected government of the Islamic Republic of Iran!
My main fear from all this is that there are/may be some army officers in countries such as Naija who are watching the situation with keen interest, and learning that 'valuable' lesson that provided they are on the good side of the Western powers, that it is okay to be very undemocratic. Indeed, this blatant self interest by the powers that be actually helps more than any other force to prop up some of the most undemocratic institutions that have ever straddled the plane in some of the less developed parts of the world, and the regime of Mobutu Sese Seko immediately springs to mind, as does the current monarchy in Saudi Arabia. Double standards is indeed the way to go in the promotion of the 'strategic energy interests of America'.
These double standards bring us to the main topic of concern, AfriCom.
The United States Africa Command is to be responsible for U.S. military operations in and military relations with 53 African nations - except Egypt who are being grouped with the Middle East - and it is meant to be fully operational by September 2008.
The first commander of Africom, General Ward recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Africom would first seek "African solutions to African problems." This makes Africom sound like a magnanimous effort by the United States for the good of Africans, since we are incapable of solving our own problems. Permit me to say that this is horse shit.
As far as I am concerned, Africom is a dangerous continuation of US military expansion around the world. I do not understand how permanently stationing American troops in African countries would help protect American security, which should be the concern of the American military.
This militarization of Africa is rationalized by no less a persona than Mr. Bush(!) who claims that "Africom will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security to the people of Africa and promote the goals of development, health, education, democracy and economic growth". What he forgot to mention is that securing and controlling African natural resources such as the oil from Nigeria, Angola and Sao Tome is vital to US trade interests, especially given the growing competition from China. The major multinationals are beginning to increasingly rely on Africa for oil, given the instability in the MidEast which according to Rt. Gen. John Abizaid, may last for at least half a century! Nigeria and Angola alone currently provide up to 15% of America's crude oil imports, and that figure is expected to rise to 25 % by 2015.
That is the real reason for setting up Africom. No one should be deceived about the sudden 'magnanimity'.
On the face of it, a strong military presence in Africa may appear to be the way to go in bringing about stability to the continent, and one thing I know for certain is that the sudden interest in African resources has led to so many multinationals coming in, which in turn has led to a slight improvement in our hithero very bad methods of doing business (although their own methods of dealing with our governments encourages a lot of corruption), but more importantly, their entry into the African (read Nigerian) market place has led to improved employment opportunities for a lot of our youths.
However we must take into account our own history, and the history of US military involvement in Africa. The mix has been terrible. During the cold war, African countries were used as pawns in post-colonial proxy wars in order to counter Soviet expansion. The preferred method of countering the Soviets was to sponsor and then prop up some of the most repressive dictators the continent has ever known. I mentioned Mobutu earlier. It was American and Belgian agents that killed Patrice Lumumba, an elected Prime Minister, simply because his political leanings were distinctly non-capitalist. It is unarguable that the Congo has never recovered from the resultant conflict, and this is a country that is so resource rich it makes even Nigeria's claim of natural resources look like a child's empty boast! Washington has backed monsters such as Savimbi and Sam Doe.
The experience of American intervention (or lack of it) in African affairs had a devastating impact on African democracy, peace and development. Washington tacitly backed the apartheid regime in South Africa until it became politically inconvenient to do so. This rather 'proud' history also includes cases of looking the other way while atrocities were being committed because it was deemed not to be in American national interest to intervene. Cases that immediately come to mind are Nigeria (1966-70), Ethiopia-Eritrea (1961-1991), Chad (1965-1993), Namibia (1966-1988), Mozambique (1977-2002), Idi Amin, Rwanda (1994), Liberia (1989-1996), Sierra Leone (1991-2002) and the ongoing slaughter in Darfur! I think that an increased US military presence in Africa will likely follow a pattern of extracting resources while playing God. There will be the divide and rule thing, where factions would be set one against the other, and the result would be further destabilization of the region.
We must also keep in mind that we have shown before that we are capable of sorting ourselves out, and that despite the propaganda you see on CNN and the BBC, it was Nigeria that ended the wars in both Liberia and Sierra Leone, a situation which in 1996 led a bemused Larry King to say that, "Nigeria is a funny country, they export what they don't have (democracy) and import what they have (oil)."
It is the opinion of this writer that if America really wishes the 'helpless' people of Africa well, there are better ways to go about it than militaristic expansionism. Fairer trade policies as opposed to protectionism for American manufacturers is one such way to go in my view. We must also be mindful that the two most powerful and influential sub-Saharan African countries, Nigeria and South Africa have made it clear that they are against the whole Africom parade. The question that should then come from that is this: if both countries which are potentially invaluable allies are against it, then why go ahead with it?
That brings me back to Julius Caesar's dialogue with Canidius: the presence of the army makes the law legal. The presence of American troops on some other country's soil would dramatically increase American influence in that country. America has an empire of bases around the world at the moment. Of all the countries in the world, there are only 46 that do not have a permanent (or semi permanent) American military presence, and most of these are in Africa. If American troops are permanently stationed on African soil, we won't just be under their influence, we would like Britain and the Western Europeans find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to do their bidding.
