Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth

Continuing from my previous article, "Blood and oil: The hidden cost of an occupied Iraq." Here is another comprehensive look at how Iraq's ONLY vital resource - the petroleum - is being exploited by the US and UK multinational oil conglomerates. From Global Policy Forum, I give you "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth."


How can we achieve world peace, humanitarian aid, and environmental protection when there are giant corporations constantly looking for new ways to exploit the impoverished and war-torn populations? It is those culprits, together with their inseparable alliance with the corrupted First World governments, that are the ultimate villains and oppressors, overshadowing and manipulating the global politics to their own likings.

This is especially true as the current event unfolds in the Middle East. We must be more vigilant as the signs of exploitation will be increasingly more obscured from public eyes as they will be shrouded behind the pretext of establishing democracy in oil-abundant countries, such as Iraq and Iran. We, being the educated, conscious, and dignified part of the population, can no longer live in luxury when people are suffering next door or overseas, due to our cause. We must stand up and be united to liberate and give a helping hand by our own democratic rights. We must force the government to re-examine their inhumane foreign policies, and their approach to "secure" our "national interests."

To live in oblivion is to deny our conscience self, support oppression and throw away the fundamental principles which we hold so dear. Egalitarianism is the ultimate form of human understanding, respect and achievement. We should all strive for that!

"War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength." This is the doctrinal instinct we're being brainwashed with today in this "free world." How you get around that is up to you. Wake up and breath the fresh the air! For it is those of whom indulge in none-sense and wasteful spending the ultimate "model citizenry" of an Orwellian society!

Note: I will try to summarize "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth" soon, but the basic premises are outlined in my previous article and from the Independent.

Blood and oil: The hidden cost of an occupied Iraq

As the American casualties surpasses the 3,000 mark, many of us wonder, "what do the US and its allies have to gain from this bloodbath?" Is the occupation of Iraq really worth the lives of countless Americans, many of whom will not even get a chance to say goodbye to their loved ones? With the announcement of a troop increase by the Bush Administration imminent, one could only wonder what that hell are we doing there in Iraq when the "major combat operations" were accomplished since May 2003?

Since post-9/11, the Bush Administration has said many times that the purpose of ousting Saddam is for the liberation of Iraqis, many of whom were severely oppressed under his terrible regime. The administration hardly ever mentions its true intent, including but not excluded to, the control of Iraq's oil reserves (which ranks 3rd internationally amongst all of the "conventional oil" producing countries), exploitation of Iraqis, "Westernization" of Iraq, and, ultimately, the reconstruction of a US-friendly Iraq, including the establishment of a pro-Western government and infrastructure through numerous US-assisted projects, training of its military, and the invasion by US commerce, industry and ideology. Some of these "hidden" intentions were only recently uncovered by the international press. While most issues are upfront and obvious, those who continuously criticize the US foreign policy are quickly stifled, and never to be mentioned in the "mainstream" US media. This is particularly true on the control of the most vital resource known to Man - the petroleum.

The 3-year long US involvement in the Iraq war is soon to be paid off. Fortunately, for the 1% of the Americans and their allies, this payment will be in the form of a perpetual contract to extract this vital, non-renewable resource. The Independent reported recently:

And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the [US and its allies around the] world [from] running out of oil.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Furthermore:

Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil - it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy - control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves are in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation.

The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law.

The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.

And, more:

It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

Dr Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: "It's very dangerous ... although the security situation is far better in the north." Even taking that into account, however, he believed that "for a company to take 20 per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large".

Production sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed.

And, additionally:

"PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It is not true at all that this is the only way to do it." Technical services agreements, of the type common in countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be all that was necessary.

James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group, said: "The US and the UK have been pressing hard on this. It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in Iraq." The Iraqi authorities, he said, were "a government under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The US has a lot of leverage... Iraq is in no condition right now to go ahead and do this."

Mr Paul added: "It is relatively easy to get the oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant fields that are completely mapped, [and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious."

Mr Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq might become peaceful enough for development of its oil resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a future struggle over natural resources which has led to decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as Iran.

Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its terms became known among ordinary Iraqis.

"The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors," their statement said. "The occupier seeks and wishes to secure... energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation."

The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a US intelligence report as a cause célèbre for terrorism.

So, is the US invasion really for the benefit of ordinary Iraqi citizens? Or, is it to quench the forever thirsty multinationals of the petroleum business? Is the US invasion really a ploy to oust Saddam? Or, is it to guarantee the "national security" of a global hegemony?

With the Persian Gulf becoming increasingly more volatile, it is in the best interest of both the US and its client states to secure significant petroleum reserves at all costs. Especially, with the stagnate US economy, ongoing dollar depreciation, the rise of crude, and many more ferocious competition from economic-giant like China and India, the influx of cheap oil would be the only temporary solution to reverse this downward spiral. Furthermore, when you have a government which spent close to $500 billion dollar on military budget last year, this seems to be the only viable solution!

With the fast-vanishing crude, the future of the Middle East is no longer controlled by its inhabitants, rather it is controlled by pirates and dictators with the cohesive intention to fine-tune the politics of the Middle East.

Saddam's "crime against humanity," is it rightly justified?

Those of you that are following the current events, you'll be most likely being repeatedly bombarded by the news of Saddam Hussein's impending execution (well, they've just executed him a few hours ago). However, what you probably didn't notice, and the western media's failure in disclosure, is the way Saddam was convicted based on his "crime against humanity." Today's BBC read:

Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court on 5 November after a year-long trial over the killings of 148 Shias from the village of Dujail in the 1980s.

A trial in a second case, alleging genocide against Kurds, continues against him.

So, how come Saddam was not convicted and sentenced to death for his alleged genocide against the Kurds? What about the hundreds of Shias he murdered in the aftermath of post-Gulf War uprisings in the early 90's? What about the 1.5 millions of Iranians who died in the atrocity of Iran-Iraq war? Why did the prosecutors hang him in a hurry? Why didn't they give him impartial just in arguably the most important trial of this year?

Saddam was not convicted for the aforementioned genocides and atrocities because the US, Britain, and their allies, often termed "one of us," had all committed similar atrocities against either domestically or in a foreign soil. For the US, it was the murder of Iraqi civilians during the Gulf War. Remember the "Highway of Death," where both American and British bombers targeted fleeing civilians and soldiers, whom had no protection whatsoever against attacks from the air, with precision bombs, strafing after strafing? How then, does the US-backed Iraqi court judge whether Saddam has committed a war crime or a crime against humanity? How do you think they did that?

The US-sponsored criminal court prosecutes any "crime against humanity" case, since the post-World War 2 era, base on what the perpetrator had committed. If the dictator had committed crime which neither US nor Britain has committed in similarity then it is to be judged as "crime against humanity," however, if the dictator committed crime which both countries and their allies has committed in similarity and intensity, such as the brutal massacre of civilians and defenseless soldiers along the "Highway of Death," and US-sponsored Kurdish massacre by the Turkish government, the crime is not to be tried as "crime against humanity." Sometimes, it is not even used as evidence in the "trial."

This is very true as we have witnessed in Iraq recently, notably the trial of Saddam Hussein.

One cannot find what I mentioned above amongst any of the western media, it is only mentioned in literatures written by intellectuals whom are critical of US foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky. This bias in prosecuting a criminal for the war crimes he/her committed has been stated explicitly in several of Chomsky's books, interviews, and documentaries. This agenda of the elite states behind the prosecution of Saddam would clearly answer Robert Fisk's questions in his most recent article from Independent:

But history will record that the Arabs and other Muslims and, indeed, many millions in the West, will ask another question this weekend, a question that will not be posed in other Western newspapers because it is not the narrative laid down for us by our presidents and prime ministers - what about the other guilty men?

No, Tony Blair is not Saddam. We don't gas our enemies. George W Bush is not Saddam. He didn't invade Iran or Kuwait. He only invaded Iraq. But hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead - and thousands of Western troops are dead - because Messrs Bush and Blair and the Spanish Prime Minister and the Italian Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister went to war in 2003 on a potage of lies and mendacity and, given the weapons we used, with great brutality.

Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.

And the mass killings we perpetrated in 2003 with our depleted uranium shells and our "bunker buster" bombs and our phosphorous, the murderous post-invasion sieges of Fallujah and Najaf, the hell-disaster of anarchy we unleashed on the Iraqi population in the aftermath of our "victory" - our "mission accomplished" - who will be found guilty of this? Such expiation as we might expect will come, no doubt, in the self-serving memoirs of Blair and Bush, written in comfortable and wealthy retirement.

Of course, the atrocities conducted by the "real" sponsors of the criminal states would always be disguised under the pretext of humanitarian aid and liberation against the dictatorial regimes. The crimes we committed are simply not to be questioned. They're aid and assistance to the "impoverished," although most of them are measured in similar intensity as "crime against humanity." This is not what the US policy makers want you to know!

Who exactly is revolutionizing the media?

So who exactly is revolutionizing the media? Is it really 'you,' as stated in Time's 2006 Person of the Year? Or, is it 'they,' the few multinational conglomerates who dominates the airwaves, newspapers, and the Internet? In a recent commentary from the Christian Science Monitor, 'you' are no longer the backbone in shaping and revolutionizing the 'media', but it is 'them' who do all the molding and manipulation to direct public opinion for their own use. An excerpt from the commentary reads:

Time's cover suggests that everyone has played a role in the world's new, dynamic media environment. But its premise is flawed. The evidence shows that only a small percentage of Americans are really contributing to the Web in meaningful ways - or even at all.

Surveys show that about 70 percent of adult Americans have been on the Internet at some point. That's a big number, but what do those people do?

Only 8 percent - about 12 million? - keep a blog, according to a recent survey from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Of those bloggers, 84 percent blog as a "hobby" or say it's "not something I spend a lot of time on." And 37 percent of them say "their personal experiences" are their primary topic.

To be fair, other studies that also measure the Web proclivities of users ages 12-18 do show more Net activity, so the potential for growth is there. But looking at YouTube, one can't help but assume a great deal of their time is spent posting amusing video clips. Someone has to put up all those Aqua Teen Hunger Force cartoons.

What the media revolution and Web 2.0 have really done is create a new and interesting class of media. It's not mainstream - at least not yet - but it certainly isn't "You." It's actually more "Them." And if Time really wants to make "Them" the Person of the Year, then why not? There are worse choices.

Come to think of it, it is really 'they' who is in control of the popular masses. In North America, multinational conglomerates are also "persons" where a "person", in legal term, is officially defined "to include any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation or other organization, or any government entity." The issue of media control is nothing new, but it has been studied and documented since the "modern-age" of communications began in the 80's. As mentioned in Noam Chomsky's book Rogue States, the multinationals are "to ensure that private [multinational] agencies will control the media and thus be able to restrict [your] thought to vested beliefs." Furthermore:

They seek further to "nullify the customs of ages" by creating "new conceptions of individual attainment and community desire," business leaders explain, "civilizing" people to perceive their needs in terms of consumption of goods rather than quality of life and work, and to abandon any thought of a "share in the decisions which often profoundly modify their way of life," as called for by Vatican extremists. Control of media by a few megacorporations is a contribution to this end. Concentration has accelerated, thanks in part to recent deregulation that also eliminates even residual protection of public interest. In the latest edition of his standard review of the topic, Ben Bagdikian reports a decline in controlling firms from 50 in 1984 to 10 today - huge empires such as Disney and General Electric, though the spectrum has broadened with Rupert Murdoch's entry.

Although this book was written back in 2000, everything in it still holds dearly true up to this day. Their ultimate goal is to indoctrinate the masses with an undeniable urge in "materialist consumption" in which "the negative aspects on others are considered completely irrelevant." This method of mass control is being dramatically simplified, with the help of merger and acquisition booms, and the emergence of a countable number of megacorporations, it has become significantly easier to direct popular masses and opinions to other non-senses, away from the state imperialism and terror, humanitarian aid, violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, apartheid, Global Warming, and Globalization.

So, are 'you' really revolutionizing the media, as stated in Time? Or, are 'you' the victim of a premeditated common goal set by the top 1%? Either way, I sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas, and a wonderful New Year!

"You" named Time's Person of the Year

Congratulations! All of us who shared personal stories, thoughts, political opinions, public diaries, photographies, pictures, homemade musics and videos have been named Time's Person of the Year. This prestigious award is an annual event which Time uses to commemorate a major contributing person, group, entity, idea, and place to the humanities for the entire year, be it good or bad. However, commemorating the users of Internet is hardly attributed from the fact that an average user would actually use the Internet to do good deeds. It is for sure the majority of Internet users are much more able to freely voice their opinions and criticisms nowadays, but how many are putting it to good use?

Undoubtedly, the Internet communities has grown significantly over the past year. Take a look at our own community, the blogosphere. It is predicted that "the blogging phenomenon is set to peak in 2007", but how many of us are willing to stand up and fight for a better world? How many bloggers are indulging themselves in materialistic and consumerism non-sense? What exactly is "user-generated content"? Is it simply to bypass all thoughts so to spread non-sense, junk, empty, shallow, and culture-prohibitive contents? To simply imitate what other people, or news has to said without the critical examinations by ourselves? How can this be the "founding and framing the new digital democracy" when this is simply another form of implicit mind-control, modeled by the government, elite businesses, and major conglomerates?

Like what I mentioned earlier here:

Consumerism and empty pop culture are transforming you and me into mindless, thoughtless, buying-on-impulse zombies. One who is oblivious to the current worldly events.

The idea of the freedom of expression over Internet is no different than the whole pop culture of consumerism. One is no longer logging online to view the worldly events, unbiased news, critical opinions, and activism, but to simply indulge in non-sense such as sharing videos over Youtube, Myspacing, Orkuting, and etc. To perceive this as a new age in the "new digital democracy" is just rhetorically incorrect. It is not a democracy but a twisted form of Fascism, wasteful spending, mind-control, and propaganda. What "you" must do is to resist this form of mind-control and stupidity, and open your lungs to breath the fresh air, to see more broadly, and be aware of what is happening around you. We can no longer close our eyes.

This century will be the utmost critical in determining the survival of the entire human race. If we shun our eyes and ignore Globalization, and Global Warming, more people will suffer and die, and the effects of which will linger on to harm the next generations of you and me. It is up to us to determine how much these two significant events will forever shape and adversely influence the human race. No one else could determine this.

For those enlightened souls, other topics I've blogged over the year include:

1. End of cheap oil: 1
2. Global Warming: 1, 2, 3, 4
3. Human rights: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
4. Consumerism and wasteful spending: 1, 2, 3
   
5. Globalization: 1, 2, 3
   
6. Invasion of privacy: 1

Enjoy!

Iran holds Holocaust conference

Well, after the fiasco this past September. Mr. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, has amazed us once again with the gathering of a Holocaust Conference this week in Tehran. Quoting from BBC's article and Independent:

President Ahmadinejad's long-promised Holocaust conference opened in Tehran yesterday to an audience including infamous revisionists, racists and anti-Semites. The only speakers who confirmed the Holocaust as a historical fact were a group of rabbis who criticised its use to justify Israeli abuses against Palestinians.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned the scale of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews died.

Its main aim is to create an opportunity for thinkers who cannot express their views freely in Europe about the Holocaust

Participants include a number of well-known "revisionist" Western academics. American David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, is to present a paper.

But a number of Jewish rabbis are also there. One, British Rabbi Ahron Cohen, said he had come to the conference to put the "Orthodox Jewish viewpoint" across.

"We certainly say there was a Holocaust, we lived through the Holocaust. But in no way can it be used as a justification for perpetrating unjust acts against the Palestinians," he said.

I totally agree with what the rabbi said. I know Holocaust doesn't justify the oppression of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but it does not give an excuse to deny it. Mr. Ahmadinejad will only further widens the existing rift between the west and east, and put Iran in an awkward position once again for its defense of the Palestinian and Iraq issue.

Once you've seen the horror, sorrow and misery the European Jews had to endure during World War II, I promise you that you would not wish to deny it in any way or form. This catastrophic event is something which we should remember by heart and hope the lesson learned would not allow it to repeat on the future generations. It is those who deny it are the true supporters of an oppressive regime and it is those who back it are the true followers of gender inequality and human rights abuse.

This also holds true for all other historic human rights violation, especially on Japan's repeatedly denial of the Nanjing Massacre and the use of women prisoners as "comfort women" during WWII.

History is a wonderful subject, it allows us to reevaluate our past mistake and improvise for the better. We should all learn from history for the betterment of the next generation. This is especially true with the current events, particularly in Global Warming. One well-documented example of how we could learn from the past is in Jared Diamond's book Collapse, where he examined historical evidences on what caused glorious societies of the past to collapse and how these could be correlated to today's world. It's an interesting and intriguing read. I highly recommend it for those who has an appetite for historical facts.

Google, the ULTIMATE evil?

Google - v. to execute an online search of anything, from a reputable online search engine giant Google.

Google - n. world domination, the invasion of privacy, the suppression of freedom of speech, and a working partner of authoritarian and totalitarian state.

So, what exactly is Google? How do you define Google? Is Google merely a harmless online search engine? Or, is it an entity that is more powerful than you could ever imagine? What is its ultimate purpose? For sure, it cannot be "do no evil", since with abundant capitals available from its overblown share price, one of its foremost purpose must be "to serve the interest" of its shareholders and uphold its corporate value by maximizing profit through asset, contracts, and business acquisitions. With this in mind, is there a more sinister, darker, and hidden intent of Google?

A typical user of Google will find its wide range of applications simple, user-friendly, trendy, up-to-date, purposeful, and just purely astonishing. From its spy-eye lookalike Google Earth services to its widely popular, chat-integrated Gmail functions, Google means reliable information transfer, reputable, and up-to-date information database all accessible with a few mouse clicks. Furthermore, it brings great convenience to the end-user off-line through an integrated desktop search engine, allowing one to look for long-lost files in the local hard drive with ease. So, what is there not to like? With the great convenience and support Google brings, what would I, as an end-user, has to lose or sacrifice?

Well, what, you, the end-user often don't know is with great convenience it comes with a hidden cost - the voluntary surrender of all your personal and privacy information. Let's start with Google's Gmail. It seems a great way to build up your contacts, email addresses, telephone numbers so to allow you to send, reply, forward any information you wish with ease to friends, colleagues, relatives, and your loved ones. Convenience enough? What about its personalized homepage service? It allows you to organize news, current events, and other information in an easily identifiable and readable manner. Nice. What about the Google Earth service? One which allows you to pinpoint the location of your family's house, where you've lived, studied, and worked. What about Google Calendar? Where you could map out dates, anniversary events, birthdays of all and everything about you. What about Orkut, the "online networking" community? Where you could disclose everything you possibly ever wish to disclose about yourself, such as your affiliation, political stance, religion, relationship with someone, and even relating yourself to a physical being with photos. Should I go on? Do you know how much information you've voluntarily surrendered to Google?

With each and every online service you sign up on there comes a price of disclosure. However, if the information is dispersed over many companies there wouldn't be a problem since it will be impossible to consolidate them as a whole. But, with Google being the only service provider of all the services you use, it could only mean one thing.

What Google's ultimate goal is to reconstruct a virtual profile of you, in religion, race, name, critical personal information, sex, school you went to, whom you've chatted, emailed, talked to, you name it. The list goes on and on. It could then profile an individual for its next level of data mining. What's this next level you ask? It could be a wide range of things including, from the least harmful, targeted advertisement, user-specific search results, to the most dangerous, the disclosure of information for prosecution and imprisonment of your online activity. Well, you might say that would never happen, but with the gazillion of information Google collects everyday from its billions of users, it's only a matter of time before this happens in a First World society (this has already happened, on several occasions, in totalitarian and authoritarian states such as China and Russia, respectively).

"Great power comes with great responsibility", but this responsibility is often overshadowed and diminished by peer pressure, a desirable expansion of the market, and to meet the bottom line. Although Google may sound much more friendly than its dearest rivals, Microsoft and Yahoo, it is still a corporation with an aim to meet its bottom line to fulfill the insatiable shareholders. It is no better than a typical conglomerate.

Google is aiming for total world domination, starting with the control over your privacy. Once you started using any product offered by Google, you’ll notice they would always “voluntarily” provide you with more of their “essential” services. Only after you’ve used them would you realize your voluntarily act of surrender of all private and confidential information. By then, it’s already too late. You’ve already given it your soul! So, are you the next victim awaiting dissection? It's up to you to find out!

At least that’s how I felt.

Buying away America

Are you buying away America this holiday season? Well, if you're not, make sure you do your part by using your hard earned savings to buy those plasma TV you always wanted. Wait, what about a brand-new Sony PlayStation 3 gaming console? With this little gadget, you and your kids can spend hours and hours playing in front of the plasma TV! Allowing you some quality time to bond with your kids! Or, what about an iPod-compatible home theater system which you always wanted to play your favorite pirated albums? What about those fancy, trendy-looking clothes which you would always want to wear to go to a party? With such a low price at your local Wal-Mart or malls your dreams may just have come true.

What you must not forget is to say thank you to the countless Chinese migrant workers whom has to endure a meager or no pay to just to make your life more enjoyable. Even better, these workers often get paid overtime, have health insurance coverage, live in nice housings, and their children even get a chance to go to local school! What is there not to like?

Other things you should also be more optimistic is that you are trading away America's future by buying products made abroad. This include an exchange of the U.S. job market with cheap foreign produces. For now, it's ok you're trading away low-tech jobs. Wait until you start trading away hi-tech jobs. Now, that would be something we should all be excited about!

Please, be responsible over this holiday season. Please buy away America this season.

While you're at it you might as well buy away your soul and conscience.

On consumerism, pop culture and the hollow self-identity

It is in no doubt that the world we live in today are more free, open, and diverse. But, under this twisted form of freedom in a pseudo-democratic state, are we really free? North America is the premier place in which an average Joe or Jane is always surrounded by mass media, notion of consumerism, and the everlasting, but poison, pop culture. One should then ask, what extend do these have on us, as human beings?

Do we feel more liberated through shopping and buying meaningless produce and products? Do we, as the people in a Western society, feel more comfortable by indulging in pop culture? No, we do not. We are simply following the models and guidelines written by corporate conglomerates and its high executives, with the sole purpose of meeting their bottom line. We are simply transferring the burden and human rights abuse to the unlucky people of the Third World countries, where a worker has to work an average of 40 plus hours to earn a minimum hourly wage of merely few cents just to satisfy the insatiable needs of you and me. Now, what is the justification in that? Are we morally responsible? Have we lose our conscience by indulging in expensive clothes, electronic gadgets, TV sets, and game consoles? Are we retaining our self-identity through soul searching, cultural identification, and self understanding, or is it being molded by Nike labels, Reebok shoes, Levi Jeans, and Gap clothes?

How hollow are we becoming when one has to learn history from franchised movies, fiction novels, and tabloid newspapers? Could we be this stupid, or are we just lazy to search for the truth?

I rarely visit shopping malls, but when I did I would always notice three things. One, the number of malls and its accompanying shops would always outnumber the number of museums and libraries altogether. Secondly, the population density per acre in a shopping mall would always outnumber that of libraries or museums. Finally, by the differences in the level of comfort. For example, in malls you would always guaranteed to have a multiplies of chairs, sofas, lavatories, information services and etc., but in a library and museum you would only have a limited few. Now, doesn't this tell you something?

Consumerism and empty pop culture are transforming you and me into mindless, thoughtless, buying-on-impulse zombies. One who is oblivious to the current worldly events, such as the Palestinian issues, the human rights abuse in China, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East, and the environmental problems, namely Global Warming, to just name a few. How are we to notice these when we are so overwhelmed by the indoctrinated buying instincts? This not only applies to the working class but also to the educated elites.

Will we ever wake up in time to save our souls? This answer is for you to figure out. Nobody can write your own destination, you've to write and walk it yourself!

Dear Mr. President

Here's Dear Mr. President from Pink's latest album, I'm not dead. Enjoy!

So, when is Dear Mr. Prime Minister coming out?

At least, a live president is better than a dead one!