Украйна - една голяма грешка

Толкова много се изписа и изговори през последните седмици за Украйна, че и аз реших да се пробвам да направя едно анализче. Не  съм, и не си въобразявам, че съм политически анализатор, но вече толкова съм изчел по въпроса, включително  толкова едностранчиви и наивни мнения, че реших аз също да кажа нещо.  Вероятно много ще сметнат, че защитавам Путин, един почти-диктатор, или Русия, една страна отговорна за доста черни страници в най-новата ни история. Но искам да посоча, че нашето собствено отношение към цялата ситуация в Украйна, и към Русия като цяло е неизбежно изкривено, точно заради тези черни страници. Аз просто се опитвам да направя един колкото се може по-безпристрастен анализ на събитията, и да докажа, че всъщност това което става в Украйна е плод на зле направени изчисления, както на западните тайни служби, така и на политическите анализатори, които определят цялата позиция на западните лидери.

Малко история

Украйна има сложна история, и без да я имаме предвид не можем да разберем настоящето, така и както не бихме могли да разберем добре който и да било от конфликтите в Европа, без да разгледаме историите на замесените страни. В случая най-голяма важност имат следните факти:

1. Киев е люлката

на руската цивилизация, мястото на първата историческа руска  държава, Киевска Рус. Тук няма значение какво се е случило след това, какви народи са се заселили в Киев и т.н. - само историческият факт. За да разберете монументалното значение на този факт, само се замислете каква невероятно важна роля играе Ерусалим  за евреите, въпреки че от столетия е заселен предимно с араби. До такава степен, че днес градът е един от основните препъни-камъни за мирния процес там.

2.  В Украйна живеят много етнически руснаци,

по една или друга причина, особено в източната и южната и част. Тези руснаци се признават за украинци, но те говорят на руски, не на украински, и както показват последните събития, са обект както на про-руска, така и на анти-руска агитация от двете страни в конфликта. Нека не забравяме, че благодарение на техните гласове Виктор Янукович е дошъл на власт не един, но 2 пъти!  И двата пъти - след избори, в чиято свободност никой не се е съмнявал; втория път - след печално известната Оранжева революция, която по много начини напомня настоящата. Това би трябвало най-малкото да раздразни всички други жители на Украйна, които не желаят да са под полит-икономическия чадър на Русия.

3. Украйна е била, е, и винаги ще бъде от жизнено важно военно-стратегическо значение за Русия. 

Тя е най-директния път към останалата част на Европа; тя също разполага с важен излаз на Черно море, именно през Кримския полуостров. По съветско време, много ракети с ядрени бойни глави са били разположени там, именно заради стратегическото положение на страната. Накрая, но не и на последно място - в Кримския град Севастопол и до днес е базиран Черноморският руски флот, по силата на двустранно споразумение Русия - Украйна. Въпреки че самата Русия има излаз на Черно море, тя е сметнала за добре да запази тази база, като за правото плаща ежегодно солиден наем на Украинските власти.

4. И разбира се, 

повечето руски газопроводи, доставящи газ за Европа минават през Украйна. Това пък е от огромно икономическо значение за Русия, а миналото е показало, че в много случаи икономическите цели са основния претекст за войни (виж по-горе).

Това са фактите, които никой не оспорва, и които по една или друга причина не могат да се променят в момента. Бих казал, че те няма да се променят и в бъдеще, но кой знае...  накратко, тези факти изясняват защо Украйна е много, много МНОГО по-важна за Русия, отколкото за Запада. Напълно естествено е Русия да иска да упражнява влияние там ( до каква степен е друг въпрос), напълно естествено е и, имайки предвид гореизложените връзки и физическото положение на Украйна, това влияние да е значително, без да стига до превръщането на Украйна в сателитна държава. Все пак нали Европа (особено някои страни в нея като Великобритания) се влияе по същия начин от политиката на Щатите?  

В най-добрия случай, за Запада Украйна е една идеологическа пионка, която може да послужи за доказателство колко надалеч достига ръката на 'демокрацията'. При положение, че както Балтийските републики, така и цяла Централна и Южна Европа са членки на НАТО (като България, Турция и Гърция при желание биха могли спокойно да блокират руския военен достъп до Средиземно море, и дори да обсадят руската флота в Крим), Украйна не е, повтарям, НЕ Е от стратегическо значение за Европа, и още по-малко - за САЩ.

Икономическо положение

След отделянето си от СССР Украйна така и не успя да се стабилизира икономически, по една или друга причина. Говори се, че икономиката на страната е в ръцете на олигарси (сякаш американската не е), че Янукович и неговия кръг са окрали милиарди... (сякаш американските и европейски банкери не са).... но слуховете нямат значение, значение има реалността. В момента държавата има огромен външен дълг - достатъчен за да я постави в положение да банкрутира. Много от нас въобще не обръщат внимание на този факт, но той е от огромно значение за събитията в последните месеци. Всъщност когато Янукович отхвърли предложението на ЕС, напълно възможно е той просто да се е опитвал да маневрира за да постигне по-изгодни отношения, както с ЕС така и с руснаците ( а не, както всички решиха, да е клекнал пред Путин). В крайна сметка, той никога не каза, че няма да направи споразумение с ЕС, просто че споразумението в ТАЗИ СИ ФОРМА е неприемливо.

Сега, след 'революцията', ситуацията съвсем не се е подобрило, даже напротив - новата отявлено про-западна политика на правителството в Киев е причина руснаците да отменят цял пакет с финансови помощи, от които Украйна спешно се нуждаеше, за да закърпи положението. Естествено, всички очакват Европа да се притече на финансова помощ, но... доколко са готови европейците да отърват още една страна след Гърция, Португалия, Италия и т.н., една страна която дори не е член на ЕС? 

(продължава)

Industrialization, Progress, GDP and more contemporary catchwords, Part III

And so, from the previously written we can deduct how contemporary society defines Progress - as how much a country produces and spends. And here it doesn't matter if the products produced are such useless gadgets like iPods and game consoles, or dangerous ones like weapons; it doesn't matter if the services produced are ridiculous ones like Wedding planning, or ultimately useless ones like Advertising ( yes, you read that right - Advertising is the one contemporary industry which if you think about it doesn't achieve anything at all useful, just on the contrary). We can also throw in here the financial 'industry' which is bafflingly illogical (and we could argue - useless and counterproductive again), but at the same time provides the greatest individual rewards of all industries in our civilization.

Conversely, individual progress is measured with generally how much a person earns per month/year. It doesn't matter if the person needs to spend 15 hours per day, 7 days per week, 12 months per year working - he's making money!

In short, in both individual and public sphere the concept of progress is related to purely quantitative factors, which fail to actually represent any sort of real advancement of humanity. Nobody takes into account, for example, technological advancements, such as new power sources, more efficient  production practices, stronger materials, etc. We talk about how domestic appliances have become more and more fragile in recent years; how our washing machine today, despite being much shinier and sophisticated than our grandma's, doesn't last 1/10 of the time our grandma's washing machine lasted; how our cars, despite shinier and faster, last only half of the time our dad's car lasted; I could go on and on - the examples are all around us. The reason - the companies produce intentionally inferior machines, both to make them cheaper by saving materials, and to make them break faster so that we buy new ones. Anyone noticed how gradually all appliances' maintenance centers went out of business in the last 10 years???

The one branch of technological development that really matters for us is computing, and this has undeniably developed immensely  in the last decades; however, the tragic ways in which we interpret progress and employ computing power is still causing us to use not more than 10% of the capacities of this development.

Nobody takes into account cultural development in a nation - new or better orchestras and theaters won't matter an iota to GDP growth, despite providing to society a much-needed respite from day-to-day drudgery and elevating the general quality of life. On the flip-side, pop culture is thriving, based on endless repetition and recycling which actually doesn't lead to development, just the opposite - all because it's much cheaper to take the most successful old tunes and rhythms and just attach them to a new, fresh and beautiful young face. Yep, when was the last time you heard a genuinely new and innovative pop song?

Nobody takes recreational activities into account either, unless they charge such exorbitant prices for their services that they actually matter for the GDP. On the other hand, healthcare activities matter a lot - not bad, until you consider the fact that half of the exams and medications medics make us do or take today are actually useless; or that another  1/3 of these would be completely unnecessary if we weren't so stressed out and tired of working.

Everywhere you look into the 'industrialized, developed world', you see examples of the above observations. After a feeble surge in concern over the environment some 10 years ago, industrialized countries are back to old-and-tried energy sources like coal and oil, shunning the advanced environmental-friendly and renewable energy sources. And because of that, technological development of these sources has all but stopped, making them even more undesirable economically. Cars running on electricity are being painstakingly developed, and with the speed of this development we may be lucky if we have them at good prices in 100 years (when they won't make a difference anymore). Infrastructure is developing along the same old patterns as 100 years ago - roads and roads and highways; then some more highways and ..... oh, did I say roads? All that despite the fact that these roads are getting more and more clogged with traffic; and despite the fact that rail transport, for example, is many, many times more efficient both speed-wise and energy-wise. But of course, we have the entire oil industry to take care of, and the interdependent car industry - we can't shun these just because they promote an inefficient way of transport!

As good capitalists we go back and forth between home and office every single day - and weekends be damned! (I want that promotion!) Yes, we work on weekends because it's expected of me to show dedication, we are available during vacations because it shows how much I care about the company and my own development in it. It's called 'being productive'. I call it 'being enslaved'. How many times in the last year you've had to endure an hour of traffic, of millions of bodies squeezed on the streets, in the buses and metros, of pollution belching from all the cars in the traffic, the noise and pure stress of it all, just to go spend 9 hours in a cubicle, doing something repetitive which a good program could also do? Or, which you could also do very well from home? 250 times? But of course, companies require utter dedication of you, which means you have to follow the exact orders of your boss; do what they tell you to do without complaining, even if you know better, all the while you're being observed cautiously by your co-workers, ready to pounce on you for the slightest mistake, so that they could get ahead in the promotions race! Oh, and don't forget to look cheerful and cordial through it all - that's what is expected of you! And if you speak out against your company, you're branded 'a traitor' and may well be fired.... 

Sounds like communism, doesn't it? Like the way they treated serfs in Russia, or peasants all around Europe 400 years ago.... Well, it's .... capitalism.

Our society has completely distorted the meaning of Progress. Instead of better quality of life for people, it now means more and more stuff for people, at any cost. Instead of true development, it means some unrealistic measures which don't lead anywhere, really. The results are there for all of us to see - global financial crisis, polluted environment, unhappy people all around us. And that's in the industrialized, modern, progressive countries. Do you know, people, that I've seen much happier people living in some flyspeck village out in the mountain? Why are they so happy, with the little stuff they have, while we are so unhappy, with the mountains of stuff we own?

Isn't it time to rethink progress?

Industrialization, Progress, GDP and more contemporary catchwords, Part II

Now, let's take a look at the GDP, the vaunted Gross Domestic Product, the one sacred measure of a country's economy which today determines how valuable it is to the world.

GDP is a sum of a country's domestic consumer spending, government spending, private industries spending and export balance (that is, the result of exports -minus - imports). It is all, of course, tied to the monetary system, each component being measured usually in US dollars. Let's dissect that shall we?

- Consumer spending is what each one of us buys during a period, meaning not only goods, but also communal services like gas and electricity, other services like health insurance or car repairs, rent, dept repayment, etc. In other words, the more we spend per period, the more this component of the GDP will rise, leading to overall GDP rise. So, if the government, say, decides all of a sudden to impose 20% more income taxes, GDP will also all of a sudden rise, because we all will have to pay more taxes.  

- Private business spending - that means all a company spends for the period, including purchasing materials and goods for its business, investing in improvements and paying salaries and taxes. Technically, if a company suddenly needs to pay 20% more for raw materials, GDP will rise, because this component will increase.

- Government spending - here goes all government activity, including not only 'good' things like education and healthcare spending, infrastructure or salaries, but also.... military budgets, or debt repayments. Again, if a country decides suddenly to increase its military spending by 50%, GDP will rise.

- Net exports - that would be the value of all goods a country has exported, AFTER we've deducted the value of the ones it has imported. We don't know here where those goods have gone, or where have the others come from, we just know that some goods have left the country while others have come into it. For example, if a million tons of iron have left the country, and later came back аs expensive agricultural machinery, we would consider that 'bad' (despite the machinery being greatly useful to our agriculture for many years). On the contrary, if we exported millions of barrels of expensive oil and imported in turn millions of tons of cheap plastics, we still consider that a 'good' thing (despite the fact that these plastics won't actually have any good impact on our society). 

If you look above you'll notice that for each component I've given an example that sounds simply ... silly. And still, it's true. And I'm sure real specialists would be able to find many more examples of gross contradictions to the whole logic of the GDP as the primary sign of a 'strong economy'. Why, if we pay more for rent each year, if we spend more to buy food, clothes, medications and everything, than our economy is growing! If we need to use more and more often our health insurances because we're constantly feeling unwell, then the economy is booming! If our country produces thousands of tanks and jet fighters and millions of machine guns, than our economy is flourishing! If our government creates phony administrative jobs, pays for bogus needs like flower purchases for anniversaries and higher-quality toilet seats, if it takes more and more loans - then our economy is the new rising star!

And indeed, this is the reality in all western 'industrialized' countries nowadays. People spend bigger percentages of their income each year just to maintain their standard of living, while trillions are being squandered by all countries for military purposes. It doesn't matter that having an army and being prepared to counter an invasion doesn't have anything at all to do with mine, or your well-being; it doesn't matter that it would be better that I didn't need to go to the doctor at all - the GDP has grown, and the investors will bring their money here because they think this is good. And good old common sense and logic be damned - the economists say this is good, so it must be good. After all, the economists are the new Gods, and Banks are the new temples for us. Material well-being has been drilled into each one of us as the single most important purpose of human life nowadays.

And  in the final part of this blog post, I'll discuss how all this fits into the contemporary concept for Progress.

(to be continued...)

Industrialization, Progress, GDP and more contemporary catchwords, Part I

Our society is indoctrinated, and far more so than communist societies. You'll ask 'Why?' I answer - because they've managed to make us convince ourselves that we understand everything, and that what we hear constantly in the so-called 'Western media' is the unquestionable, unbiased truth. At least during communism we had the common sense not to believe everything the propaganda was spewing at us.... Now? Obama says: 'These are terrorists!', and we start hating them; CNN says: 'These are freedom fighters!', and we start loving them. The experts say: 'GDP is the most important factor in a nation's progress!' and we can't take our eyes off the trimester reports....

So, let's think about INDUSTRIALIZATION. The INDUSTRIALIZED countries are the most advanced in the world, they produce the world's riches and technological advancement, while the rest are just twiddling their thumbs and wallowing in misery. INDUSTRY is the key to PROGRESS, and without PROGRESS we will  ..... mmmm, it's not clear what, but probably something really nasty. Let's take a look at INDUSTRIALIZATION, shall we?

From the very meaning of the word, we derive that to industrialize means to start using machines to manufacture goods, instead of people; also, in a broader sense, it means to move from an agrarian society to an industrial one, where manufactured goods represent a major part of the country's production, rather than agricultural goods. Indeed, we had this process in the 18th through 20th century in most of the Western world - factories were rising, chimneys were fuming, machines were whirling, and industrial goods were produced in greater and greater quantities. True, at this time goods which were up to then scarce, like clothing or tools, became far cheaper and accessible for increasingly more and more people. This process started feeding on itself, while more and more machinery was used in all segments of society, and more and more factories were needed to produce parts for machines.

What few remember today is how these factories employed thousands of workers each, which labored in fumes, heat and oil. Many writers of the time describe how miserable factory workers were, how women and children were used on a massive scale because they would do labor for nickels. The press today nostalgically describes how industrialization gave rise to the wealth of the middle class, especially in the US. They neglect to recount the hard struggles of the workers to earn adequate pay - a struggle which didn't succeed until the 60s or even later; up to then workers were only paid enough not to die of hunger. In their romantic, idyllic reminiscences they also forget the terrible pollution that all these factories spilled everywhere around them - land, forests, rivers, lakes....

Still, undeniably humanity was progressing, although at a hard price. Technology was developing, ground-breaking inventions were being made almost yearly. And then something happened.... the factories started closing. The technological advancement has actually refined the industrial process to such a degree where not thousands, but 20 or so workers were needed to maintain the same level of productivity in a factory. Not only that, but it was becoming more and more expensive to EMPLOY workers - now that they finally had good pay, health insurance, etc. Finally, and most important - they had discovered OUTSOURCING. Why do I need to maintain a factory in US and spend, say, 100 000 per month on maintenance and salaries, when I can use a factory in China and spend 15 000 per month?

And this is the crucial point that many miss in modern industrialization - it is not about producing goods anymore, it's about producing them for as little as possible.

Today, half (or more) of the world's industrial production is done in East Asia - China, Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, etc. These are the so-called newly-industrialized countries. They are concentrating all the Heavy industry (chemical processing, metal processing, etc.), while Western countries have few High-tech factories here and there. Even more insane - iron, oil and other raw materials are taken halfway around the world to China and Indonesia to be processed, then returned back halfway around the world to be used in high-tech factories?

 We all know, for example, where our iPhones and iPads are produced; we know where Prada makes their bags (well, maybe we don't but we should - they produce these in East Asia). What we don't know, or don't WANT to know, is HOW they produce all of these gadgets we are so excited to use! Did you know, for example, that there are whole industrial towns in China, built around huge factory complexes, where workers live like slaves, laboring 12 and more hours per day, far from their families? Where suicide rates are over the charts? Did you know that they're paid a fraction of what a western worker would receive for the same job? Now do you understand the reality of modern INDUSTRIALIZATION?

In the crazy quest of East Asia to concentrate the world's production, they have abandoned all care for their environment. In recent articles they say that pollution in China's cities is becoming so bad it resembles the effect of a Nuclear winter! Plants have slowed down their growth not only because soil and water supply are becoming poisoned by industrial activity, but also because photosynthesis has slowed down significantly???? That because of that, a serious food crisis is looming in China?

So, go ahead and INDUSTRIALIZE your country as part of the quest for prosperity. Build factories and hire workers; just be sure to do that for the least amount of money possible - then the world's big companies will relocate to your country. Later, when the workers finally demand their rights, these same companies that were so happy to come, will relocate to the next recently-industrialized country, where labor is still cheap.

It doesn't matter that they actually won't need to do all that if they simply invested in some high-tech factories that don't need any workers, and whose production lines are so efficient they pollute as little as possible. But because of the crazy logic of the market economy, they won't ever do that  - at least not until there are places like East Asia (and soon, Africa).  

(...to be continued)

The Hobbit - Desolation of Smaug: Increasing the pace of the adventure

The end of the year is here and with it - the next Hobbit movie. The 'Middle' one, which can be good or bad, depending on what you expect. Me, I didn't expect anything particular, just something really, really good, and I wasn't disappointed. The Hobbit 2 is more concentrated, more ominous and more fast-paced than the first one. As it should be.

OK, I admit it, I'm a huge fan of both Tolkien and Peter Jackson, but I think I have my reasons for it. In my previous review (of the first Hobbit) I said that Peter has a knack for creating a Universe out of Tolkien's books, and I'm going to elaborate on this now.

All fans of Tolkien know that he was more of  a scholar than a storyteller. The Middle Earth universe appeared as a fantasy justification for his hobby - the creation and study of languages, and more specifically, the Elvish language. I'm sure somebody tried already to create an Elvish dictionary, just like they have a Clingon one, I'm just not sure where it is. Another base for Tolkien's works was his desire to create a brand-new, pure English set of legends, dissociated of Christianity (because the King Arthur cycle is heavily influenced by Christian mythology) and any other Nordic influences. So, the great bulk of Tokien's writing is a string of separate myths and legends, which all gather together to create the mythology of Middle Earth. There are two major exceptions: The Hobbit, which he wrote to amuse his kids, and its continuation, The Lord of the Rings, which he wrote when the published Hobbit became an unexpected success and everyone begged him to write a sequel. The emphasis here is: Tolkien never sat down to create a masterpiece of narration and drama, but a book of adventures! And what's more - in the Hobbit, he never even sat down to create a book for grown-ups! If you take the Hobbit, and somehow forget that you've read LOTR before that, or any of the other published legends, all you'll find is a great children's book, full of adventures such as you'd expect to find in a children's book - a quest, dwarves, elves, a mage, a dragon, evil spiders, evil orcs, etc. And as in every self-respecting children's adventure book, the good guys run into the problems constantly and manage to overcome them constantly, usually by killing what caused them.      

And although LOTR is a much more complex and full book, with character development and everything, it is rarely something more than an extended, epic adventure. It hints at so much more, but if you read it alone, you will never find out what exactly this so much more is.                

So, why do some people expect a drama of great depth and complexity when they watch these movies??? It's as if you expected Superman to exhibit great complexity of character all of a sudden, and to create an epic drama, instead of just fly and save airplanes and damsels in distress.

Here's where we come to Peter Jackson's greatest accomplishment: he brought together these two isolated books and the rest of Tolkien's complex mythological world. I don't know if he personally read all other important works, like the Silmarillion (he probably did), but whatever he did, he found all the relevant facts and managed to insert them in his movies to flesh out the story. For example, the enmity between dwarves and elves is never explained in the book (besides a fleeting 'Elves didn't like dwarves' or something), while in the movie we have not only a clear explanation of why that is, but also multiple instances that show how this enmity hinders progress and creates stupid obstacles. The Ring's evil influence on Bilbo is never shown in the book, but in the movie we see how it twists his mind already, driving him to acts of violence unfitting a hobbit.
In the book there's just a quick explanation of Gandalf's side mission - to deal with the Necromancer, while in the movie we see the full importance of this 'side' mission - the necromancer is none other but the Great Enemy Sauron rising again from Dol Guldur, and gathering all evil forces. This is well explained in a number of other writings of Tolkien, but not explicitly stated, not even in the LOTR. Still, Jackson found it out and showed it!

Yes, there are silly exaggerations, like Radaghast or the Master of Lake City, but the Hobbit is on the humorous site, and it should feel lighter than the ominous Lord of the Rings. And yes, there are the too-dramatic moments, like Ballin's "This my lad .... (dramatic pause) .. is a dragon". But again, this is a movie for entertainment,  not for cinema specialists; and entertaining it is. The monsters are outstanding, the fighting sequences are breath-taking (although a bit exaggerated and with too much of a game feeling), the camera..... I have no words to describe it. I think the sheer visual magnificence of these series should be set as the highest standard for future movies.

You'll love the dragon - he feels like a real bad-ass monster, sure of himself and extremely dangerous. His every move is menacing; his lines are well-written (he doesn't say even a tenth of the stuff in the book).  And the final cliffhanger.... just splendid.

I know this turned out not to be exactly a movie review, but I think in the case of the Hobbit it's more important to emphasize that we're watching an epic fantasy movie, and not a serious and realistic action-drama. I think too many people and critics expect to see something else, something Peter Jackson never attempted to create, and shouldn't create. What he aimed at, he achieved - an epic adventure, with fast pace and well-crafted scenes and sequences, never mind awesome effects. Hats down for Martin Freeman's and Ian MacKellen's acting again, and  Bravo Peter!

About Snowden and the Superpower

While protests are being held around the world, including in countries everyone thought were 'stable economically' (like Brazil); while there's a bloody sectarian war raging in the Middle East, while the world economy continues crumbling, I'd like to take  some time and reflect on the ridiculous manhunt  being forced on our attention by the mainstream media - the Snowden story.

I won't get into the whole debate of how moral this manhunt is, given the fact that this leak hasn't actually threaten any life (unlike the Sirian war), or anyone's prosperity (like the protests all around Europe and now in Brazil). I'd like instead to reflect on the reaction of the world's only 'Superpower' to something that in fact shouldn't be happening at all - the leaking of confidential information in a world where nobody could really use this information.

We were used to spy stories during the Cold war. We wouldn't hear about it in the news, of course, probably because it was indeed a matter of national security, but we would hear rumors every now and then about another Russian spy caught stealing stuff. Or, if you grew up in Bulgaria, like me, you would hear about another Imperialist spy caught. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that all this wasn't such a big deal - we were understanding that there is a Great Enemy there that Wishes Us Evil, and that our authorities are justified in doing whatever they can about thwarting his Evil schemes (Dart Vader laugh).   

Then the Iron Curtain fell, and suddenly the world became (supposedly) a happy place, where Democracy rules supreme and the Evil Communists/Imperialists And Their Puppets were BANISHED. We could now breath easily that nobody would all of a sudden decide to commit an elaborate suicide by launching nuclear warheads or such.

And then all of a sudden we get this epidemic of spying scandals. Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and now Snowden. All modern-era Evil Masterminds Bend on World Destruction That Need To Be Brought Down. WTF?????

Let's see: what did these people do in fact? Did they steal secrets and sell them to someone that wishes us harm? No. Did they sabotage something? No. Did they lie? No!

What they did was to get evidence of the secret dealings of the government of our beloved world savior, and then spread them around to all that cares to read them. And for that, they're branded TRAITORS.

Again, I won't get into philosophical discussions of whether what they did is right, or not. I want to tell you WHY it is that this is happening. That's why:  

- The USA seems to be suffering of an acute attack of Lack of Enemy. You might be surprised a bit of that statement, but let's think about it:

For decades the two world superpowers (USA and USSR) were coldly at each others' throats, and that seemed to be accepted as normal by everyone. People buckled up and toiled, happy that they live on the 'good' side of the fence. They were resigned with their fate, thinking about the evil capitalists/communists, and happy that our secrets need to held from them, at whatever cost.

Then, one of the Superpowers vanished (or rather, was demoted to just Power). And with it automatically vanished the terrible specter of Termonuclear war and the Great Evil that Wants To Steal Our Lollipop. Now, the remaining Superpower decided that they can now just boss over everyone else, without opposition, and proceeded to do so with abandon. They invaded Iraq, then Afghanistan, they organized coup after coup in countries around the world. And, all of a sudden, each scandal involving them started to feel like a spat on their virtuous public image. People around the world started hacking their computers and revealing their secrets, and the public opinion cheers them. Why? What happened? Are they doing something different than before? Are they behaving more badly?

No.

But they've lost the REASON to do this.

While there was an Enemy Number 1, people were resigned to all actions of the American government (after all, it was all for our own good, right?); now there isn't Enemy Number 1 anymore, and people seem to have realized that it's not justified for a superpower to be doing the stuff that they are doing. They seem to think that this Superpower is being more of a Bully than a Superpower.

After all, what exactly is a Superpower supposed to be when it is the only one? When it's not opposing itself to another superpower to prevent world destruction, then it should be more of a World Guardian, right? A benevolent entity which leads the world to a better Tomorrow, towards common progress, etc. etc.

Instead we have a bully. The US seems to be barring progress, rather than incentivizing it - for example, it is the only important nation in the world that didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol; it is imposing a series of trade embargoes and it has protectionism policies that would cause Stalin envy. Any significant technological advancement coming from them is being patented and commercialized, or other than that is being kept close secret.

Well, they claim that there is still danger in the world: TERRORISM!!!!! That there are countries that support terrorism and they need to be .... dealt with. It's really interesting how they manage to make distinction among a whole lot of those countries in the Middle East: they zero on some of these and accuse them of being dictatorships that harbor terrorists. At the same time, others, not less dictatorial, are angels that don't support terrorists. (Small detail: terrorists usually don't go talk to government officials asking for their support, they just.... do their stuff.). And somehow the countries that don't support terrorists and are good to democracy always happen to be US' allies (at least at that moment), while the others, that harbor terrorists, always happen to be denying American interests. And let's not forget that terrorists exist for a reason. Differently from serial killers, who act alone and in secret generally, terrorists aren't just madmen bent on mayhem - they always have an agenda (as expressed after every major terrorist act in the last 30 years). The scary ones' agenda, which is justifying the wars US is conducting in the Middle East, is .... the presence of the US in the Middle East. Now, ain't that a funny coincidence!

Fail.

So, the reason more and more leaks are happening within the American power structure, is the fact that people have recognized the real agenda of the US governments in the last .... say, 20 years, and think that agenda is not moral. Nor justified. And they want to show it to the rest of the world.

Let's hope this makes the Superpower realize what they're doing, and improve their behavior. If not.... I think they'll soon seize to be a Superpower. At least in the moral sense of the word.

A verdade sobre os protestos no Brasil

Estou preocupado com a tendência de atribuir os esforços para manter os protestos apartidários ao extremistas e skinheads. Estou preocupado com o espectro da ditadura que esta sendo levantado como possível consequência de movimentos apartidários.

Em minha opinião, quem pensa isso não entendeu bem a raiz dos sentimentos apartidários, expressos pela maioria dos manifestantes, e não só por skinheads e babacas. A razão para isso é uma profunda desilusão com o que os partidos e políticos eleitos pelo povo estão fazendo, e a grande diferença entre o que eles prometiam durante as campanhas  e o que acontece na realidade. E isso vale para todos os partidos, e não um só.

Depois de dar o seu voto para alguém que promete elevar sua qualidade de vida, é natural esperar que sua qualidade de vida suba nos próximos anos, seja ao pagar menos impostos, ter melhor atendimento médico, ou melhor transporte na cidade onde você mora. É isso que não aconteceu com a maioria dos brasileiros nos últimos 10 anos, apesar de todos os avanços gerais do Brasil; avanços esses que não podem ser negados. Ao contrário, a saúde piorou, o transporte piorou, os impostos subiram. Há um mês um amigo meu foi ao pronto socorro do 'melhor hospital' do São Paulo - Albert Einstein e precisou esperar mais de DUAS HORAS para ser atendido. E o SUS então?

As pessoas em São Paulo são forçadas diariamente a perder horas se deslocando pela cidade, seja de transporte público, seja de carro, apesar da promessa dos partidos para melhorar o transporte há mais de 10 anos. 

Enquanto isso, novos estádios estão sendo erguidos, basicamente com o nosso dinheiro. Acho que foi exatamente essa a faísca que inflamou os protestos - a comparação imediata entre os graves problemas de infraestrutura no pais e os bilhões gastos não para corrigir esses problemas, mas sim para erguer estádios de futebol (!!!).

Alguém pode falar que eu, como estrangeiro, não entendo bem a situação do Brasil. Mas é exatamente por eu ser estrangeiro, e tenho conhecido outros países em situações semelhantes, que eu posso fazer uma avaliação diferente e talvez mais bem informada do que os próprios brasileiros. Na minha pátria, Bulgária, por exemplo, nos últimos 20 anos governaram 7 partidos diferentes (da direita e da esquerda), sem grandes diferenças nos resultados de seus governos. Sempre havia escândalos de corrupção, licitações questionáveis, jogos sujos... e o povo está se levantando agora, do mesmo jeito, para pedir mudança radical do comportamento do corpo político - não de um só partido, não de um só político, mas de todos.

Está sendo reconhecida uma verdade um tanto triste: que os políticos passaram a representar não o povo, mas diversos outros interesses, além dos seus próprios. Não é que esse ou aquele partido são um bando de canalhas (e não que todos sejam). O problema é, que nenhum político acha importante batalhar pelos interesses do POVO em primeiro lugar, e depois por seus interesses próprios, de seu partido, e do pais. Eles esqueceram que seu dever é SERVIR O POVO E O PAÍS. Em vez disso, estão servindo aos interesses próprios, aos interesses de seu partido, depois aos interesses da empresa que financiou a campanha deles, etc. (não necessariamente nessa ordem). 

Portanto, manter os protestos apartidários não tem nada a ver com ditadura. Isso tem tudo a ver com o recado geral das manifestações: ACORDEM POLÍTICOS! VOCÊS SÃO OS NOSSOS SERVIDORES, E NÃO O CONTRÁRIO!