September 1, 2014, Hong Kong (HK) police spray demonstrators with pepper spray, to disperse an unruly crowd. What is this? Rowdy demonstrations in staid Hong Kong? The cause? A Chinese official visiting HK, the great financial hub of Asia, is heckled and shouted down by protesters who are demonstrating for free elections and the right to choose the candidates for their elections.
(A few facts: Hong Kong (HK) is the third most important world financial center after London and New York City. HK is a former British colony with an area of only 1,100 sq km (@ 426 sq mile, or very close in size to New York City) located on the coast of China with a deep natural harbor which provides access to the South China Sea and by that means to all of Asia. It has a population of more than 8 million (about that of NY City). The HK people are well-to-do, with averageTHE incomes (ranking 7th in the world) or just slightly higher than those of the USA. It It has one of the highest population densities recorded in the world. For such a tiny political entity, (ranking 179th in size) it is inordinately wealthy, being 7th in the world, with a GDP of more than 400 billion in US dollars annually. (while NYC is nominally @ $1.3 trillion). It is governed by a Legislative Council and a Chief Executive which have been (up to 2014) "democratically" elected. Though not a "classical democracy", (but who can cast a stone ?), it has been described as a "semi authoritarian regime", controlled by a small cadre of elites (See Wikipedia, Hong Kong) . Does that sound familiar to us in the USA? Hong Kong's chief executive is chosen by an Election Committee of 1200 (or sometimes fewer) members. It largest and only 'city' is Kowloon. Hong Kong was a British colony from 1842 to 1997. Since 1997 it has been a "Special Administrative Region" (SAR) of the PR of C, with the motto "one country two systems". But now the China's Politburo would like to eliminate the "two systems" part.)
Based on that report from the New York Times on September 1, 2014, it now appears that China seems bent on rescinding the 1997 agreement that country concluded with the British government, which provided for free and democratic elections in Hong Kong for another 33 years-- to 2047.
Back to the circumstances of the event: At that meeting in HK a Communist Chinese official was explaining in his quiet and logical way that everything in HK will be the same, after the new Chinese Politbureau rules are instituted.The people will still have their elections, just as before. The only difference will be that the Chinese Politbureau will pick the candidates! Then, the people of HK can have their election. Everybody will be happy. The Chinese will be certain that the new legislators will be compliant to China's wishes. That is how they see the election. But to the citizenry of HK that part is vital too. For as we all know---- the really important part of any election is the part that deals with vetting the candidates that the people will choose from. It is clear even to the Chinese that if you can control the candidates presented for election, you are really in control of the election.
When I read this , it made me think. I asked myself, "What is the big difference between our 'semi democratic regime' here in the US and that in Hong Kong?" In some ways, we are very similar...They too have nice "democratic" elections .
But, as in HK, we don't really pick our candidates either. Do we? Instead of the Politbureau picking our candidates, we have another just as powerful entity, the Moneybags Bureau (ATT, Koch Industries, Exxon, Comcast, Northrup-Grumman, Goldman Sachs, etc., etc., etc.) who support the candidates of their choice with bags of cash. The cash flow dictates which candidates can run. So as in HK we are presented with a slate of candidates ---yes selected for us--. The Moneybags Bureau dictate to the electorate the candidates of their choice.Then we all have a jolly good time electing one of these "picked" candidates.
So circumstances of power politics are much the same all around the world.
Would not it be so much better if we all understood these sad facts better---perhaps then we could work for change and not wallow so in our own misperceived exceptionalism.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
PHOTOS SUGGEST STONEHENGE A "GAPING OPEN" CIRCLE?
I read today that Stonehenge, may have been a complete circle. At present, the ring is incomplete. Some British archaeologists have argued that was its original design. Others have assumed that it was circular, but the stones were removed and used elsewhere ---a common occurrence in antiquity.
The discovery relating to its circularity, was made by a groundsman tasked with maintaining the lawn by watering the site. This perceptive fellow noticed that during the recent (August 2014) drought, patches of brown were appearing in the normally verdant lawns. The effect was enhanced since the area where the circle was incomplete lay too far away from the short hosepipe he had for watering. As this observant man made plans to irrigate the dry and brown patches, he realized that these seemed to be located in places where stones should have stood were the circle complete. He brought in the professionals who immediately ordered aerial photos to be taken.
The Guardian published one of the pictures. (The Guardian, Sept 1, 2014, Dry spell at Stonehenge reveals secret that has alluded archaeologists. By Steven Morris.) The dry spots do seem to indicate a curving line of patches which would crudely tend to complete the circle.
On closer examination, however, I observed something that reminded me of a feature I once encountered in studying post hole patterns of a house structure in the sub-soil at a prehistoric Native American site. The post hole pattern in that case gaped away from the circular to provide an entrance way. The pattern of brown patches at Stonehenge seem to suggest a similar type of pattern. The patches on the bottom right of the published picture seem to fall away from (have a longer radius from the center than) those on the left. That "gape" were it actual, would have provided a wide and graceful entry point, perhaps adapted for ceremonial purposes.
Thus I suggest that Stonehenge may not have been a complete circle, but one with part of its outer stone erections arranged with a greater radius from the center to form an entranceway. The British archaeologists should investigate this "gaping circle" hypothesis . Based only upon the revealing photos, I suspect that upon closer examination of the photos and further subsurface analysis they may well confirm this "open" pattern.
(The Guardian, Sept 1, 2014, Dry spell at Stonehenge reveals secret that has alluded archaeologists. By Steven Morris)
The discovery relating to its circularity, was made by a groundsman tasked with maintaining the lawn by watering the site. This perceptive fellow noticed that during the recent (August 2014) drought, patches of brown were appearing in the normally verdant lawns. The effect was enhanced since the area where the circle was incomplete lay too far away from the short hosepipe he had for watering. As this observant man made plans to irrigate the dry and brown patches, he realized that these seemed to be located in places where stones should have stood were the circle complete. He brought in the professionals who immediately ordered aerial photos to be taken.
The Guardian published one of the pictures. (The Guardian, Sept 1, 2014, Dry spell at Stonehenge reveals secret that has alluded archaeologists. By Steven Morris.) The dry spots do seem to indicate a curving line of patches which would crudely tend to complete the circle.
On closer examination, however, I observed something that reminded me of a feature I once encountered in studying post hole patterns of a house structure in the sub-soil at a prehistoric Native American site. The post hole pattern in that case gaped away from the circular to provide an entrance way. The pattern of brown patches at Stonehenge seem to suggest a similar type of pattern. The patches on the bottom right of the published picture seem to fall away from (have a longer radius from the center than) those on the left. That "gape" were it actual, would have provided a wide and graceful entry point, perhaps adapted for ceremonial purposes.
Thus I suggest that Stonehenge may not have been a complete circle, but one with part of its outer stone erections arranged with a greater radius from the center to form an entranceway. The British archaeologists should investigate this "gaping circle" hypothesis . Based only upon the revealing photos, I suspect that upon closer examination of the photos and further subsurface analysis they may well confirm this "open" pattern.
(The Guardian, Sept 1, 2014, Dry spell at Stonehenge reveals secret that has alluded archaeologists. By Steven Morris)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)