A Blogger's World

The organic trend

2007-03-06T11:38:00.000Z

What do Tesco, Ralph Lauren and Bono have in common? The Financial Times gave the answer in the article ‘The cotton wars’ last week: they all sell organic clothing.[1]

Is this a sign of growing consumer awareness, a marketing tool or just another trend? The increasing use of the word organic is questionable. For example, a pair of jeans might be made of organic cotton, but it still contains nylon as well. Most consumers do not care about this. As long as a product is labelled organic, buying it makes them feel good about themselves and usually no further questions are asked.

So the organic wave is definitely a trend that has been picked up by marketing. However, this is not the whole story. As Julie Gilhart, fashion director of Barneys New York argues: “I think it is the beginning of a major shift in consciousness in the fashion business.” Apart from the fashion business, the eco/organic/fair trade shift occurs from clothes to food and as far as holidays. Trend or not, this is good news for the environment. Companies first follow consumer demands, but as soon as it pays of they will do their best to make more consumers follow, often with results. For example, in many countries consumers do not even have the option to buy non-free range eggs anymore.

A complete shift to organic clothes will take a while, though. Only one percent of the cotton on the current global market is organic and it is forecasted to take till 2015 to rise to 10 percent. To contribute to this rise, we will have to follow the trend.

____________________________________________
References
[1] ‘The cotton wars’, in: The Financial Times, 01 March 2007.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, GARY!!!

2007-02-27T22:45:00.001Z

David and Goliath all over again

2007-02-27T16:21:00.000Z

For my BA history I researched the coverage of the 1967 Six Day War in Dutch newspapers. In 1967, the religious and atheist Netherlands alike were suffering from an unbearable feeling of guilt regarding the country’s relatively high proportion of deported Jews during the Second World War. Not surprisingly, its media were biased in favour of Israel. Israel was portrait as the victim and the weaker party in the conflict.

It is more surprising, however, that last week’s Economist employed similar rhetoric. The Economist argues that Israel’s Labour Party is willing to give up the West Bank in exchange for peace, while Hamas only vaguely promised to respect international resolutions. On top of that, The Economist mentions not less than three times that Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist.[1]

Of course this is true and I am the last person to support Hamas or not to recognise Israel, but in this context it is essential to mention that Israel does not respect international resolutions either. Thousands of Israelis live in settlements, largely on the West Bank, that are illegal according to UN resolution 55/132.

Besides this, the remark that “the immediate security concerns [that] are always uppermost in Israel’s mind” suggests that home made bus bombs impose a bigger threat than Israel’s US sponsored army. I believe that many Lebanese families can argue the contrary.

Of course a leader is expected to be opinionated, and without metaphors such as ‘David and Goliath’ and ‘the Holy Land’ The Economist’s argument is more subtle than that of the Dutch newspapers in the 1960s. However, the premises in this argument are more biased than the conclusion and exactly this subtlety is worrying.
_________________________________________________________
References
[1] ‘A two-headed monster’, in: The Economist, February 17th-23rd 2007, p.17.

Easy criticism

2007-02-20T11:21:00.001Z

In my social environment it has always been popular to criticise the United States. It does not go as far as a boycott on McDonalds and Hollywood movies, but certainly beyond the US foreign policy. It is totally acceptable to call Americans retarded farmers, brainless consumers, fat fanatics and to imitate their way of speech. Even though I have never been on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and despite the fact that I have met many intelligent and healthy Americans, I have to admit that I consider this way of thinking as normal.

The reality struck me when I read a review of the book Uncouth Nation: why Europe dislikes America by Andrei S Markovits. Markovits argues that “anti-Americanism is the only face of xenophobia still broadly accepted in Europe.”[1] Even though the reviewer concludes that Markovits’ argument lacks nuance, this is an interesting point. For example, how can the entire United Kingdom be in shock when Jane Goody makes fun of her Indian housemate’s accent, while clearly no one would care a least bit had an American been the target of Jane’s bullying?

A further interesting point Markovits makes is that anti-Americanism is the only thing Europeans have in common and is therefore the main building block of European identity. Anti-Americanism indeed seems to be a premise rather than a conclusion in European debates. Although European anti-Americanism is not always unfounded, it is an easy game to play. With failing attempts to advance the unity reached so far with a constitution, it is about time for Europe to focus its criticism on itself.
___________________________________________________________
References
[1] Mary Fitzgerald, ‘Love to hate you’, in New Statesman, 12 February 2007, p.59.

Between trivialisation and ignorance

2007-02-13T11:38:00.000Z

Child soldiers as pop-culture icons? Recent movies, such as The Last King of Scotland and Blood Diamond, and music by bands like the Gorillaz and Radiohead indeed suggest that child soldiers have been put under a prominent spotlight in the entertainment industry.

In last week’s Time Magazine Belinda Luscombe expressed her concern that child soldiers will become trivialised. The danger is “cheap, ubiquitous images, dropped in like clip art for a hit of emotion and danger,” she argued.[1]

Ms Luscombe might be right, but the fact that the issue of child soldiers has been put on the international agenda can not be ignored. For example, the first trial of the International Criminal Court will be against Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese rebel leader accused of weaponising children.

The dilemma between trivialisation and mass awareness knows many examples. Journalists may find Michael Moore aggressive and his humour misplaced, but he did advance the debate about the US government and media to a wide public. Many historians agree that Schindler’s List is full of historical flaws, but they have to admit that this movie exposed a broad American audience to the holocaust. The political correct intelligentsia might doubt the motives of artists such as Bob Geldof, Bono, and Madonna, but the truth it that they have drawn more attention to Africa and all its problems.

So what is the greater danger here?

There are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers, mostly in Africa, but still there are many people in the west who don’t know about their existence. If the choice is between trivialisation and ignorance, the first is by far the lesser of two evils. ______________________________________________________
References
[1] Berlinda Luscombe, ‘Pop Culture Finds Lost Boys’, in Time, February 12 2007, pp. 62-64.

Ceci n’est pas une pipe

2007-02-13T11:35:00.000Z

Most people would agree that what they see here is a pipe. Not René Magritte. By writing the words ‘Ceci n’est pas une pipe’ he challenged people’s common view and forced them to rethink what they easily would have accepted as the truth. And Magritte turned out to be right. The title of this painting, ‘La trahison des images’, explains that what we see is in fact not a pipe, but an image of a pipe.

Magritte would have been a good journalist. He took the obvious not for granted, but used his own common sense to judge the situation. The treason of images, which makes people see things that do not exist, is comparable with the treason of PR. The journalistic equivalents of René Magritte are the men and women who decide not to listen to PR and government propaganda, to go against the status quo and to challenge it with their own investigation of it.

Like Magritte, they often turn out to be right. In the past, alternative journalists have opposed seemingly unchangeable situations, such as the Vietnam War and colonialism. More recently, when a large part of the world believed that the war in Iraq was a good decision, alternative voices such as John Pilger and Michael Moore challenged it and revealed the lies in the Bush administration’s propaganda.

The importance of alternative voices in journalism is evident. What you see is not always what you get.

How music made history

2007-02-12T01:02:00.000Z

In 1968 a group of Czech musicians formed the band the Plastic People of the Universe, influenced by music such as The Velvet Underground and Frank Zappa.

Another fan of The Velvet Underground was the writer and political activist Václav Havel. He did not underestimate the power of art, and part of his activism consisted of smuggling western LP’s into the country. When he finally met his idol Lou Reed in 1990, he told him that it was thanks to him that he had become Czech president in 1989.

Needless to say, the Czech authorities were no big fan of the Plastic People. After several conflicts, they finally arrested the band in 1977 and put them in prison. This inspired Havel and some others to write the Charta 77, which resulted in a political active group under the same name. All members played an important role in negotiating the 1989 Velvet Revolution. The end of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia got this name because of its non-violent nature, but also with a wink to… exactly: The Velvet Underground.

Václav Havel encouraged the Plastic People of the Universe to get back together, which they did. They still play concerts these days. They even played a concert in London two weeks ago. I discovered this today. Shit. I missed my chance to see music history perform life…

Today my basil plant died.

Happiness

2007-01-24T00:05:00.000Z

Only the unhistorical person can be truly happy, a wise man once wrote.[1] Being unhistorical means to be able to let go the past and the future completely, to live in and think about the present only.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to be true. Thinking of the happiest moments of my life, I did not realise my happiness until those moments were over. Such a shame. When I think about those moments, I know they are over and I can never relive them.
Thinking about the past has never made me happy, even if it was a happy past.
If I had been conscious of my happiness in the moment of happiness, I probably would have been less happy. Thinking about the moment you’re in instead of living it is never good. Also, knowing that you are happy now makes you realise this cannot last forever. So, also thinking about the future does not make me happy. Even if it’s a happy future –looking forward to something too much usually results in disappointment.

Which makes me wonder if I am happy. I believe I am. That is, in general. I can honestly say that I am generally happy. I am generally happy with my life, my environment, my friends, my family, my past, and I am generally optimistic about my future. Still, moments of true happiness are rare. In the contrary, often I just feel sad. Even though I am generally happy. And when I think of it, I am constantly rethinking past events, thinking about should haves, thinking about future events and conversations in the greatest details. This occupation makes me confused rather than happy, and I know it.

In theory happiness is easy to achieve. All you have to do is let go of the past, don’t expect too much of the future, and enjoy the moment of now as much as you can. So if it is so easy in theory, why is it so incredibly hard? Maybe it is possible to be happy with being sad. Maybe being happy constantly is so unsatisfying that it does not make happy in general.
I just need to find the right balance.

[1] Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1874. Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für das Leben : zweite unzeitgemässe Betrachtung.

Two weeks in the Netherlands

2007-01-10T22:19:00.000Z

Gonny van Oudenallen is an interesting woman. As a member of the Lijst Pim Fortuyn, the right winged populist party we inherited from its in 2002 murdered leader, she was the first person on the list to succeed Margot Kraneveld in the Dutch parliament, after Kraneveld announced to leave the LPF and the parliament immediately. However, the LPF did not wish to include Van Oudenallen, because she has been corrupt in her earlier career. Van Oudenallen did not give up; she decided to claim her place in parliament anyway, with or without the LPF. She started her own party: the group Oudenallen. She knows very well how the system works, in in this case she does not need to go through the normal procedures of starting a party. Not only this, she insisted on getting her place in parliament immediately. Three months before the elections in November of this year. Why? So she has the right on quite some money the coming years.

So Gonny van Oudenallen arrived in parliament. If it was not clear yet she only did this for the money, she made it very clear with her stupidity. She did not recognise ministers and to the leader of the Green Left party, Femke Halsema, she said: "if you like trees and animals. you should move to Australia." Halsema could only laugh in response, although I'm sure she could have cried as well.

Gonny van Oudenallen is corrupt. She did the worst possible job in three months parliament. She only did this for the money. And with all her money, she also manages to hold a social house in Amsterdam. So she is not that unintelligent at all. We all know about this, but we cannot do anything about it. All we can do is pay her....

That is Dutch polics for you!
I had a great time watching all the year overviews on television this christmas holiday. I missed most of it, and seeing it all in a row shows how ridiculous Dutch politics has been... the Prime Minister who was desperate for attention on a skateboard; the minister for justice who made the news with his own rap, (yes, a rap!) one minister who took away Dutch citizenship from another politician, who was forced to move out and lives in America now... like Femke Halsema I could only laugh in response... although I could have cried as well.

Crusade in Jeans

2007-01-08T22:56:00.000Z

What if your favourite childrens book of all times would be made into a movie?

Me and book movies have a love-hate relationship. The movie images never look like the mental images I made of the characters and the story myself. I cannot fully enjoy the movie, because while watching I am comparing every little detail to the book. I know changes are necessary, but most of the changes I have seen are not. The book is always better. Period.

Still I can never resist watching the movies of books I've read.

When Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek (Crusade in Jeans) by Thea Beckman was adapted for the screen this year, I hesitated shortly. Thea Beckman is my hero. She wrote about 30 novels for children, most of them historical and long. Perfect for little book and history nerds like me. Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek is a classic. Written in 1973, translated in 15 languages, and still reprinted over and over again. Mine is signed by Thea herself, and I have read it many times.

So would it be a mistake to watch this movie?

Of course I watched it, the day I got home for christmas. And I have to say: it was not that bad! A few big changes, but explainable, except for the ending, that was different and dissapointing, but the main line of the book was very well translated. The movie is in English, obviously to sell it abroad, but I believe this has not happened yet... dispite the fact that no one less than Emily Watson plays a big part!

Ok, the story: 16 year old Dolf uses a time machine to go back to a lost football game. He ends up in the middle ages, the year 1212, in the middle of a childrens crusade just departed from Keulen (Cologne?).
Obviously, Dolf sticks out. He doubts much, not in the last place God, and the promise of the leading priest that the sea will split for the crusade. Also, he has a 'troubadour in a box': his i-pod (in 1973 his special thing was his watch...) He risks being charged with herecy, but fortunately he does much good too. He 'breaths a boy back to life', he knows how to make gunpowder, he teaches the kids football, he knows its important to separate the sick kids from the healthy, he manages to bake everyone bread in a night... a miracle, this 'Rudolf from Rotterdam'.
The priests leading the crusade are a bit dodgy... as it turns out they plan to bring the children to Genua, not Jeruzalem, to sell them as slaves... Will Dolf be able to stop this? And will he make it back to his own age? Watch or read it yourself!

Thea Beckman always based her novels on historical facts. Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek is full of interesting facts and teaches children a lot about medieval customs, but the main subject, a childrens crusade, is in fact based on a legend, occurred from historian's errors.
When little 10 year old book nerd Aletta gave a presentation in school about Thea Beckman, she discovered confusion exists because of the latin word 'Pueri', which means child in classic Latin, but in Medieval Latin it was used in the meaning of 'poor people' as well...

It doesn't matter. This is the book every kid has to read. In fact, seeing this movie made me want to re-read it right away! The story is interesting, exiting and moving. The crusade leads the children from forests, through the mountains, to the ocean... the sights of the movie are beautiful, the characters are beautiful, the story is beautiful. I almost got the feeling back I had when I read this book as a kid.

Almost. The book is always better.

La Parisienne

2006-12-22T00:32:00.000Z

One hundred and thirty-two years ago, a reviewer visiting the first impressionist exhibition of 1874 saw Renoir's painting 'La Parisienne' and wrote:

'The toe of her ankle boot is almost invisible, and peeps out like a mouse. Her hat is tilted over one ear and is daringly coquettish... The smile is false and the face is a strange mixture of the old and the childish. One gets the impression that this litle lady is trying hard to look chaste.'

'La Parisienne' by Auguste Renoir

It is interesting that more than 100 years after these words were written, I recognise my own impression of the present day 'Parisiennes'. And not just in these words, in the painting itself as well. Her clothes might be completely different, but that doesn't matter. Last year I spent three months in Paris, and there is something about the girls I saw and met there that seperates them from every other girl. Not just from foreign girls like me, but also from the French girls that were not born and raised in Paris. That something I saw back in this painting. Its their attitude. There is no way to describe this attitude, but Renoir managed to do it with oil on canvas. Its timeless, and from all the paintings in the National Museum of Wales it left the biggest impression with me.

The limits of Moore’s Law

2006-12-19T20:54:00.000Z

Challenged by increasing competition and changing consumer demands, Intel’s CEO Paul Otellini led a major reorganisation of the world’s largest chipmaker. Will his effort bear fruit?

When Gordon Moore, one of the co-founders of Intel, predicted in 1965 that the number of transistors on a microprocessor would double every 18 months, he could not know that speed would seize to be the most important feature of a chip.
Moore’s Law, as his prediction became known, ruled the industry for years. Although technically it did not reach its limits yet, the accompanying marketing message that more megahertz, and later gigahertz, is better did. In 2004 consumer purchases of computers exceeded those by business, and consumers care more about features such as design, reliability, communication functions, and price, than how computers work inside.[1]
However, Intel’s long-time ensured place as market leader might have caused the company to loose sight of customer demands. Intel’s chips are still inside 80 percent of every computer sold, but disappointing results and the rise of its smaller rival Advanced Micro Devices shocked its confidence.

This insecurity is reflected in Intel’s share price, which has moved in extremes since 2001 (see chart 1). After a quick rise to $36 in the last two months of 2001, the share price suffered a decline of 50 percent during 2002. Intel managed to recover from this loss in the following year, ending 2003 with a doubled share price of $32.
However, from 2004 the number one chipmaker started to experience serious competition from AMD. While AMD’s share price made a spectacular jump throughout 2004 and 2005, Intel’s share price fell more than 25 percent.
In May 2005 Paul Otellini was appointed to succeed Craig Barrett as the new chief executive officer. Otellini, the first CEO with a background in marketing rather than engineering, recognised the need for change as early as 2001. In 2005 Otellini reorganised Intel according to ‘Platformisation’, which means the bundling of groups of chips on different branded platforms.[2]
So far, this new focus on marketing has not paid off. Intel’s share price saw a small increase during 2005, but fell back by one third in the first half of 2006. The share price recently started a cautious rise, but it is still around $21. While the average of technology stocks is back on 2002’s level, Intel’s share price decreased almost 40 percent in five years. The coming period will determine whether Intel’s shareholders can be convinced that Otellini’s strategy is a plausible replacement of Moore’s Law.

Intel’s latest earnings release show that the chip maker is not by far back on its old level. Intel’s revenue increased between 2002 and 2005. However, the growth rates slowed down and in 2006, at the end of all three quarters revenue was lower than in the previous year (see chart 2).
A possible reason is Intel’s high dependence on the sales of computers, while the growth of this market has stagnated.[3] Intel’s revenue comes for 65 percent from the Digital Enterprise Group, which produces PCs and servers for businesses, and 29 percent from the Mobility Group, which largely produces for laptops. In the overall semiconductor industry, on the other hand, just 45 percent of the revenue comes from computers (see chart 3). So far, Intel has failed to infiltrate rapid growing markets such as home entertainment and mobile phones, which is now the second largest user of semiconductors.[4]

Remarkable is that the growth rates were much higher for Intel’s income and earnings per share than for revenue. This suggests that changes in income were largely due to a reduction or increase in costs rather than to rising or falling sales. The difference was most extreme in 2002, when revenue increased with just 1 percent, while net income and EPS both went up by 140 percent, respectively from $1.3m to $3.1m and from $0,19 to $0,47. Such reduction of costs while revenue stagnates indicates that Intel was investing in short rather than long term results. This might partly explain why its spectacular growth did not continue and reversed in 2006.
However less spectacular, Intel’s gross income changed faster than its revenue as well. Between 2002 and 2005, its gross margin went up from 50 to 59 percent and fell back to 49 percent in the third quarter of 2006.

While Intel presented continuous growth rates between 2002 and 2005, its share price fell. This suggests that other negative factors had a dominant influence on Intel’s image and shareholders’ expectations.
Indeed, Intel made several internal missteps in recent years. Design problems, cancellation or delay of new products, and aborted strategies have cost sales and caused an inventory build-up.[5] As a result, Intel had to announce a 10 percent cut of its global workforce, from 102,500 to 92,000 by the middle of 2007.[6]
Furthermore, a major challenge to Intel’s market leadership has been AMD. In the last few years, AMD was ahead of Intel in launching innovations. AMD’s chips have been faster while using less power, and above these benefits they cost less than Intel’s.[7]
A further blow to Intel’s image has been caused by several investigations following antitrust complaints by AMD. In 2005, the Japan Fair Trade Commission concluded that Intel had violated antitrust laws in Japan since 2002. The JFTC said Intel offered rebates to PC makers if they would limit their purchases from AMD.[8] An investigation into similar practices by the European Commission continues, as investigations in South Korea and a lawsuit launched by AMD in the United States. However, in September of this year the judge dismissed major parts of the lawsuit in favour of Intel and postponed the trial date till 2009.[9]
Following these problems, as well as competition in the PC industry, both Microsoft and Dell decided to stop there exclusive deals with Intel. Microsoft is using IBM chips in its Xbox since 2004 and this year, Dell agreed to use AMD chips in a server product.[10]

Despite of the many difficulties, there are several indications that not all is lost for Intel.
In its latest forecast, the Semiconductor Industry Association predicted a further rise in global sales of semiconductors. The SIA said that the Asia-Pacific is the fastest-growing region and is expected to be 48.2% of the worldwide chip market in 2009.[11] In this respect, Intel is ahead of the market with 50% of its revenue coming from the Asia-Pacific area.[12]
However, according to the SIA the sales increase is mainly driven by consumer purchases, while Intel just recently recognised the specific demands of this group. The newest PCs are designed for high quality multimedia rather than for corporate use and the technical possibilities of Moore’s Law are irrelevant for these needs. Moreover, the sales growth of PCs, Intel’s core market, is small compared to the rapid rise of mobile phones and home entertainment products.
Intel is behind other chipmakers in producing for these growing markets, but Paul Otellini has created new possibilities for the company. Under his platform strategy Intel has been divided in five platforms in January 2005. The two divisions with Intel’s largest market share are Digital Enterprise for business computers and Mobility for laptops and wireless communication. With this last division Intel also seeks to gain share in the mobile phone sector, which is now dominated by its rival Texas Instruments.[13] To infiltrate the home entertainment market, by contributing to the ongoing convergence of consumer computers and electronics, Intel created the Digital Home platform.[14] Furthermore, the platforms Digital Health and Channel Products were created for emerging markets. In November 2005 the Flash Memory division was added. About the potential of ‘platformism’ Otellini said: “The new organisation will help address growth and opportunities by better anticipating and addressing market needs.”[15]
Another advantage of the strategy is that AMD cannot do it. Intel’s rival is too small for such an organisation and they would need third parties to make platforms.[16]
A further opportunity for Intel came last year, when the chipmaker established a partnership with Apple. The importance of this deal lies in Apple’s innovative place in the PC industry, especially in mobility and home entertainment, exactly those two markets Intel is planning to conquer.[17] For example, Intel is investing in the production of the Nand flash memory, which can be used in Apple’s iPod.[18]

Recent results suggest a comeback for Intel. In September of this year, Intel announced a new product, a quad-core chip, ahead of AMD for the first time in two years. Paul Otellini said: “I believe very much that with this new set of dual and quad-core microprocessors we’ve now regained our leadership.”[19]
Patrick Gelsinger, head of the Digital Enterprise division, said: “We are more focused and more angry. That we can go through downturns and come out stronger is the mark of a great company.”[20] Intel has recaptured its confidence, and it seems the market has renewed its trust in the chipmaker too. Although Intel’s latest quarter report presented declined revenue and income compared to last year, the results were higher than Wall Street expected, and Intel’s share price started a cautious rise.[21]

Intel’s future success depends on whether the chipmaker will gain share in growing markets. Paul Otellini seems to be the right man for this job. He realised early that it is time for Intel to look further than the traditional PC market. Moore’s Law might have reached its limits, but Intel has not. New inspiration comes from Robert Noyce, another co-founder of Intel, who said: “Do not be encumbered by history. Go off and do something wonderful.”

[1] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 9 February 2005, p.15.
[2] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 9 February 2005, p.15.
[3] ‘Intel’s right-hand turn’, The Economist, 14 May 2006.
[4] ‘Intel’s right-hand turn’, The Economist, 14 May 2006.
[5] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 9 February 2005, p.15.
[6] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 6 September 2006.
[7] ‘Not paranoid enough’, The Economist, 27 May 2006, p.74.
[8] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 2 April 2005, p.8.
[9] Tobias Buck, Financial Times, 4 October 2006, p.26; Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 28 September 2006, p.29; Roger Parloff, Fortune, 9 April 2006.
[10] Kevin Allison and Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 19 May 2006, pp. 1, 16.
[11] Semiconductor Industry Association’s annual forecast, 16 November 2006, www.sia-online.org [11 December 2006].
[12] Intel’s annual report 2005, www.intel.com [12 December 2006].
[13] Gene G. Marcial, Business Week, 14 February 2005, p.98.
[14] Cliff Edwards, Business Week, 9 January 2006, p.46.
[15] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 18 January 2005, p.29.
[16] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 9 February 2005, p.15.
[17] ‘New best friends’, The Economist, 6 November 2005; Cliff Edwards, Business Week, 9 January 2006, p.46.
[18] David Whelan, Forbes, 4 October 2006.
[19] Chris Nuttall, Financial Times, 27 September 2006, p.22.
[20] David Whelan, Forbes, 4 October 2006.
[21] Don Clark, Wall Street Journal, 18 October 2006, p.2.

China’s rise, America’s fall, global consequences?

2006-12-19T20:51:00.000Z

Everyone who has been shopping for clothes or electronics during the past years cannot have missed the words ‘Made in China’. In the same period, the words ‘Fall of Dollar’ must have been noticed by every reader of newspapers worldwide.
These two simple sentences indicate a worldwide influence of two major economic powers, an influence that reaches much further than cheap products and exchange rates. In this context, the dialogue the United States and China agreed on last Wednesday is of global importance. Will the two super powers act as such, or are they more concerned with their national interest? After all, their economies do not only affect the world, they have at least as much impact on each other. Indeed, when Paul Kennedy asked himself “Whose economy will decline fastest, relative to such expanding states as Japan, China, etc.?”[1] in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers of 1988, the United States already feared the answer.

In the light of China’s rise and its recent entrance to the WTO in 2001, the new agreement is a logical next step in the US-China relationship. China’s acceptance to the WTO came a long way, after years of resistance from Washington and negotiations about conditions. Today, many bilateral commitments made between the two economic powers in 2001, such as the sensitive issue of China’s intellectual property rights, have not been fulfilled yet.[2] Both powers expect that an intensive high level dialogue will deal with their agenda more effectively. However, while Washington is determined to address China’s legal liberalisation, Beijing is mostly interested in economic benefits. Can the new dialogue overcome these clashing goals, as well as resolve other issues of conflict?
Even more questionable is the “long-term strategic view to managing this relationship” aimed for by US treasury secretary Hank Paulson.[3] With the prospects of a Democrat mid-term victory and the ending of the Bush presidency in two years in mind, the Democrats’ China-policy might be at least as important for the future US-China dialogue.

What worries both Republicans and Democrats is the major US trade deficit, which is, as chart 1 suggests, largely caused by cheap Chinese export products. The solution, Washington argues, is a revaluation of the yuan. The Chinese government holds its currency artificially low, to prevent national instability in this time of spectacular economic growth.[4]
However, it is contestable whether revaluation will make much difference for the US trade deficit. As Doug Guthrie, professor at New York University, argues in his book China and Globalization: it are the Americans themselves “who drive that deficit by shopping at Wal-Mart, which is the single-largest contributor to it.”[5] In other words, rather than by unfair competition the US trade deficit is caused by America’s high consumption, and if China does not supply for it another cheap production country will.

A much more important, and less easy to change, issue in the present US-China relationship is the so-called “revived Bretton Woods system.” To keep its exchange rate pegged to the dollar, China has been buying US treasury bonds increasingly over the past years. As chart 2 shows, the PRC is now the second largest holder, only after Japan.[6] By doing so, China largely finances the trade deficit it causes. In effect, the US and China economies are deeply interdependent.

To press for rapid change to this situation is not in anyone’s interest. By dumping parts of its bond holdings, China could cause an immediate fall of the dollar and a depression in the US economy. And because the global economy is attached to the dollar, the whole world would suffer from this, including China.[7] The new US-China relationship cannot bring an end to this tension. However, an intensive senior dialogue might manage the situation, in order to let it develop gradually.
Dr David Williams, lecturer at Cardiff University, argues: “To understand where the US-China relation will go, you only have to look at the history of the US relation with Japan.” Indeed, only decades ago the US viewed Japan as a major economical threat and the cause of these fears fit the same pattern as the present US-China relation. The US relation with Japan cooled down, even though their interdependence through US treasury bonds did not change. What did change, and what will change in the case of China, is the state of the economy. According to Dr Williams, “No country can grow every year, and as China’s economy will ease, the US-China relationship will ease down as well.”[8]

What distinguishes China from Japan, however, is its significant influence on the global economy. Compared to other emerging economies, China is relatively open. The sum of China’s exports and imports is about 75 percent of its GDP, compared to about 25 percent in for example India and Japan.[9] In effect, since China entered the world markets in 2001, it has a noticeable impact on global supply and demand. In short, this means that everything China supplies to the global markets, such as labour and manufactured products, decreases in value, while the prices of the products it demands, such as capital and raw materials, rise. China is now the second-largest oil consumer, only after the US, and its increasing demand has contributed to the risen oil price. Needless to say, oil has become a major factor of competition between the US and China.[10] A more indirect result has been a global decrease in wages, but also growing profits, lower interest rates, and, because China’s export exceeds its import by far, low inflation.[11] These effects would be counteracted by a revaluation of the yuan, which is likely to happen under pressure of the new dialogue with the US. So, ironically, many Americans might be damaged by Washington’s efforts to control China’s economy. And when the US economy suffers, the rest of the world will notice.

The new dialogue focuses on economic issues, but the US government will also use it to deal with political issues, such as further liberalisation. So far, China seems not in a hurry to answer these pressures. China values its strong state sovereignty, developed following Cold War containment and the PRC’s non-recognised status by the US until its entrance to the UN in 1971. Today, this translates in China’s ideal of ‘multipolarity’, which contrasts the American ideal of spreading its own system of democracy and capitalism. In the new context, ‘multipolarity’ means to cooperate to achieve common economical interests, while respecting each other’s different political cultures.[12]

China’s entrance to the WTO indicates that it considers its state sovereignty as complementary to free trade, and the country has made considerable concessions for this. However, the US government sees this as an encouragement to press China for more reforms. As argued, this is not likely to happen soon. And in the long term, the process will possibly be disturbed by the in power gaining Democrats. The more protectionist Democrat Party considers free trade with China a major threat to American jobs. A possible Democrat congress could argue for trade restrictions on China to protect the American market, despite of WTO rules.[13] It might also draw more attention to social issues, or even restore the old link between China’s human rights record and economic relations. President Bush might have made calls for Christian rights in China,[14] the US government no longer lets these issues determine economical relations. The sanction-and-isolation policy following the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre made place for the more sensible idea that social change will follow economic engagement.[15]

Another concern of both Republicans and Democrats, which lies underneath the surface of all economic policies, is China’s military power. In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy argued not only that economic strength is relative, but also that economic growth will be followed by military rise. Indeed, the idea of China as a ‘candidate Great Power’ has frightened Washington ever since the PRC’s establishment in 1949. The initial shock faded through the 1960s and 1970s when appeared that China had weakened rather than developed, but arouse again by China’s nuclear activities.[16]
The latest annual report by the Pentagon suggests that the US government views Beijing as a serious military threat.[17] However, statistics show that these worries are unreasonable. China’s defence spending has risen in line with its economy and stayed around 8 percent of the national budget, against more than 16 percent in the US. Moreover, in 2001 America’s military spending was 17 times higher than China’s, and larger than that of all other countries in the world.[18]
Besides, rather than placing military bases abroad like the US, China uses ‘soft power’ to expand its authority in South East Asia and, since recently, Africa. Washington views this expansion as a threat to its own hegemony. However, in the light of their recent agreement, China’s diplomatic relations might prove useful to the US, that could use its stronger ties with Beijing as a foot in the door in South East Asia.[19]

Two things restrict a significant impact of the new US-China relationship on the global economy: the rising Democrats and the conflicting goals of the two super powers. The best potential the senior dialogue has is to manage the tensions between Washington and Beijing by taking up ruling misunderstandings on political, military and social issues. The more stable basis of their relationship this might create is of global interest. However, who expects directly visible and principle changes will be disappointed. The US-China economical interdependence will remain in place, Washington will stay suspicious towards its colleagues in Beijing, China will keep rising, and the rest of the world will feel the effects.

[1] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Economic Change and Military Conflict From 1500 to 2000 (London 1988), p.532.
[2] ‘U.S. Is Urged to Press China on WTO Obligations’, in: Wall Street Journal, 17 November 2006, p.8.
[3] ‘Dialogue with Beijing will lock in economic liberalization, says US’, in: Financial Times, 21 September 2006, p.3.
[4] ‘Asia: Mr Hu finally goes to Washington; China and America’, in: The Economist, 15 April 2006, p.64.
[5] Doug Guthrie, China and Globalization. The Social, Economic, and Political Transformation of Chinese Society (New York and Oxon, 2006), p.322.
[6] ‘From T-shirts to T-bonds’, in: The Economist, 28 July 2005, p.66.
[7] Guthrie, China and Globalization, pp.321-322.
[8] Interview with Dr David Williams, Cardiff University, 30 November 2006.
[9] Sources: WTO; Thomson Datastream; Economist Intelligence Unit, in: ‘From T-shirts to T-bonds’, p.66.
[10] Guthrie, China and Globalization, p.7.
[11] ‘From T-shirts to T-bonds’, p.66.
[12] Ronald C. Keith, ‘China as a Rising World Power and its Response to “Globalization”’, in: Ronald C. Keith (ed.), China as a Rising World Power and its Response to ‘Globalization’ (New York and Oxon 2005), pp.2-4.
[13] www.democrats.org [30 November].
[14] Caroline Daniel, Richard McGregor and Guy Dinmore, ‘Few Gains for Bush in China’, in: Financial Times, 20 November 2005.
[15] Guthrie, China and Globalization, p.311.
[16] Rosemary Foot, Practice of Power: US relations with China since 1949 (1997), electronic book on: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com [19 October 2006], p.262.
[17] ‘Asia: Out of their silos; China and America’, in: The Economist, 10 June 2006, p.64.
[18] Guthrie, China and Globalization, pp.309-310.
[19] ‘Meeting the superpower; China and the West’, in: The Economist, 19 November 2005, p.12; ‘Aphorisms and suspicions – China’s world order’, in: The Economist, 19 November 2005, p.24.

Should democracy dominate the world?

2006-12-13T14:03:00.000Z

With a widely criticized prime minister and a poor 61 per cent turnout in the 2005 elections, the British political system seems to be no longer convincing. Still, Harold Gafo believes: “Every country in the world should adopt multiparty, parliamentary democracy as its political system as a matter of urgency.” It appears that Mr Gafo is suffering from some outdated Eurocentrism.
For western Europeans the benefits of our system are obvious. A democracy, any democracy, comprises more than just the right to vote in elections. The power is balanced by the many freedoms its inhabitants enjoy, most importantly freedom of speech and information. These freedoms effectively reflect public opinion and put pressure on politicians.
An additional benefit of the multiparty parliamentary system is that power is shared on all levels: between the functions of president or monarch and prime minister; institutionally between senates and parliaments; and ideologically between parties within the parliament and, in case of a coalition, the government.
A multiparty system is an effective way to represent the whole electorate. More people have a chance to participate actively in politics and there are more possibilities to vote for a party close to your own beliefs. After all, it is not the voter’s job to compromise. Furthermore, the presence of a parliament ensures that the parties in opposition have power according to their size. Even small parties can represent their voters, especially in a proportional election system, and, however small their influence is, this reflects the true meaning of the word democracy.
The downside of a multiparty parliament is the risk of endless discussion and compromises without strong decision-making. It may not even go as far as compromises and just lead to competition. This disadvantage became visible in recent European elections. After the votes were counted in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, it proved difficult to form a majority coalition of parties that are willing to cooperate. This could lead to disillusion and disinterest among the voters, a mood that was already present in the 2005 British elections.
However, despite of the apparent weakness in many current European governments and elections, the problems lie with individual politicians rather than within the system. A democratic, but unattractive alternative is a system as we see in the United States. Here the highest power lies with one leader and one party has the chance of dominating the whole political spectrum, while a big minority remains unrepresented.
Thus far, Mr Gafo has a point. Between all democracies, the multiparty parliamentary system does the best job in representing all people and balancing the power. The here disputed part of Mr Gafo’s statement concerns not the system, but the point that all countries in the world should adopt it as a matter of urgency. This idea, that what is good for Europe should be good for the rest of the world, is as old as European civilisation, yet highly questionable.
Democracy stems from a western body of thought and needs a certain foundation. Democracies and parliaments in western countries did not arise within one day; they developed over centuries. Like here, other countries will need a stable basis, a certain level of economy, mature parties and the right motives before any kind of democratic system can work.
The time has come for western powers to drop their view that a multiparty democracy is the only valid system of government. Especially economically weak and highly divided countries might be better of with a strong central leadership. India is a striking example of a multiparty democratic country where ideological plurality has led to competition rather than effective decisions. In the People’s Republic of China, on the other hand, a central one party system has brought an explosive economic development. China’s political system has been to the expense of democratic freedoms the people in India do enjoy, but most people consider prosperity and stability to be more urgent needs. Indeed, learning from China’s steady political reforms, we can conclude that democratic freedoms are following economic growth, and this is likely to happen in other developing countries too.

Our job is to support this economic development, instead of slowing it down by putting too much pressure on political reform. You cannot have it all in once.

Note: this article is written in New Statesman leader style and is meant to present the New Stateman's view, not my personal opinions.

For publication's sake

2006-12-13T13:56:00.000Z

As my readers must have noticed, this is my blog. And I know that it is just a blog, which is meant for blogging, but it is also mine. And after reading the woodenspoon, I realised this gives me some opportunities. For example, I can use it to publish my articles. I know this is just a blog, and mine, and its readership is limited, but the fact that is is possible to publish my own articles is enough. Also, I like seeing what other people made of the same assignment. So I encourage all my classmates to follow the woodenspoon, like me. It would be such a waste of opportunity not to post your article online. Come on, MAIJ'ers, just do it! If not for me, for publication's sake.

For the love of plants

2006-12-10T18:16:00.000Z

Me and plants never got along. It is not that I was never interested; on the contrary. I spent many happy hours assisting my mum gardening and walking through the forests. But as soon as I tried to raise my own green friend I miserably failed. I gave up after I became notoriously known as the girl who managed to kill a cactus.

I analysed my failures over and over again, but could not discover what went wrong. I tried everything: just a bit of water every week, lots of water daily, in front of the window, next to my bed… nothing could give my several plants the life spirit I hoped for. The only conclusion I could come up with was that plants really do need love.

I forgot about my period as a plant killer until this week, years after the death of my last cactus, something happened that confirmed this conclusion.

Not long after I started cooking as a student in Rotterdam, I discovered a magic ingredient. It is something that tastes good with almost everything, and whenever I add it to a dish I impress everyone. The flavour, the smell, the magic of it makes me look like a good cook.

Basil.

Still, it took me 4 years of university before I decided me and basil were ready for the next step. I mean, even when you have such a good relationship as me and basil it is quite a long-term commitment. But I decided to stop thinking about it and just jump into it. I bought myself a basil plant.

For some reason, I did not realise immediately that this basil plant was in fact a plant. Until today. I sat in the kitchen and all of a sudden it was there: beautiful, smelling great, green, and… alive. For a while I was amazed, but than I got it: I love basil.

It got me thinking though. Is this it? Would I still not love plants enough not to kill them, or is the survival of my basil an indication that I might be ready for more? A Christmas tree, maybe? Or maybe this is not about love at all. Maybe I just grew up.

A surrealistic fourteen minutes

2006-11-26T22:09:00.000Z

Video Quartet (2002)
by Christian Marclay (born 1955)

Four screen projections, thousands of different scenes from various movies, one piece of art.

For his work Video Quartet the New York based artist and experimental musician Christian Marclay collected thousands of film clips with musical instruments, singing, dancing and other forms of sound. He amazingly edited these clips together, resulting in a surrealistic 14 minutes.

Four different screens next to each other play four different scenes at the same time, quickly alternating, sometimes returning, but for the full 14 minutes it almost seems like these scenes were meant to be together. Scenes of famous and less famous movies from the whole century, instruments varying from the piano and guitar to the saw, genres from Jimi Hendrix to Maria Callas, combined with other sounds like humming, tap-dancing and screaming connect surprisingly well. Two or three instruments become an orchestra, with a singer they form a band, all sounds become one and even the images seem to relate to each other as if all movie makers, actors and musicians have been working together in this project.

Video Quartet is displayed in Tate Modern, London, in the wing “States of Flux.” This wing is devoted to early twentieth-century movements like Cubism and Futurism, which “broke with traditional ideas of picture making, seeking a more dynamic and fractured visual language to represent the complex reality of modern life and the machine age.” (http://www.tate.org.uk/) The work of Christian Marclay is an example of contemporary artists that have been influenced by these earlier movements. It shows the different layers of a movie, it mixes several cultural genres and it shows the relationship between sound and vision, between music and daily life.

The lesser of all evils

2006-11-23T17:55:00.000Z

Centre-right? Centre-left? All left? Or ‘Christian-social’?

Last night the results of the Dutch elections came in. However, this does not mean that the new government can start today…

Most likely, the new government will be a coalition of losers. The biggest party, the Christian Democrats of the present Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, or Harry Potter, lost three seats. The second party, the Social Democrats, lost 10 seats and the former third party, the Liberals, lost 6 seats. Negotiations for the coalition will start tomorrow…

Harry Potter

Both the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats have made a move to the centre the last years. It is therefore striking that their smaller and more radical versions came out of this election as winners.
The Christian Union is more conservative in ethical issues such as euthanasia, but is much more social than the CD. Balkenende, who has been trying to win the sympathy of George W. Bush, seems to have lost sight of Christian values of brother love in the 'war against terrorism'. The CU won the seats the CD lost.
Traditional voters of the SD have abandoned this party in favour of the Socialist Party of Jan Marijnissen, nicknamed ‘the wizard of Oss’ after his hometown. One group that did this by large is the Turkish community, that was not grateful when SD leader Wouter Bos fired a Turkish employer because he refused to acknowledge the Armenian genocide of 1915. The SP experienced a historical victory from 9 to 26 seats in Parliament.

Another winner is Geert Wilders, who rose from 1 to 9 seats. This means that over 600,000 people voted for “more courtesy, lower taxation and less Islam”.

Am I happy with these results? I guess I am, in a way.

Although I am not a Christian Democrat, I believe that between Bos and Balkenende the latter would make a better Prime Minister. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean a good Prime Minister. A man that kisses Bush’s ass, supports the war in Iraq and, as the only EU leader, called the process against Saddam fair and the death penalty ‘fitting’ would never have my sympathy. But at least he is consistent. Bos lost his credibility completely and I don’t think he deserved to win.

Although many people seem to think Wilders is a clever man and by voting for him spread more hate and division in the Netherlands, I was relieved to see that many, many more people have some common sense and see that a social policy would be in the best interest of everyone.

Although I would like to see the SP in government as a result, unfortunately the votes are not that easy to translate in a coalition. To listen to the votes would mean to include the winners in government, but this is easier said than done.

I was glad to hear that Marijnissen refuses to work together with the CD, even though this means the SP is doomed to serve another 4 years in opposition. In theory the biggest party does not have to be included in the coalition, but it would be a bit undemocratic not to do so. I was also glad to hear non of the parties want to work with Wilders and his ‘Party of Freedom’. Remains the CU, and a coalition between the CU, the CD and the SD is the best possibility at this moment. And this might not even be that bad. The CU is too small and the liberal laws of for example euthanasia, gay marriage and drugs to settled for the CU to make a difference in these issues, but the small party could put some social pressure on the two big centre parties.

So, although I would never vote for any of these parties and although this is not at all an ideal government, considering the possibilities, the present tensions in the Netherlands and the rise of extreme right, this is by far the lesser of all evils.

Tsunami

2006-11-20T19:47:00.000Z

Since the rise of Pim Fortuyn 4 years ago many right winged power seeking populists in the Netherlands thought: I can do that too! Let’s start my own party, scare the people with terms like “tsunami of immigrants” and “terrorism” and they will vote for me!

Sadly enough, they were right. In the upcoming national elections of this Wednesday three such parties participate. One of them is the “Partij voor the Vrijheid” – Party for Freedom of mr. Geert Wilders. His haircut makes it very hard for me to take this guy serious, but unfortunately there are many more reasons to fear him.

Just a few of his party standpoints are: to make national history and national identity prominent in education, the right of preventive frisking, the discard of the Dutch Senate, an important part of our democracy, more roads and planning to the expense of green areas, no new EU members, no new Mosques and Moslim schools and the inclusion of Christian/Jewish/humanist culture in the constitution. Oh, and of course a stop on immigrants and lower taxations.

According to the latest polls this guy will win about 6 seats in parliament. After a quick calculation, this means that, based on 12 million voters and a minimum of 60% turn up, over 300.000 people are voting for the Party of Freedom. Who’s freedom? For the thousands of Muslims that have been living in our country for decennia? For the disabled people that now “have to work for their allowance”?

Do people know what they are voting for? Or do they just hear the word “immigrants” and is that enough? Either way, this seriously frightens me. Of course “tolerance” was a myth all along. But the hostility and selfishness of so many of my fellow Dutch people sickens me. It makes me glad to be away from it for a while.

Afraid to be scared

2006-11-17T23:01:00.000Z

I always thought I wouldn't be scared. That I would go, right away. I mean, I am not a very scared person in general. I don't mind walking around in dodgy area's, at night, alone. Rumours about shootings and mafia don't stop me. Homeless junkies never made me run away. It might be naive, but better naive than locked up at home.

Of course there is a difference between a dodgy area in Rotterdam, London, or even Istanbul, and a warzone. I do realise that the chance of getting in to trouble in Afghanistan might be slightly bigger than in the banlieue of Paris. Still, I thought, and actually I still think that I would feel more excitement than fear. But what will I do if I end up in some actual fighting? How will I react on the sound of firearms around me? What if I get to see bloody situations? I don't think the army would be very pleased if they have to deal with not just their own job but with a fainted journalist as well.

A few lectures the past couple of weeks made me realise that such things will happen, for sure. I guess I knew this al along, but the personal stories of journalists made me truly realise. How do you prepare for that? You get a special training, of course, but how do you prepare mentally? I guess you can't. And maybe you shouldn't try.

Today we got a lecture on the International News Safety Institute. In the past 10 years, 1000 journalists were killed, and most of them were murdered. Most of them were local journalists, so not foreign correspondents. I guess that's comforting news for my worried parents... The worst part of this news is that journalists don't just die in war because it's war, they die because they are journalists and often not just seen as objective reporters. Even worse, some journalists appear to believe they are not... a Dutch cameraman in Afghanistan run out of battery and "with nothing better to do" he picked up a gun and started shooting.

Whatever state of panic I might find myself in, I am pretty sure at least that won't happen to me. But again: what would I do?

The thing that a female journalist in Iraq looks back at as her worst experience as an embedded journalist is not the fighting. It was that she could not shower for three months and because of the lack of a toilet she had to go 'in the desert with the entire British army watching you.' Those are the things you can't prepare for, and the things you'd rather not know beforehand...

I still think I won't be scared. By now, I am just afraid I will be once it's too late to return.

Review

2006-11-15T11:45:00.000Z

Why is it that so many people decide to do research about their own country?

When I wrote my thesis on Northern Ireland last year, I discovered that most of the literature on the subject is written by Irish people. The same turns out to be true for South Africa. I find this very admirable. Im not even from a country that is in war and/or strongly divided, although slightly disturbed, but still I find it very difficult to give a balanced view on the Dutch situation. Of course I know that there might be more than one Muslim fanatic in the country, and I do know that Theo van Gogh was far from campaigning to throw all Muslims out. But when I read an article about "dark forces", that is not clear in what this is but suggests that it has to do with the Muslims, I don't even feel like trying to be balanced at all. Where do I come in this story?

Actually, the best books on Dutch history are not written by people from the Netherlands. And the best book on the current political situation is written by a Dutch journalist that has been living in the USA for the past 30 years. So it is a Dutch thing than? Are we not capable of distancing ourselves from the subject? Or are we just not interested at all?
How do you do research on a subject that includes yourself?

Dark Forces

2006-11-14T11:15:00.000Z

"After a turbulent four years, including not just two political murders but a string of slightly different governments and the voters' rejection of the European Union constitution, the Dutch would like a period of calm. That may boost their Harry Potter - but only if there are no more scary confrontations with dark forces."
(Economist, November 11th-17th 2006, p. 48*)

What does the writer mean by "dark forces"? The murderers of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh? The first was murdered by a left winged environment and animal rights activist, the second by a Dutch Maroccan. The Economist writes that "Theo van Gogh, a film-maker who was rude about Islam" was murdered by a "Muslim fanatic". It is obvious who is the dark force in this sentence.
This murder was absolutely horrific, and like other Dutch people I was shocked to feel freedom of speach can be dangerous, but to call Theo van Gogh "rude about Islam" is an understatement. He regularly called muslims "goat fuckers". And many people agreed with him.

So what is the dark force in this case? One muslim fanatic or a country full of people that are campaigning to throw all "goat fuckers" out?

* The article is on the coming Dutch elections, in which the current Prime Minister, nicknamed Harry Potter, has a good chance.

A Blogger's World

2006-11-12T17:27:00.000Z

I’ve been thinking about it for a while now. Subjects, theme, style, audience… I mean there is a lot to consider before you create a blog. And I did not even mention the most obvious consideration yet: why? Would anyone be interested in what I have to say online? Is this important at all? The reason blogging is so popular might have more to do with the writers than with the audience, since the existence of a blog does not depend on any commercial interest. Anyone can blog, so everyone blogs. People like to have their say and the internet is a perfect place to drop it. And if there are just a handful of people reading it, it’s enough.

So I surrendered… I am blogging. Not because I have anything particularly important to say. I am blogging for blogging’s sake.

It’s a blogger’s world. And who am I to deny that?