Wikileaks Breaks $3 Billion Corruption Story

James Hardine writes Wikileaks, the website for whistleblowers, has broken one of the world's biggest corruption stories in the international press (Guardian, BBC, Forbes, Sydney Morning Herald). The site has leaked a secret report on looting by ex-president Moi of Kenya — and possibly altered the outcome of an impending national election. Moi has become a key player in political life in Kenya, and is now an essential pillar in President Kibaki's campaign for re-election in December 2007. From the Wikileaks page: 'The suppressed auditor's report reveals that currency worth billions of US dollars was looted from Kenya by President Moi and his associates. The money was laundered across the world and includes properties and shell companies in London, New York and South Africa and even a 10,000 hectare ranch in Australia.'"

Comments

Re:What about legal looting?

[skoaldipper]

What about this?

First, I ever heard about wikileaks, but they make a few good points in there (albeit a bit cynical and paranoid).

Hey, as long as someone doesn't leak the fact that I use depends, I got no problem with it. Err. Wait. Oops. Literally!

Phew!

[evil agent]

See, this is why I stay away from Kenya and only deal with my legitimate business partners from Nigeria.

Re:Phew!

[JazzyMusicMan]

What are you talking about?? This Kenyan guy actually did have money he needed to transfer out of kenya! I guess none of his henchmen were long last relatives twice removed of mine. :(

this is the result of socialism

[backslashdot]

Socialism which centralizes all p;power in the government, causes this. When the same government that is responsible for policing, is repsonsible for economic activity such as providing electricity and even news to the public .. seriously fucked up shit like this can happen. It irreverasbly fucks a country hard.

Show me where socialism and government control over business activity has brought about prosperity and lifted a country out of poverty? I can show examples for capitalism: China, Singapore, South Korea (contrast with North Korea which was considered richer than S. Korea before the split -- and S. Korea was as poor as any African country).

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Crazy Taco]

Agreed. And just take a look at the countries of Eastern Europe as long as we are citing examples. They are doing FAR better than they ever were under the socialist/communist policies they followed throughout the cold war. Japan is another example of an Asian country that is no longer in poverty either. They got their buts kicked in WWII and didn't have anything, but now are one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

Now lets look at countries that are following socialism. I'm betting heavilly that we aren't going to see Venezuela becoming an economic powerhouse under Hugo Chavez. They might stay afloat economically, but that will be almost entirely thanks to oil and nothing else. It certainly won't propel them into having any sort of real, diversified economy in which the vast majority of the population gets out of poverty.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Alex Zepeda]

You're right. The "free" press of the USA is far from complacent. Ha.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.
If you examined those countries you mentioned they are social, in that they care about the people and involve in statewide programs, exactly what you said is bad.
Pure capitalism is as bad as pure socialism.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[alnjmshntr]

Hang on did socialism cause this, or did corrupt people cause this? Cause it seems to me that corrupt people caused this. Granted socialism stands to be abused far more by corrupt people, but it in itself is not corrupt.

In any case there are *many* examples of successful socialism, almost every major European nation exhibits varying degrees of socialism.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[McDutchie]

Show me where socialism and government control over business activity has brought about prosperity and lifted a country out of poverty?

Germany. The Netherlands. Belgium. France. The UK. The Scandinavian countries. And even Canada. Need I go on?

Of course, after privatizing essential facilities such as electricity and railways, some of these countries are now significantly more fscked up than they were ten or twenty years ago.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[gowen]

Yeah. You'd never catch republics or democracies losing millions and millions of dollars. And do you really think the Federal Reserve wanted to cut lending rates to bail out all those NINJA mortgages? That cost them a load of money they're never getting back. Similarly for the European Central Bank, which spent billions artificially propping up share markets.

Oh, and socialism is not communism. Communism is totalitarian, socialism is not necessarily.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Oldsmobile]

Actually, Kerala in India is one of the richer states of India and is *gasp* socialist.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[RAMMS EIN]

Wrong. _Power_ is what allows people to do this. Being in the government gives people power, whether the government is socialist or otherwise. Corruption happens in decidedly un-socialist governments as well, and it happens in companies, ... I could go on, but I've already made my point: it's power that facilitates corruption.

So thanks for wrongly knocking socialism, and thanks to the moderators who modded you up. It reminds me just how much bollocks is flying around when it comes to politics.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[GreyWolf3000]

I gotta say, when I read reports like this, it's not 'capitalism' or 'socialism' that I end up blaming...

Re:this is the result of socialism

[isaac]

Show me where socialism and government control over business activity has brought about prosperity and lifted a country out of poverty?

The US after the Great Depression? You know, the one that came about because of ineffective government regulation of the financial sector?

I don't buy the argument that services for which the delivery infrastructure is a classic natural monopoly and the demand is inelastic - like electricity - should be put in the hands of a private entity with a profit motive.

Nice troll, though.

-Isaac

Re:this is the result of socialism

[localman]

Agreed: pure socialism doesn't work well. But neither does pure capitalism. What is interesting to me is trying to find the balance. I tend far towards the capitalist side myself, even sympathizing with Libertarian ideas. But then I realize that all ideals are subject to their limitations when implemented in reality.

For example: welfare. In a perfect world there would be no such thing and everyone would make their own way or pay the price. So we abolish welfare. Problem is, there will always be a percentage of people who don't make it and who cause those who do to pay the price through theft and violence and being a general nuisance. So it is better for the people who make it to set aside some amount of their income to keep these people living at least at a level where crime upon others is minimized but so is freeloading. Make living at the bottom of the barrel nice enough to prevent crime yet uncomfortable enough that only the most serious hard cases would put up with it. There's no perfect solution, but there is an optimal balance point.

Call it extortion by the poor, but in a pragmatic sense your money that goes towards welfare stabilizes things in a way that benefits you more than just holding on to that money would. There are countries that go too far in that direction, redistributing wealth, and have serious problems. There are countries that don't do any wealth redistribution, and they have different serious problems. Finding that balance... which few talk about... is really the puzzle. But we just get caught up in arguing about which extreme is correct, holding on to impractical ideals.

The same balancing act applies to many areas; health care, government mitigating the tragedy of the commons, copyright. How much should the governement get involved in things? For a healthy society the answer is close to "none", but it's not "none".

Cheers.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[gowen]

I'm betting heavilly that we aren't going to see Venezuela becoming an economic powerhouse under Hugo Chavez. They might stay afloat economically, but that will be almost entirely thanks to oil and nothing else. It certainly won't propel them into having any sort of real, diversified economy in which the vast majority of the population gets out of poverty.

And how is this different from beacon-of-capitalism and friend-of-America, Saudi Arabia? Except that Chavez is elected and the House of Saud isn't?

Re:this is the result of socialism

[roman_mir]

I live in Toronto, Canada. Yesterday night I was walking by the Mel Lastman's Square and a kid, probably not older than 16 was standing there distributing a socialist newspaper. Another young girl was distributing some kind of a Che Guevara pamphlet. I wish the public education put more emphasis on history and philosophy education (as well as hard sciences,) and would provide these kids with enough information and thinking abilities to understand what exactly such people as Che have done in their lives and why exactly socialist propaganda ends up going the bloody road every time it attempts to change the human nature. Then again, I was born in the former USSR and this is sort of like second nature to understand these things.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[ghyd]

Though socialism is now a past ideology, and that those who still reclaim themselves from it (rather than from some kind of lighter social democracy) are long time deluded, corruption is not inherently linked with socialism. Even free market liberalism can be corrupt, like Enron, AT&T, or Bush and co have clearly demonstrated.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Pig Hogger]

Socialism which centralizes all p;power in the government, causes this. When the same government that is responsible for policing, is repsonsible for economic activity such as providing electricity and even news to the public .. seriously fucked up shit like this can happen. It irreverasbly fucks a country hard.

Oxdung. Poverty and ignorance (citizens who don't know the law, their rights and who can then be bullied by local bullies) are what cause corruption.

In Canada and France, for example, the government provice electricity and health-insurance, yet they are LESS corrupt than even the USA.

What fucks up a country irremediably is when some people are allowed to accumulate unchecked wealth and power.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[pipingguy]

That's interesting. thanks.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[mike2R]

Germany. The Netherlands. Belgium. France. The UK. The Scandinavian countries. And even Canada. Need I go on?

Of course, after privatizing essential facilities such as electricity and railways, some of these countries are now significantly more fscked up than they were ten or twenty years ago.

The only way I can describe that is Bollocks.

I'm not supporting grandparent's idea that socialism is the cause of corruption in Kenya, but to see socialism in Britain as an economic success story is just plain wrong.

What was the economic legacy of socialist governments in Britain? Rampant unions, unemployment, loss making state-owned manufacturing industries that were decades out of date.

caricaturisation

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Watson Ladd]

In 1917 Russia was an agricultural nation that lost against Germany which was fighting a two front war. Russia had previously been defeated by Japan overnight in the Russo-Japanese war. In 1850 Japan was also an agricultural nation with no industry to speak of. Japan took 100 years to become a superpower, Russia took 20. Is that enough of a historical comparison? Just remember that Communism won the second world war without help. D-Day was major, but it didn't turn the war around like Staligrad and Kursk did. Oh, and who put the first satellite in space? The first heart-lung machine? The big bang? Explained superfluidity? All that from the USSR. Now, let's look at Israel. The kibbutzim produced most of Israel's elite despite having no more then 7% of the population. So it looks like socialism does work. Now remember the 1930's? The only nations not affected by the Great Depression were the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is the historical record, and what it shows is not what you think it does.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[jandrese]

Power alone isn't good enough though, it needs to be unchecked to really be abused. That is why even though the US and Europe have plenty of abuses, a lot of them are caught and the effect on the economy is kept in check somewhat. This can break down in the US for example when the same party grabs all three branches of Congress, but the situation cannot last for long because the people eventually vote them in and the entire government is kept in check by the media.

This is why whenever you see a government shutting down independent media, you know that the government officials are gearing up to plunder their country dry.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Watson Ladd]

Please learn what communism actually is before you say it is authoritarian.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[DeepHurtn!]

"Less corrupt than *even* the USA"...? America has just institutionalized and legitimized corruption in the forms of lobbying, massively expensive and well funded election campaigns, and promises of cushy corporate board positions after political retirement. They're incredibly corrupt.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[roman_mir]

Before 1917 Russia was a state based on slavery, it is true. Many believe that some form of a revolt was almost inevitable due to the top government not being able to do its job effectively and due to the general population's dissatisfaction with the status quo. Obviously the Russian-Japanese war did not help the matters much at all, why the Russian army was sent against Japanese machine guns with nothing more than some religious icons and crosses in their hands.

The USSR of-course has defeated the Fascist Germany, the first man in space was Yuri Gagarin and Lev Landau was at least as smart as Einstein. However you are contributing these obvious achievements to the socialist/communist regime set in place, which is a logical fallacy.

You see, after the October Revolution took place there were people (Stolypin) in the country who proposed reforms that could have turned the country around and brought it into a soft form of capitalism (small size landownership actually.) After all, the country itself was mostly agrarian.

What has actually happened was very different. My great-grandfather's 7 out of 12 children have died in Ukraine in the beginning of 1930th from hunger along with 30 million other people. So my great-grandfather was moved off his land, because he had to hire help to work in the field, this was against the communist law of the time. His remaining family and himself together with millions others were put on trains and moved to Siberia, away from their lands. His wife and one more kid died in the train during the move from diphteria. Now to some this may not mean much, but they may not understand what Ukraine actually was at the time (and still is today.) It was called the Bread Basket of the Soviet Union. For 30 million farmers to die from hunger is not something that can be explained easily, but the basics of it are these: the new communist government needed money, which it did not have, to jump start a non-existing industrial complex. The only way to do this was to take away what could be taken away from the farmers of the land and to sell it abroad, namely food. Food was taken away completely for at least 3 years in a row, which resulted in approximately 30 million deaths.

That is just one small bookmark in the novel written by the new communist regime.

Many probably do not realize this, but when Hitler attacked USSR, he hit Ukraine first. The initial reaction of the people was mixed, most were fed up with the Soviet form of government and they would have stayed away from the war completely and let the Nazi forces through, however Hitler made one of his many many blunders, he killed the civilians and he killed them in numbers and with ferocity that somehow outmatched the late doings of the Communist Party in the republic. At the end of it all Ukrainians had little choice, they had to fight the immediate danger of being exterminated.

You have cited some examples of ingenuity shown by the people of the former Soviet Union, what you have not seen though outmatches everything that you have heard off. The fate of the people of that land between 1912 and up to about the end of 1960th was terrible. From about 1970th and to the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union the life became much easier, but it was never free.

You see, the socialists do not want to free people from anything really, they want to tell the people how to live their lives too. If you weren't with 'it' in the former USSR, you were against the law, and the Communist Party set the law. There was no other party.

Personally I would rather live in a capitalist country during depression, then in a communist country in the best of times though.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[StarTux]

Erm, this has nothing to do with socialism (and I know Kenya way better than you having actually lived there). Its been pretty much known that this sort of thing has been going on for years under Moi, but its not something anyone in Kenya could safely talk about.

Is Kenya unique? in a word no...

Re:this is the result of socialism

[oblivionboy]

And have you thought that after this they still might be standing there handing out socialist pamphlets?

Re:this is the result of socialism

[roman_mir]

It is of-course a possibility, but judging from the curriculum of our public school, a very remote one.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[RAMMS EIN]

Exactly. 100% right.

Except that, perhaps, western media aren't really doing enough to get the important issues exposed, and people are to complacent. That's my view, anyway.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Boa Constrictor]

I know this one will be disputed, but Singapore. Who else has had 8% real growth recently? If you don't count toxic-everything China the country's the economic powerhouse of the region. Even if you do, a country with a standard of living this high and this much economic growth is hardly normal. Furthermore the govt. owns massive chunks of the country and so on. Now you can mod me down for being obstreperous and anti-American.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[bjourne]

What has actually happened was very different. My great-grandfather's 7 out of 12 children have died in Ukraine in the beginning of 1930th from hunger along with 30 million other people.

Why do you have to make up stuff like this? The population of Ukraine was in 1927 32 million, so it is completely unimaginable that 30 million of them died. Historians place the death toll to anywhere between 2 to 7 million, not 30. Also note that while Stalin's collectivization program undoubtedly catalyzed the famine, famines occured regularily in Ukraine due to poor harvests (leading to millions in deaths).

Re:this is the result of socialism

[evilviper]

Just remember that Communism won the second world war without help.

Gee, by far the largest country in the world managed to defeat the tiny nation of Germany, and merely by throwing wave after wave of it's own men to be slaughtered in the millions.

And even with that, I still seriously doubt the USSR would have won the war on it's own. You're completely dismissing the aid the USSR received, and amount of effort the Axis put into fighting the other Allies. England and the US weren't on the ground in Europe as early, but they were bombing the hell out of Germany, fighting in Africa, and destroying the Axis navies. If nothing else, lots planes, bombs and V1s and V2s were sent towards England, rather than Russia.

And if Japan had joined in the war attacking the USSR, instead of the USA? The "Communists" may well have run out of human chattel to throw under the tanks before the war's end.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[sdhoigt]

Agreed (somewhat). Japan was a economical/military monster before WW II.

MacArthur (the USA) went fairly easy on Japan after the war so that Japan could easily rebound/rebuild back into the economically strong presence they were before the war.

SD

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Virgil Tibbs]

you must be british...
the german trains run perfectly, privatised!

Re:this is the result of socialism

[mykdavies]

Given that he banned teaching of Marxism and suppressed left-wing opposition to his creation of the "one-party" system in Kenya (by merging his KADU party with the KANU party), I'd be interested in understanding why you think that Daniel arap Moi was socialist.

Do you know more about him and his policies than your comment indicated? From the lack of specific mention of Kenya in your post, I wonder if you were basing your comments on some prejudices about generic "African" politics?

Re:this is the result of socialism

[dmclap]

There are plenty of people that would argue that not only did government intervention slow the US's rise out of the Great Depression, but that it was the main cause in the first place, or at least well up there on the list. Now, whether it was worth it for morale (or other) reasons is a completely different issue, but don't just assume that the government intervening was good for the economy as a whole.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[billcopc]

Education won't stop angst-ridden teens from acting out. Kids don't give a flying fuck about the meaning of their actions, they just want the attention. Che Guevara, socialism, punk rock... these kids don't know what any of it really means, they just choose it as a conduit for their hormonally-charged frustration.

I'm all for counter-culture, but there are intelligent and effective ways to apply these tools, and valid strategies and goals to pursue. I don't expect the average 16 year old to even have an explicit goal or purpose, which is why most people pay no mind.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[IWannaBeAnAC]

But they do qualify, because especially Germany, and to a lesser extent the UK, were basically in ruins at the end of the 2nd world war. But a better example is Switzerland, which was a rather poor country before the 2nd world war and remains a fairly socialist country. And they have the best organized public transport system of anywhere in Europe that I've seen. Spain is another example, that turned from a very poor country to about average, due to the formation and assistance of the EC (later EU).

Re:this is the result of socialism

[clang_jangle]

Thanks for posting that, it's a fascinating account. If you write a history book I will buy it.
However I must take exception to attributing the horrors and abuses of the Soviet government to socialism or communism. The USSR was about as true an example of "socialism" as the US is of "democracy".
Socialism didn't cause the problems, just as democracy didn't cause the oil war. The bastards who succeed at politics always promote an ideology, but they do not follow it. Whether it's socialism or capitalism, it's always the same kind of crooks doing the exact same things.
Some of the Scandinavian countries are doing very well blending socialism and capitalism, BTW. Something we are sadly still too brainwashed to do here in the US. :(

Re:this is the result of socialism

[cbraescu1]

What's the difference between you and those Holocaust deniers who say "But the Jews are lying, they haven't been N million of Jews killed by Hitler, they were only Z millions!"

Re:this is the result of socialism

[IWannaBeAnAC]

But it is hard to call the privatization of the UK railways a success. Indeed, it has been quite disastrous, with terrible timetable problems, confused pricing structures, and even some deaths that are directly attributable to poor maintenance (since the company suppling the maintenance was trying to maximize profit by minimizing expense). The big problem with Britain is that all levels of government failed to maintain funding for basic infrastructure from about the 60's onwards. The local and national government saw public transport, for example, as a cash cow that they could milk without having to reinvest anything. Of course, after 30 years, the state of public transport infrastructure in the UK was about on par with East Germany, and is now so far behind the rest of Europe that it would take years to catch up, even if the government showed any signs of wanting to do so. But it is possible - even East Germany has now caught up in many places. (eg, Dresden has better infrastructure than pretty much anywhere in the west of Germany. In summary, the UK is a failed socialist state, and are now paying the price for it.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[the grace of R'hllor]

Certainly in the Netherlands, socialism hasn't reigned alone in a long time. In a multi-party system (as opposed to the US de facto two-party system) with a decently split electorate, there is always either a more moderate party, or a party from the different side of the political spectrum, with whom power is shared in a coalition. It's an influence, nothing more.

The Socialist Party in Holland is currently headed by a man who, apparently, at one time considered Mao Zedong, responsible for tens of millions of deaths, a good political role model for himself.

Granted, essential services (healthcare, military and police, public transport and the power grid) should (have) remain(ed) under government control.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[esme]

The only nations not affected by the Great Depression were the USSR and Nazi Germany. This is the historical record, and what it shows is not what you think it does.

right, the nazis gaining power in germany had nothing to do with the great depression. it must have been their fashion sense and good manners...

-esme

Re:this is the result of socialism

[ptbarnett]

The US after the Great Depression? You know, the one that came about because of ineffective government regulation of the financial sector?

The causes of the Great Depression are still being debated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_D epression

The opening paragraph:

Causes of the Great Depression are still a matter of active debate among economists. The specific economic events that took place during the Great Depression have been agreed upon since it was first studied: a deflationary spiral forced dramatic falls in asset and commodity prices, dramatic drops in demand and credit, and disruption of trade. However, historians lack consensus in describing the causal relationship between various events and the role of government economic policy in causing or ameliorating the Depression.

Nice troll, though.

In comparison to yours, maybe. But as trolls go, both are pretty lame.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[owlnation]

No. Not sure the parent should really be modded insightful. This is a simplistic and naive statement. And actually for the most part incorrect. It's little more than an I-drank-the-koolaid observation.

I'm a westerner that spent many years in the former communist countries. Much of what you read in the west of the hardships in these countries was western propaganda. It really wasn't as bad as you were told it was in many cases, there were some very good things about the systems they had. Sure, yes, there were some really evil ones too.

It is true that there are now benefits to these countries being capitalist. There are however, some significant problems too.

I'm not advocating socialism, nor capitalism. Both can be good systems. The problem is politicians, doesn't matter what card they carry, what their purported beliefs are, what their rhetoric is -- they are all in it for themselves.

The problems in most countries are caused by selfish greedy corrupt humans -- be they communist, socialist, republican, democrat, liberal or whatever. In Czech, Slovakia, and Poland for example there are still some instances of corruption in Government. Different politics, different economy, same old shit. And LOOK at Russia as conclusive proof that the parent is FAR from insightful.

Living in the UK I can see the beginning many of the problems that the communist countries had -- restricted travel, cameras everywhere, ID cards on the horizon, children trained to be "Young Pioneer-style" graffiti and vandalism wardens, etc etc...

However, there seem to be few of the benefits -- good health care, quality affordable housing, emphasis on education -- none of that truly exists in the UK for everyone. Especially not health care, despite what Michael Moore may tell you. And the health care system in East Germany was superior to the present one in Federal Germany

Interestingly countries that have traditionally balanced social welfare and capitalism seem to have the highest happiness indexes.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[clang_jangle]

...the situation cannot last for long because the people eventually vote them in and the entire government is kept in check by the media.

O Rly?
I would've sworn it was the US government keeping the media in check nowadays...

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Agripa]

Just remember that Communism won the second world war without help. D-Day was major, but it didn't turn the war around like Staligrad and Kursk did.

I am not convinced. In 1943 the US armament production was almost half of the world total and about 3 times higher then that of the USSR without shifting as far as other nations toward a war economy. The aid going to the Soviets both directly and indirectly was significant.

I would actually assign more significance to Hitler's poor management of the war turning losses into disasters then to Soviet efforts which admittedly were invaluable.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Ajehals]

The UK manages to screw up its economy on a semi regular basis (with the help of external parties as often as not of course), issues with unions, strikes and unemployment have historically plagued both Socialist and Non-Socialist(?) Governments.

We do seem to have gotten over most of those cyclical problems now, and I would put that down to the quasi socialist policies of the quasi-socialist government that has been in power for the last 10 years. As someone previous in this thread mentioned, its not socialism or capitalism in itself that is the issue its fanatical adherence to either in an ideological sense coupled with the inability to adapt to the conditions of the day (or simple ineptitude of course).

Re:this is the result of socialism

[localman]

Wow, what a weak response. If you're going to try and flamebait me at least give me something substantial to bite on.

Cheers

Re:this is the result of socialism

[tsm_sf]

He's saying, in effect, "no all of the Jews were not killed in the holocaust." It should be pretty easy to demonstrate that a country of 32 million people all but vanished, so feel free to throw up a few links.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[mike2R]

The railways are a disaster, made worse by a botched privatisation I completely agree. I had the pleasure of using the Dutch railway system recently and I felt like a visitor from a third world country.

But I was more thinking of the nationalised coal mines and steel works - things that really in no shape or form should be under government ownership. Control by the workers of the means of production is the ideology that IMO should be dead and buried; it means control by the state in effect. And the idea that the state is a competent body to step in to replace private industry has done so much damage, and has been so comprehensively proved wrong, that I tend to argue against it whenever I see it.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[mike2R]

We do seem to have gotten over most of those cyclical problems now, and I would put that down to the quasi socialist policies of the quasi-socialist government that has been in power for the last 10 years

I'd put it down to the government of the last ten years not being socialist and the independence given to the bank of England.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Nephilium]

The question is then raised, "Does extreme socialism lend itself more easily to government corruption then extreme capitalism?"

Another question would be, "Does socialism tend towards a totalitarian state more then capitalism, if so, why?"

My take on it is that the more power is concentrated in a smaller group of people the more corruption, and the faster the move to totalitarianism. This may be because the smaller the group holding power, the more power each member of that group has, and to quote an old axiom, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." In general, the more extreme socialist countries have a cult of personality about them (Mao, Che, Chavez, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, etc...) I also wonder what the US would look like nowadays if Washington had not refused a third term, would a similar cult of personality have been built around him, and would that have started the US down a totalitarian state at the beginning of it's existence?

Nephilium

Re:this is the result of socialism

[emj]

Yes Franco was a great socialist leader.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I don't know if that was supposed to be sarcasm or not; I assume so since Franco was hardly a socialist. He was a corporatist tyrant. But anyway, I was referring to the post-Franco period.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Ajehals]

Interestingly they seem to have had some fairly fundamental Socialist policies come through, from the minimum wage to changes in the welfare state and continued support for national health and education services.

However these have been coupled with quite a few successful (and traditionally non-Socialist policies) like giving independence to the Bank of England (there must be a few more but I cant think of any...).

Then there have been the badly received and seemingly badly executed non-Socialist policies like PfI, Various Immigration policies, Various Law and Order Bills, The War in Iraq (Afghanistan seems less of an issue, Iran would be a disaster.).

So yes, The Labour government isn't totally socialist by UK or European standards, (its practically pinko commie by US standards :) ) it is still operating along a socialist model (realistic socialism?). It will be interesting where the new leadership takes the UK, although I doubt that there will be any fundamental changes, if anything I would expect a slow crawl further left to compensate for Lib Dem and Conservative policies (what was all that "Grammar Schools are bad" thing all about anyway? It was wonderful for cohesion!).

Re:this is the result of socialism

[tangent3]

Socialism which centralizes all p;power in the government, causes this. When the same government that is responsible for policing, is repsonsible for economic activity such as providing electricity and even news to the public .. seriously fucked up shit like this can happen. It irreverasbly fucks a country hard.

Show me where socialism and government control over business activity has brought about prosperity and lifted a country out of poverty? I can show examples for capitalism: China, Singapore, South Korea (contrast with North Korea which was considered richer than S. Korea before the split -- and S. Korea was as poor as any African country).

In Singapore, it WAS pretty much government control over business activities that brought prosperity to the country. News, electricity, telephone system were all under government control. It was only recently, about 10 years ago, where all these were mostly privatized and released from government control, AFTER the country has been classified as a first world.

It's not capitalism at work here. It's simply a government that knows WTF it's doing and has very minimal trace of corruption.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Watson Ladd]

The aid never arrived until after Staligrad. As for size note that Russia is mostly empty space. The fact that the Germans were massacring the Slavs might have something to do with the insane casualty counts. The scale of the Great Patriotic War is many orders of magnitude bigger then any other front in World War II.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[happyhamster]

The fact that this illogical, anti-socialist rant is rated 4, Insightful really tells how brainwashed and idiotic people are on SD, and in the US in general. Pretty sad.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Black Copter Control]

Germany is actually in pretty good shape. To the extent to which they can be seen to be having problems, it is because they ate East Germany and it's seriously stagnant economy. Up until West Germany ate the East, it was considered a good bit more productive than the US (per capita).

Canada is in generally good shape. Some of our cities often rate among the most desirable places to live in the world. For now, we have a decent comprehensive health care system which, among other things, means that you don't have to sue random people to pay your hospital bill if your arm gets broken. Biggest problem for Canada, in terms of structural economics is a rather wide dispersion of our population, and the US (being our biggest economic partner) trying to jerk us around to satisfy their economic interests.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[king-manic]

Socialism which centralizes all p;power in the government, causes this. When the same government that is responsible for policing, is repsonsible for economic activity such as providing electricity and even news to the public .. seriously fucked up shit like this can happen. It irreverasbly fucks a country hard.

Show me where socialism and government control over business activity has brought about prosperity and lifted a country out of poverty? I can show examples for capitalism: China, Singapore, South Korea (contrast with North Korea which was considered richer than S. Korea before the split -- and S. Korea was as poor as any African country).

You use a definition of socialism that most would assume is communism. This embezzlement happened because the government was corrupt. A capitalist state or a communist or a socialist state which is corrupt would have a similar result. Your attempting to distort the term so that when another person brings up "government owned industry", "universal health care", "taxation", "public works", etc.. You can drum up the scarecrow argument that such a socialist idea only has one end. However Socialism is a very broad term.

Socialists can describe Canada, most of the EU, Australia, most of Asia, actually depending on your definition it may be the much vaunted Capitalist nation of America.

The problem is differing definitions. There are many form of socialism and most of the "damned socialist" set would portray each and every one as evil. However the social democracies, self proclaimed and acknowledged socialist do as well as the capitalists. Africa is poor not because it is socialist but because it lacks infrastructure, capital, technology, rule of law, stable financial institutions etc.. No change in mere ideology will rectify the list of things wrong in Africa. Most cautionary tales individuals like your trot out are tales of how extreme ideologies tend to fail and putting mad men in power is a bad idea. Pure capitalism would fail just as spectacularly as pure communism, pure anything. They are models of systems that do not deal with the underlying complexities of humanity. There is no simple ideology that will give you a perfect system. Just dozens of ideological compromises that work to varying degrees.

The most dangerous man is a ideologist in power.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[gowen]

I'm not interested in revisionism. I've actually read the communist manifesto, and Marx's vision of communism had no room for democracy. That makes it totalitarian. Sorry.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Hognoxious]

Just remember that Communism won the second world war without help.

Without help? I must have been imagining the arctic convoys. Then there's the help they got from the nazis themselves...

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Digital Vomit]

Yeah, but the difference here is that you appear to be capable of independent, rational thought.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Deliveranc3]

Yea it'll be like America and gold! Or Cotten or whatever, they're taking education seriously and unless patents become even more restrictive they'll be a functional economy in 30-40 years. Unless Bush kills Chavez... but meh, it could happen.

Before spitting anti-socialist propoganda, check out "The Revolution Will not be Televised" for the kinds of problems South American countries (and close U.S. trade partners actually face). Russia's economy totally collapsed overnight and it got worse when they switched to capitalism, they're just getting back on their feet under the socialist Putin.

The cool thing is we'll see what the press says about this website. Seems pretty tough to control doesn't it...

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Jarik_Tentsu]

You could always argue its the trade agreements and friendships with USA that has made those countries better. As a socialist/communist country, they generally do not support/trade with you, and in many cases actively work against you (Cuba).

But hell, look at China...they started doing really well after trade became big between them and America. Granted, you could argue they are no longer socialist - they're very capitalist - but they still are a one party state.

~Jarik

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Jarik_Tentsu]

There is always those who are disadvantaged. If someone's parents are useless slobs who become drug-addicted bums off the street to have kids, then the kids should be able to somehow equalize.

Capitalism would work if everyone started equal. Then it would all be based on talent and effort. If someone worked hard, was talented and had a bit of luck, then they could make it big. However, its not like that - everyone starts on different levels - you have your rich, and your poor. You can be brought up by good parents who give emphasis to working hard, or druggies, or child-abusers who pass those bad habits onto their kids.

This is why we need public health care, good public education, financial help to those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, etc etc.

In Melbourne there's many ways for instance, people from rural areas, low socio-economic backgrounds or can prove they've had difficult family circumstances, can attend expensive universities. There's many support programs, run both by uni's and government.

I think these kinda welfare things are good overall. Australia thus doesn't have nearly the same space between rich and poor as other countries - like America. It's still not perfect, and you'll always get those who abuse the system, but I think its a step in the right direction. National wealth for everyone can only help the country.

~Jarik

Re:this is the result of socialism

[asuffield]

Yesterday night I was walking by the Mel Lastman's Square and a kid, probably not older than 16 was standing there distributing a socialist newspaper. Another young girl was distributing some kind of a Che Guevara pamphlet. I wish the public education put more emphasis on history and philosophy education (as well as hard sciences,) and would provide these kids with enough information and thinking abilities to understand what exactly such people as Che have done in their lives and why exactly socialist propaganda ends up going the bloody road every time it attempts to change the human nature.

How about what exactly such people as Bush have done in their lives? How about all the people who starve because it is not cost-effective to feed them in a capitalist society?

Socialism is not the problem here. Capitalism accomplishes exactly the same things for the opposite reasons - where socialism kills people who don't follow the rules, capitalism kills people who don't have money. Either way, they're just as dead. Both capitalism and socialism are just excuses, which serve to give people somebody to blame other than the ones responsible. Capitalists can hate the socialists and socialists can hate the capitalists, while it's their own leaders who are really responsible for all the problems.

The ideology does not matter. What matters is that those with power abuse it at the expense of those without power.

(Cue zealots from both sides to loudly proclaim that their side has no problems, while denouncing the problems of the "enemy")

Re:this is the result of socialism

[mantito]

Agreed. And just take a look at the countries of Eastern Europe as long as we are citing examples. They are doing FAR better than they ever were under the socialist/communist policies they followed throughout the cold war.
First, state capitalism of USSR was neither socialism nor communism. Second, about Eastern Europe. For example, there was a public opinion studies few years ago in Lithuania. They showed that 53% of respondents think, that it was better to live in USSR and 32% considered system in USSR good, 22% - average and 31% bad. Theres nothing "FAR better" here. Things only started getting better when Lithuania joined EU, and not because of capitalism, but because 1/7 population were able to run away from our new capitalists to UK, Ireland and Scandinavia to work, lack of workforce which then appeared in Lithuania forced wages to rise. Still socialy weak groups, such as pensioners are in a very abd state - there are a lot of them, who must choose (seriously) either to die frok hunger or from sickness, because they can't afford both medicine and food. Again, after joining EU they can now atleast get charity of groats, semolina and fineground barley. A lot of older people haven't went to cinema, theater or concert since independence, it's too expensive, they even can't afford new clothes, only the cheapest ones from second-hand shops. I bet situation in Russia is even worse. Capitalism brought and some good things too, most of them in a form of shiny new things and services, but big price of human suffering has been and still is being paid for them. And corruption is still here, only less people can profit from it, but with bigger sums. I could continue, but I think it is enough.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[PPH]

And how is this different from beacon-of-capitalism and friend-of-America, Saudi Arabia? Except that Chavez is elected and the House of Saud isn't?

Same problems, different labels. The neocons still suffer from knee-jerk reactions against anything labeled 'Socialist' due to our experiences during the Cold War.

One other factor to consider is whether US interests are given a cut of the profits. The Saudis throw some business to American contractors, so they must be benign.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[eli pabst]

Interesting to see poverty and welfare put in that context. I feel enlightened for having read it. Thanks.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Scrameustache]

the first man in space was Yuri Gagarin Corerction: The first man in space that survived the landing in good enough shape to be paraded in public afterwards was Yuri Gagarin.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[DerangedAlchemist]

You are confusing socialism and communism. They are not the same, and one does not automatically lead to the other. Canada is socialist.

If you truly believe in pure capitalism, you cannot believe in artificially interference like patents or copyright. If you don't believe patents can help things, look at the drug industry and compare progress where patents are lucrative (first world diseases) and where they might as well not exist (third world diseases). (I'm saying patents CAN help, not that they will if applied stupidly; computer industry patents are often the equivalent to competing with Glad not by making better garbage bags, but patenting the process of putting garbage in bags, then suing for violation.)

Now I believe capitalism works best, but you have to understand the nature of the beast. Whatever is most lucrative will win, whether that benefits your country and society or not. It's important to set the rules (law and enforcement) such that the most profit is generated in ways that aren't harmful. Many 'capitalists' rail against things like environmental regulation that requires a chemical plant to spend millions of dollars per year treating their waste. But if not treating the waste destroys a sport fishing industry worth hundreds of millions and raises medical costs of the population, removing the environmental regulation is really a very expensive form of subsidy to the chemical plant.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[rtb61]

I think you have forgotten that the paid to post losers also occasionally get mod points. So why would they bother chewing up mod points, it is all just noise, to draw attention away from the current US administration and a mass media, corporate, religionist state. The funny thing is of course, that looting can only occur in so called socialist countries (actually in reality, undemocratic autocracies, branded as what ever the hell the leadership wanted to brand it as) with the direct and willing assistance of capitalist countries and their corrupt corporate allies.

So then which is the more corrupt, the autocratic leader pillaging his own country, or the capitalist corporate executive from a democratic country providing the money laundering service so that the pillaging can occur and who often props up the auotcratic leader even to the extent of paying for lobbyist to ensure that their own some what democratic country will support the autocrat and ensure that the autocrat remains in power.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[localman]

The fact that you didn't read or comprehend my post, which is almost entirely opposite to what you're putting in my mouth here, doesn't inspire much confidence in your worldview.

My whole point was that the market is not 100% effective. That we need regulation (though not a lot). I mention this because the post I was replying to was trashing "socialism" which usually includes things like welfare, social security, health care, etc. And I specifically said those were things we needed to not lose sight of.

Cheers.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[localman]

100% agreed. It seems my post has been gravely misunderstood based on some of the responses. As expected -- most everyone comes at the issue with an extreme view and canned answers, not even thinking about it. Doesn't give a lot of hope for progress, eh? But what you say is right on: despite all the complaints I hear about tax money going to things like welfare and social security, it is for the greater good. The taxpayer benefits enormously by having a healthier society.

Cheers.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[localman]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but based on how many people misunderstood my post, I wanted to respond in case you are: my goal in putting it in that context was to speak to those who are pure capitalist free market libertarians who think that everyone should make it on their own and all social services should be privatized. I was responding to a post about "socialism" failing. And I just wanted to remind people that extreme capitalism fails too: you need bits of both.

I have sympathy for the disadvantaged, but sympathy is not going to help convincing pure free-market people to part with their money and put it towards social services. What might make them consider it is to remind them of the fact that, whether they have sympathy or not, they don't want disadvantaged people getting so low that they lash out. Or live by hundreds in the street.

I know people personally who would abolish welfare because they don't like people freeloading. But since the other option is most likely to have these people living in the street and stealing (check countries that have no welfare program for demonstrations of this) they're better off with some amount of freeloading.

Anyways, if you weren't being sarcastic, I apologize for the pointless elaboration. But I was surprised by how a couple responses completely missed what I was getting at, and accused me of wanting to abolish welfare and make everything a pure free market. I was saying precisely the opposite, but saying it _to_ someone who might hold that position.

Cheers.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[JAlexoi]

I live in Toronto, Canada. Yesterday night I was walking by the Mel Lastman's Square and a kid, probably not older than 16 was standing there distributing a socialist newspaper. Another young girl was distributing some kind of a Che Guevara pamphlet. I wish the public education put more emphasis on history and philosophy education (as well as hard sciences,) and would provide these kids with enough information and thinking abilities to understand what exactly such people as Che have done in their lives and why exactly socialist propaganda ends up going the bloody road every time it attempts to change the human nature. Then again, I was born in the former USSR and this is sort of like second nature to understand these things. Hey! Don't confuse communism(no private property) with socialism. Scandinavian countries are basically socialist... Quality healthcare at no extra cost, education and many other stuff.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[roman_mir]

many other stuff, like mediocrity and of-course in case of Norway for example hitting an oil jackpot in the Norwegian Sea. Oh yes, hitting an oil jackpot helps that entire socialistic idea immensely.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[dantezco]

It's humans. Always those damned humans.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[eli pabst]

I wasn't being sarcastic in the least. While I personally see the virtue in things like charity/welfare, I have a number of friends of different political/idealogical persuasions who see them as freeloaders and should be forced to fend for themselves. It was interesting to see it put in a perspective that they might be able to appreciate (ie it's really helping everyone in the end).

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Eivind]

Got more to do with dictatorship versus democracy and how strong controls are in place than with Socialism versus Capitalism.

It's not as if Saudi-Arabia (capitalist) has less corruption than for example Norway (socialist).

Money are stolen whenever a small elite has the power to steal them, and the public at large has inadequate controls in place to discover and prevent it. Socialism as such doesn't really enter into it. Lack of public control does.

Sure, some socialist countries have been, essentially, dictatorships. But there's lots of capitalist dictatorships too, and they're no better.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Yeah.

Another example I just thought of would be India. Huge economy. So much industry goes through there, and there's a a big, professional middle class.

Yet, because there's no little government welfare directed at the poor, it remains a 'developing nation'.

Greater wealth in all areas of society leads to less crime, less money being spent on stopping crime, and puts the whole population in a smaller demographic. I'd like to bring in another example of the coming Australia Federal Elections. Labour vs Liberal. But if you really look at their policies, they don't aim too much at one extreme of the demographic - both parties try to satisfy rich and poor, because there's not a huge space between the two groups, it's easier.

And it's a domino affect - give welfare to one poor street urchin, he gets a job, he raises a family, that family gets good education, the kids go to university and that 'poor heritage' is gone.

~Jarik

Re:this is the result of socialism

[WNight]

Not true. A corporation that the workers own stock in qualifies, and is not manipulative by nature.

Personally I can't see why you'd work somewhere long-term without the ability to buy stock in it. But that is for the market to decide.

As for government control, you need look no further than the FDA for the arguments for and against. Against is that is slows the free market. For is that people don't get killed by frauds until "markets correct".

In the end, even having voluntary trade organizations that sue frauds in civil court is still relying on the government monopoly on force...

Re:this is the result of socialism

[MicktheMech]

How about what exactly such people as Bush have done in their lives?

Bush isn't president of Canada... at least not yet.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[moyl]

> If you write a history book I will buy it. A book by an author who confuses socialism with communism and makes up numbers to support his point? Why would you want to buy it?

Re:this is the result of socialism

[emj]

Well I saw the time from Francos death (1975) to Spains admittance to the EU as to short to really matter. But I really know to little about Spains history to say something usefull, but of course you are right Spain came a long way economically in the end of the last millenia.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[riters_bloc]

The Wikileaks report is about corruption in Kenya. If the original contributor had bothered to check before blaming the corruption on socialism he would have found that Kenya is not a socialist country. In fact, former President Daniel Arup Moi (like Kenyatta before him) went to some lengths to try to crush the opposition from the Kenyan Socialist Democratic Alliance (KSDA)party so it is simply wrong to attribute the corruption of the Moi family to socialism. So, I repeat. The corruption revealed by Wikileaks took place during the Moi dictatorship and Moi is not and was not a socialist.

Re:this is the result of socialism

[Watson Ladd]

I've read Locke and he says that censorship is good. Does that make democracy require censorship?

Slashdot victim of spammers or other wrong doers ?

[ls671]

Probably not but the link to the Guardian is wrong and you end up on http.com which is a dummy front site, using firefox 2 and linux, using open link in new window (or tab) because Firefox then completes http with .com for its target domain. The link to the Guardian in the article is http://http//politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffair s/story/0,,2160256,00.html

Kenya...

[mobby_6kl]

I knew they had lions in Kenya, but I'd never suspect they'd have any bi-lions, let alone three of them!

Re:Kenya...

[Tribbin]

I don't know why I find your post so funny.

Re:Kenya...

[Briareos]

Wait - you're linking to a video of a Flash animation, to be viewed in a Flash-based player?

What's next? A WMV containing a video of Firefox playing said video of said Flash animation? To be viewed in Quicktime? o_O;

np: Fluke - Eko (Six Wheels On My Wagon)

Re:Kenya...

[LilGuy]

It was unexpected, clever, and stupid all rolled into one. :)

Re:I can' wait...

[the_tsi]

...and how the news would have broken six months earlier if Cheney hadn't been interfering or something.

Google knows all

[Colin Smith]

Apparently Bush thinks it's one of his accomplishments to have met this alleged embezzler.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Finfocus%2Fafrica% 2Fafrica_accomplishments.pdf&ei=NMTZRqrcF6WqxAGf5M 2OAw&usg=AFQjCNGsylMvKy5w5W7fvYJ9XGJdSbcpQw&sig2=T 3B32gMv7qDOnRQkSthpoQ
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20 021205-2.html

So, not exactly his fault, but perhaps unwise to be supporting someone who the EU, Denmark and UK had warned they would stop aid to if corruption wasn't dealt with. It seems that the magical "Support for the War on Terrorism" phrase was used.

Re:Google knows all

[mordors9]

It's the new era. We used to love every dictator out there that wasn't on the side of the Soviets. They were looked upon as being on our side, so we would "overlook" their indiscretions. Now it is about Islamo-terrorism. If you help us (or at least say you are), then you are once again embraced regardless of other baggage that may come along. Remember the Bush doctrine, you are either with us or against us.

Re:Google knows all

[eli pabst]

Wait, I though the meme this week was to crucify Bush for *not* engaging in foreign affairs? I hate Bush as much as the next person, but it's like he's the freakin' boogieman or something...don't look under the bed or W will git ya!

Re:Google knows all

[physicsphairy]

I hope future politicians will take note that they should not spare any kind, encouraging, or otherwise positive words for any person, ever, just in case the person in question gets pinned for something.

Also, it is unwise to have any other sort of friendly diplomacy with persons/nations for the same reason.

(Bombing them is ok though... worst case scenario, we'll apologize and move on.)

Best dept. EVAR

[slittle]

from the all-for-moi dept.

I loled.

Re:What about legal looting?

[krou]

I've been following the Wikileaks idea for a bit, every since Cryptome published a bunch of info about it.

I'm in two minds about Wikileaks. On the one hand, the idea is kind of cool - I'm all for whistle-blowers, and think they perform a vital function. It's sometimes important for the public to see information that could be blocked from public release due to legal pressures.

But on the other hand, maybe that information should not be in the public domain, as it could put lives at risk (as was argued in the previous link).

Also, it's ultimately flawed in the same way that business Web 2.0 review-type sites are flawed: you can't trust the information worth a damn. People have a terrible habit of trying to set up someone they feel disgruntled about, or wish to slander a company that they feel treated them unfairly. Or, of course, they could just be out to rubbish a competitor.

Wikileaks is likely to become a stomping ground of disinformation, misinformation, and vendettas, and if they think the wisdom of the crowds is going to be able to judge that a piece of information is, in fact, a forgery, they're fools.

Also, who exactly will be held accountable when it's used, say, to swing an election, only for us to discover that the information in question was bogus? Wikileaks? Will they hand over the leaker?

I can't help but feel that Wikileaks may, in fact, do more harm than good. A few bad incidents at Wikileaks, and it's highly likely that the law (and government, business etc.) is going to come down hard to silence legitimate whistle-blowers under the pretext of protecting themselves from slander and libel.

What's really needed is a system of legal mechanisms to encourage and protect leakers in the real world, as well as allow a system of accountability. The incidents described by leakers who stepped forward regarding corruption in Iraq indicates that there are simply not enough legal avenues open to help and protect whistle-blowers.

no, it's not.

[Scrameustache]

Socialism causes corruption? Why don't you show me an example of a corruption-free capitalist country?

Socialism which centralizes all p;power in the government, causes this. When the same government that is responsible for policing, is repsonsible for economic activity such as providing electricity and even news to the public .. seriously fucked up shit like this can happen. It irreverasbly fucks a country hard.

Show me where socialism and government control over business activity has brought about prosperity and lifted a country out of poverty? My socialist prosperity, let me show you it: http://www.hydroquebec.com/profile/index.html
Interestingly enough, when deregulation in Ohio led to the great blackout of 2003, the Quebec grid was mostly unaffected because Hydro-Quebec keeps its grid out of sync with its neighbors because they expected something like that to happen, since the states around it are dangerously under-regulated.

And the CBC is a much more reliable source of news than any of the conglomerate-operated sources in the USA, FOX news they ain't.

prosperity and lifted a country out of poverty? I can show examples for capitalism: China http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3641 475.stm
  It was not clear of the counterfeit powder included any toxic ingredients, but some children were reported to have died within three days of being fed the fake milk.
Others were hospitalised when their parents realised they were ill. Fuyang's People's Hospital alone received more than 60 babies who had been fed fake milk formula, according to the Beijing News.

Re:I can' wait...

[RAMMS EIN]

It wasn't Bush's fault. It was Gore's. If Gore hadn't frustrated GWB's attempts at every turn, Bush would have sent in the Marines, liberated Nigeria, and been received as a hero a long time ago!

*listens to whispering voice*

Ah, Kenya. Of course, I meant Kenya.

RTFA:I can' wait...

[ls671]

Or look at TFA ;-)

There a picture of the 2 presidents side by side.

See ? that's scientific bulletproof evidence right there.

So no more waiting for you, we already have all the evidence we will ever need, if you had just looked at TFA in the first place ;-)

just kidding of course ;-)

Re:I can' wait...

[FlopEJoe]

Bonus points for pic with Bush!

Even though Bush doesn't appear anywhere in the article, they have to some how connect the two? I can hear the article submitters not "Don't we have a pic of both of them in front of a Haliburton sign?" Seriously, you don't have to be a GW fan to realize that this kind of goofy crap hinders the cred.

Because capitalist politicians are never corrupt..

[fantomas]

Yup, because politicians in capitalist countries are never corrupt, right? ;-)

Don't forget how long it's been

[gwern]

What I find really fascinating here is that WikiLeaks was promising to begin releasing stuff around March or so, but all they've had for a while was that Somali report (which was interesting, sure, but not as impressive as their media coverage would justify); so this is an interesting report on its own merit but also because it's another and more major interesting thing. Perhaps they've finally finished development and are producing the goods? That'd be good: it would be sad if they failed or were some sort of CIA puppet (or somesuchness).

There's corruption in Africa?

[Bob Cat - NYMPHS]

That's the LAST thing I ever expected to hear.

Fortunately, China is raping that continent now instead of Europe, and we know how the Chinese deal with corruption. When it's really obvious. And someone notices. And someone dares to write about it.

In Soviet Russia

[Watson Ladd]

We can compare the Russian revolution to the Meij restoration in Japan. Both Imperial Russia and the Shogunate were agricultural, with no heavy industry to speak of. Soviet Russia was a superpower by 1945, only 28 years later. Japan only caught up around the same time, and then got bombed back to the beginning. Another fun comparison is Yugoslavia. From Wikipedia we have that Yugoslavia had 6% annual GDP growth during the 1960's and 1970's. The collapse of the economy was brought about by following the advice of the IMF.

BS!

[z0M6]

I call BS on your post. The Scandinavian countries is a clear example of how wrong your post is. The fact that Norway has the highest human development index suggests that government control has positive sides as well.

So instead of talking straight out of your ass while praising what you think work best, you should instead shut up and think a bit. Newsflash: The World is not just black and white! Who would have guessed?

Re:BS!

[yada21]

Norway's a bit of an exceptional case - they do have a budget balancing problem. The problem is they've got huge amount's of oil and a small population, that they struggle to find things to spend all their money on.

Re:BS!

[z0M6]

You are correct. Norway is a special case, but how about Sweden and Iceland? They don't have oil at all. How do you explain them?

What do I win?

[Kadin2048]

Bonus points for pic with Bush! You mean, like this one? No Halliburton sign, or pile of dead Iraqi babies to stand on (at least not that we can see), but a little Photoshop can fix that right up.

Re:What do I win?

[FlopEJoe]

ah, yeah... that's the pic I was talking about in the first place.

Get your facts right

[upside]

Just couldn't resist to mount your favourite hobby horse, could you? Kenya is not a socialist country. It was as single party state before and is still corrupt, but has had a capitalist system with free private enterprise for decades.

Related stories, huh?

[Goaway]

Funny how there's no link in "related stories" to the original Slashdot post about Wikileaks. You know, the one that was all about how Wikileaks was a scam and would never get off the ground.

Congratulations

[RAMMS EIN]

I can't believe it has been over 80 posts without anyone actually congratulating Wikileaks on this great feat.

So let me be the first to welcome our new, leaking overlords!

Congratulations, Wikileaks!! Keep up the good work!

misuse of term "socialism"

[Tablizer]

Socialism which centralizes all p;power in the government, causes this.

The term "socialism" is overloaded these days. A better description would be Dictatorship or Totalitarianism. Socialism should be reserved for heavier gov't control over the economy, but such government may still be an elected gov't and have 3+ branches for checks and balances.

Re:Mod parent down

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Kenya is a perfect example of a corrupt capitalist dictatorship. Why is this shit being modded insightful?

That is a very good question. I'm quoting the AC so that hopefully some mod will see it an put down the crack pipe for a few minutes.

That's it?

[kilodelta]

Cripes, $3 Billion is nothing compared to the outright looting of the fed that's going on right now in the United States.

Depends on the selection

[phorm]

How good government is really depends on the given selection, and the willingness of the people to oppose a bad government.

If you have a democratic-style government, and your choices are Adolph Hitler, Beezelbub, and OJ Simpson, chances are that no matter whom you choose it isn't going to work out very well. In contrast, if you have a dictatorship, monarchy, or whatever, and you happen to have a *good* government (I've heard the King of Thailand is well looked upon), then your country will prosper.

Given a combination of the government and the people, a semi-communist or semi-socialist philosophy may work (although too much of anything is usually not a good thing), but it's pretty hard to build anything on a weak foundation. Corrupt government, or weak citizens in most any case do not make a good foundation for any policy, and abuse will run rampant regardless.

It's the corruption, not the ideology

[wytcld]

All this discussion about "capitalism" versus "socialism" - as if worshiping the correct ideology could ward off the corrupt, who will take anything and everything, given the chance. It isn't the ism. There's no magic ism that make all your children beautiful and virtuous, and all of some competing ism's children ugly thieves. That mistake is the one Cheney's people made: that if we just give corrupt foreign lands democracy-ism they'll become virtuous paradises of freedom.

Not that the isms make no difference. But the difference is of style, not virtue. It's like the difference between rock-n-roll-ism and jazz-ism. Most rock-n-roll, and most jazz, is a faint and corrupted echo of the truly great exemplars. Virtue in a musician isn't a matter of which ism they've pursued, but of how they've pursued it. There are great jazz bands, and lousy ones; great rock bands, and lousy ones; great socialist countries (e.g. Sweden), and lousy ones (e.g. Burma); great capitalist countries (e.g. Taiwan), and lousy oness (e.g. Nigeria). Your taste in examples my differ; the point remains that its not what you do (socialist, capitalist, whatever), it's how you do it.

Re:It's the corruption, not the ideology

[BlueParrot]

Stop calling Sweden a socialist country. We have a free market, open borders, you can start a private school if you want, go to a private hospital, start a private newspaper, negotiate your wage with your boss, start a private company, make a fat load of cash and move abroad with it.. we are NOT a socialist country. Of course, we're not capitalist either. We have public schools, public hospitals, welfare benefits, unemployment benefits etc... Sweden is ( and I'm sure this will come as a great shock to you ) a mixed-economy which allows private markets to exist, supplementing it with publicly funded welfare programs. To call Sweden a socialist country is about as ignorant as calling the US a free market. The true difference between successful and disaster cases of countries lie in the ability to arrive at a reasonable compromise. It doesn't always work out, but blindly pushing some idealist fantasy is bound to result in an economic collapse. In this respect socialism, capitalism and other pure ideologies are doomed to fail because they don't recognise the problems of reality. I imagine that is almost what you tried to say, but your examples missed it by miles.

Re:It's the corruption, not the ideology

[miruku]

What you want is pluralism!

Re:Typical negro action

[Ant P.]

It's nothing to do with race, it's a third-world country. Cry "politically correct" all you want, I counter with "America".

Re:I can' wait...

[Plutonite]

You are marked as off-topic, but I think the CIA and GWB know very well most details of the corrupt nature of America's political guests. Lavish welcomes for a guy who robs his country of billions are not a Good Thing(TM).

Confidential business transaction requested

[Anonymous Coward]

HELLO and GREETINGS Sir,

I am writing to you with an offer to execute a TRANSACTION with a value
of $3.000.000.000 USD (THREE THOUSAND MILLIONS) of American Dollars.
This transaction requires strict and secure confidences, of which I
trust we can be including in the matter at hand.

I was in the employ as Senior Executive Treasurer General Officer of
the President of an African NATION for which I cannot disclose at this time,
and I have managed a worldwide network of shell companies, secret trusts,
and front-men to disguise the aforementioned funds. While this required
massive deception and fraud, I assure you that our own transaction will
be conducted with full confidence, assurances, trust, honesty, integrity
and good-faith.

Please provide your credit card numbers (with validation numbers and any
PINs), along with bank account numbers, online banking credentials, images
of your identification cards and passport, and anything else you deem
necessary to gain my trust in this matter. When you consider the sum involved
($3.000.000.000 USD), you can understand my concern.

After the transaction, whatever it might be, I will have to ask that you
tell no one about this. Please delete this e-mail and destroy your
computer, and perhaps burn down your house, and sever all social contacts
before moving to a new country. This will demonstrate your confidence and
integrity in the forthcoming phase of assurance and dealings of which we
transacted and expounded hereforth.

Urgently awaiting your sincere reply,

Mr. X

Only in Kenya

[JumperCable]

They've got Lions & Tigers too http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/kenya/

Re:I can' wait...

[Scrameustache]

You are marked as off-topic, but I think the CIA and GWB know very well most details of the corrupt nature of America's political guests. Lavish welcomes for a guy who robs his country of billions are not a Good Thing(TM). Lavish wellcome to a guy who, like yourself, is robbing his country of billions, however vile, is par for the course.

I've been getting a lot of unwarranted downmods lately, I guess someone's got an ax to grind.
Possibly someone who'll mod up the trite I replied to. Someone who doesn't know the difference between jingoism and patriotism.

Re:George W. Bush is a good man!

[Wavicle]

I'm fucking tired of people putting down one of our most ethical presidents since Andrew Jackson.

Wow. It's amazing that a president can do a few things you agree with and you can gloss over what is probably the least ethical presidency since the Nixon administration (possibly worse). How can you look at no-bid contracts given to Haliburton and not at the very least think "appearance of impropriety." You've got one messed up definition of ethics there. How about putting a businessman with no real political experience in charge of rebuilding Iraq? Do you have any idea how many tens of thousands of Iraqi's and thousands of American lives were lost because of L. Paul Bremer's fucked up theories of nation building?

Yeah that's some seriously ethical cronyism. I'll take someone lying about getting a blow job to a hundred thousand dead humans any day.

Re:I can' wait...

[shmlco]

A mere $3 billion is minor league compared to GWB's handling of the war. Heck, we've wasted more in payouts to corrupt contractors.

10,000 hectare ranch in Australia?

[gawdonblue]

Stone the flamin' crows, there aint no flamin' ranches in Australia ya flamin' drongos. Struth!

Re:10,000 hectare ranch in Australia?

[Maelwryth]

Yes, you can imagine it.

"I bought what! 10,000 hectares of dust and thirty horse's with the flu?"

Re:What about legal looting?

[Deliveranc3]

It's true, every whistle blower is likely just a disgruntled employee. The press get's involved and facts get uncovered, the more the whistle blower has to offer the harder reporters are supposed to search.

Since private presses have largely died out, this is the only way to be able to provide relevant details etc before getting hauled into court and fired.

The phone works for 30 second explanations but the kind of stuff going on now requires longer explanations, and this is a good medium.

If I worked in the public sector I'd keep pace with the scandles surrounding my superiors. Might keep them on their toes as long as the public can remember not to go vigilante.

Donor money is fair game.

[Neuticle]

In a lot of places in Africa, the presence of corruption at lower levels is just tacitly accepted. It's not hard to understand why when sometimes people need bribe money just to put food on their table.

The problem it's that in many cases when you deal with "donor" money, they don't consider it necessarily stealing from their people, but just getting "free" money from the donors.

I've seen it first hand on the national scale:
In Tanzania, during the midst of a severe power crisis I sat down in a cafe in Dar and had chai with the president of the Richmond Development Corperation "based" in Houston TX. They were under contract to import and install emergency power generators to the country. This was a deal worth 10s of millions of USD (This money was of course aid money, Tanzania doesn't have 10 Million in hard currency to toss about). We talked about the power situation and how nice it would be to have it fixed, about foreign aid, and about the USA and Tanzania in general. He was a very pleasant man overall, he gave me his business card and even paid my tab.

Several weeks later it came to light that RDC was basically a shell company with no real corporate presence anywhere, or capability to buy and ship generators (Google it if you want). It was purely an attempt to swindle millions of dollars (the attitude being that since it was donor money, it wasn't really taking money from Tanzania) How the heck did they win the contract in the first place? I'm sure they greased a few palms along the way.

Even on the village level, if you write a grant for a building and budget X TSH money for concrete, you can damn well be sure that someone will try their hardest to short a bag or two and pocket the money (concrete is very expensive FWIW). Receipt tracking for grants would be hell if you were not solely in charge of buying and paying for things.

Considering the harshness of life there, I can't be to angry at people for trying for a few bucks, but with that in mind, the people stealing millions are even more reprehensible.

RPCV Tanzania 2005-2007
Still have the business card and newspaper clippings

Re:Mod parent down

[upside]

It's even sadder that in true Slashdot style this thread has turned into a political-historical debate about the pros and cons of socialism, which is totally irrelevant to the actual topic. The whole socialism debate should be modded redundant. Slashdot modders need to think about the subject of the story a bit, not just mod something up/down depending on their point of view.

Re:What about legal looting?

[multipole]

Wikileaks is a point of entry for truth, just like a hint, a rumour, a hunch, a tip, or whatever else the sources you trust first catch a whiff of. If you need them to rubber stamp the leak, then fine, wait for them to do it. On the other hand, if you're prejudiced enough to fall for a forgery, then go ahead. After looking like an idiot you won't be quick to do it again. So the system is eventually self-stabilising.

As for safety, all whistleblowing is dangerous, but who was ignorant on this point? Certainly not potential whistleblowers, who know as well as cornered prey that everything is on the line. Let them be the judge of how important their conscience is, or what is the best available means for acting on it.

Regarding stomping/dumping ground: Unless the so-called leaker is the alleged author of the document, the closer these two parties are, the more danger there is for the former party, which implies that the more convincing documents (from close to the alledged source) are less likely to be the result of dubious motivations (vendettas, casual hoaxes etc.) Less convincing documents, on the other hand, are just going to get "stomped" on.

Sooner or later some false and damaging information will emerge from Wikileaks. But a measure of false and damaging information emerges from every source of information, from your mouth to your textbook; in oppressive societies it is the means for remaining in power, in free societies it is the inevitable side-effect of freedom.

Re:Lack of ability to correct and warnings.

[multipole]

Wikileaks clearly doesn't have anything special to offer on physical security. Existing whistleblower NGOs do have something to offer here and so talk it up. However, that a whistleblower would be unaware of the dangers they face is about as likely as a lone animal walking off a cliff in broad daylight. There is nonetheless mention on the Wikileaks site of the primary danger to the whistelblower, which is the possibility of the leaker's identity being determined on the basis of who had access to the information, and the explicit disclaimer that Wikileaks can do nothing about that.

Concerning inability to edit the pages self-describing Wikileaks, and also any mystery surrounding the core of the Wikileaks initiative, both are necessary to reduce exposure to powers that would like to render Wikileaks impotent, or better still, non-existent, e.g. the Chinese government.

As for the scarcity of reference to Wikileaks on the part of advisory board members etc., this is bound to change as the profile of Wikileaks rises and it's reputation solidifies in a positive manner. Perhaps this will require a series of verified accurate leaks, given the strikingly broad hostility and suspicion in the Jan 11 discussion thread concerning Wikileaks on Slashdot. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/11/185 9218

Disallow all ...

[rs232]

Disallow:

Re:What about legal looting?

[xkhaozx]

What's really needed is a system of legal mechanisms to encourage and protect leakers in the real world, as well as allow a system of accountability. The incidents described [msn.com] by leakers who stepped forward regarding corruption in Iraq indicates that there are simply not enough legal avenues open to help and protect whistle-blowers. Ok, you go create the "system of legal mechanisms", and we'll work on the best next thing wikileaks. When your done that, and wikileaks indeed is not needed, then I'm sure the creators won't mind closing it up.

And uncontrolled capitalism is utopia

[liftphreaker]

And you believe capitalism is utopia? Why not look in your own backyard at the Halliburtons, the Cheneys, the power wielding mega-corporations, at the people and companies who really run the show? Do you really think you have a say in the way your government does anything? You're living in a dream world.

We can all learn from countries like Germany who implement a balance between socialist type legislation and control and capitalist style free market.

Re:What about legal looting?

[MikShapi]

And don't forget that the information doesn't have to be factual or right to sway public opinion.

If you and I run for an election, I can sway public opinion by running a poll asking questions like "Would you (poll answerer) still vote for [[you]] if you were to suddenly find out he is a child molester?"

I haven't actually accused you of molesting children by running that poll, there may not have been any child-molesting story to speak of, but simply by suggesting the possibility of such a hypothetical scenario I'd be turning away people from you. (After people have done just that, it's now very very illegal in most developed countries).

My point being that the site does not have to be factual to do damage.

The other side of the same coin, of course, is that it also doesn't have to be CIA/reuters-grade-reliable do do good. It's not a news site and does not need to act as such. It's goal is not for the purpose of churning up public opinion. It's for someone to point the powers that be at where it stinks of fish. After that gets done, the information can be properly re-collected and assessed. In other words, the purpose of the site is not to actually dig up shit, it's to point at where digging needs to take place for shit to be likely found.

makes me worry about more than socialism! milk??

[freaker_TuC]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3641 475.stm
    It was not clear of the counterfeit powder included any toxic ingredients, but some children were reported to have died within three days of being fed the fake milk.
Others were hospitalised when their parents realised they were ill. Fuyang's People's Hospital alone received more than 60 babies who had been fed fake milk formula, according to the Beijing News. Makes me REALLY wonder about the quality of the stuff we eat, use and abuse; since when I was young the news has been telling many things that products need to be troughoutly tested before they can be used as medicine or healthcare products.

Feeding a baby who has just been put on the world is considered health care. These kids cannot care of themselves or tell us they are missing something; the language is just not there yet for that to happen. The responsibility does not only lie in the hands of its parents but also of the manufacturers who are selling "genuine" products while they are not even that "genuine" at all. The missing of an important vitamin B1 ingredient could cause complications which could have been forseen before by sampling the products throughout to look for any missing and needed contents to be called "milk".

Ok, on the other hand, different countries, different rules, but; we are obliged to carry a number, nationality and pay taxes, I'd sure expect the governments to protect that certain asset of citizenship? ...

What could be the conclusion of this?

- What we eat, drink and use is not all so throughoutly tested as we think? (shocking in the age of technology)
- In other words, look what you put in your mouth first! (what's new?)
- News is overrated ? (what's new?)
- The government is not "doing its job" to protect it's citizen? (what's new?)
- I rather stick with my real milk which I'm drinking since I'm born; still liking every glass of it; (mmmm)
- But find the quality of the taste in the milk disturbingly worse than it used to be in the past of different brands. (what changed?)

It's not only milk but a lot of different products which we use in daily lives;

The quality of everything we use is not deemed to be quality; we do not demand the quality enough, it's too expensive to be quality so cheaper components will be used or left behind or we simply don't pay enough to get quality. It's the industry which gives us what we demand; if we demand better products, better tested and it will still be sold in large amounts; the price will be somewhat the same and the product has a better background check too. In my book you still pay for quality; although in the food sector quality is not always visible through the naked eye. Food is still something which keeps us alive or kills us (in an instant) if we do not know for sure what is (missing) in those products we put in our mouths.

I never really saw the use of using artificial products over the real thing and why giving them to babies while they should get most of the real nature to grow up? Most possibly naivity which is caused by ignorance and totally not knowing/caring about what we really buy. Welcome to the industrial age.

Add to it we have lost the right of privacy some time ago too and I'll feel a lot better already ;)

Re:makes me worry about more than socialism! milk?

[Scrameustache]

I never really saw the use of using artificial products over the real thing and why giving them to babies while they should get most of the real nature to grow up? Simply put, it's the result of for-profit corporate disinformation and propaganda:

Advocacy groups and charities have accused Nestlé of unethical methods of promoting infant formula over breast-milk to poor mothers in third world countries.[15][16] For example, IBFAN claim that Nestlé supports the distribution of free powdered formula samples to hospitals and maternity wards; after leaving the hospital, the formula is no longer free, but because the supplementation has interfered with lactation the family must continue to buy the formula. IBFAN also allege that Nestlé uses "humanitarian aid" to create markets, does not label its products in a language appropriate to the country where they are sold, and offers gifts and sponsorship to influence health workers to promote its products. [17] Nestlé denies these allegations.

That article talks about stuff from the 70's onward, but the whole deal is much older than that. In the fifties doctors were used to promote this corporate line of thought, and people were led to believe that artificial substitute were better than the natural alternative.

If I had three wishes, one of them would be to raise the level of awereness of humanity so that they might be able to see other people's agendas throuh their misleading speeches and to see the result of their actions on others.
When a corparation says 'this is good for your baby', they probably mean 'this is good for out money'. Because corporations care about nothing else. Yet people still choose to believe their sales speech, rather than this simple truth.

Free speech

[DerangedAlchemist]

Your arguments for and against Wikileaks are very, very similar to arguments for and against free speech. Although many people think they believe in free speech, in practice many say they believe in free speech except for THAT. In other words, they don't believe in free speech but think they do because they don't understand the concept but have been told it is a good thing.

Also, who exactly will be held accountable when it's used, say, to swing an election, only for us to discover that the information in question was bogus? Wikileaks? Will they hand over the leaker?

Who is called accountable as it is? Say a presidential candidate lied/carefully misinformed using half-truths for his own ends. Now say major news agencies collaborate the lies/misinformation. Who gets held accountable? If dissenting views are presented somewhere, even somewhere less reputable and sometimes full of crackpots, is that worse than not having them at all?

I can't help but feel that Wikileaks may, in fact, do more harm than good. A few bad incidents at Wikileaks, and it's highly likely that the law (and government, business etc.) is going to come down hard to silence legitimate whistle-blowers under the pretext of protecting themselves from slander and libel.

If they do, it's only to attack freedom to express non-controlled views. These kinds of abuses would destroy the credibility of Wikileaks, which makes slander and libel impossible.

Wikileaks allow starting points for more credible investigations that would not be explored if no one thought anything was wrong.

News could be censored so only the truth is aired. This would be more accurate as long as the censor only edited out false and misleading information. Just like a benign dictator can do more good for the people of his country with his greater power than the leader of a democracy. But dictatorships have a nasty habit of not retaining benign leader and censors have a nasty habit of blocking information they shouldn't even when they are full of good intentions.

Despite all the crap that comes out of free speech, very important ideas that would have been suppressed emerged too. Some societies have decided that suppressing these important ideas causes more damage than allowing bad ideas be expressed.

Re:I can' wait...

[Trailer Trash]

I'm again amazed at the /. moderation system. This gets modded up to +5, now it's at 0-Flamebait (even though there are no flamebait modifiers shown in the list). It looks like the moderation system is [unintentionally] set up to reward lunatics who want to mod an article into oblivion.

Jumping to conclusions

[LandruBek]

Nu, what makes you think he lives in the USSA? Slashdotters live around the globe. He writes English like a non native, and based on his name and attitude I assume he is Ukrainian.

Don't forget to somehow link Bush to this!!!

[Grassman20]

I love how the first picture on the page has George W. Bush in it. The article has nothing to do with the US President in any way, but whatever we can do to somehow link him to every bad thing that has ever happened is first priority! Freaking liberals.

Mod Parent up

[Max Littlemore]

It's obviously off topic, but it's really funny. I mean no one would seriously be stupid enough to support an international war criminal so passionately, would they?

FFS!

[l0cust]

Lets blame Capitalism for what that twat did. Oh wait they had a socialist system there.. then That is the root of all evil. It can't *possibly* be that the same types of fuckwads screw all types of systems in all the countries across the globe. You can have a perfect system designed by Angels after extensive testing on the holy beowulf clusters of Magrathea but it can and will be screwed in the ass by the people with the power to do that.

But hey who am I kidding, we can't even talk about international issues without getting into a country/religion specific fight so lets blame the first thing in our hate list as soon as we come across it.