The Cedar Lounge Revolution

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE CAMPAIGN
- United for a First Class Public Health Service

Dublin Council of Trade Unions
ICTU Youth Committee
Patients Together

dctuhealth@gmail.com

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

We would like to report to you on the activities and plans of the
Public Health Service Campaign since the march in Dublin on 29th
March. Attached is our first Newsletter. Please forward it, print it,
pass it on.

Regards,

Des Derwin
President
Dublin Council of Trade Unions

087 6229686

dctu-health-campaign-newsletter-no-1-july-08

… this I like:

What started out as a mildly interesting post-punk band rapidly became a grandiloquent exercise in religiosity as mass entertainment.

Then it got worse.

And this I don’t:

Rock’n'roll bands tend to be random blooms that wither quickly. The survival of U2 is a fascinating aspect. Edge has been able to parlay with Bono’s flitting imagination, allowing his own art to prosper. Larry has a signature rattle on the snare and, wisely, Adam plays the straight guy. It works perfectly. And yes, they have a moral dimension that keeps their singer motivated and makes those stadium-sized platforms a necessary place to deliver the pitch. What’s not to admire?

What does it say about political discourse in this the first decade of the 21st century when the leading British opposition politician decides in an interview with one of the leading left liberal newspapers to ‘liken himself to Lara Croft, the video game hero’.

“There is an element to politics that is a bit like Tomb Raider,” he told the Guardian yesterday in his Westminster office overlooking the Thames, as he explained his central aim since his election as leader in 2005 - to decontaminate the polluted Tory brand.

Keep talking.

“Until you have cleared level one, which I have incidentally never done, you cannot get on to level two. Level one is: are you a reasonable, decent, non-discriminating, sensible, practical person who understands the world as it is lived today, who wants to live in a modern world and who accepts what that means? If so, then you can move on to level two, where you can talk about some of the difficult issues about families and about responsibilities which can lead to trouble.”

So many thoughts spring to my mind when I read this. But some are perhaps not quite what our David intended by (and apologies for using the term twice in one week) his not entirely modish reference.

For example. Level one, he says. Very good, so - much like myself - he probably played a demo, because he sure as hell didn’t put much effort into it if he only managed level one. For there are, after the tutorial (should he have decided to play that, and really, who knows?) four levels set in Peru, five levels set in Greece, 3 levels set in Egypt and a final 3 set ‘on a remote island in an unspecified location’. So, we might all step back and breath a sigh of relief knowing that even if he reached level two he would still have … why, 13 levels to complete before ‘decontaminating the polluted Tory brand’.

Secondly… it’s a computer game. A game. On a computer. There is no ‘difficulty’. It is a pastime. You can walk away and have a cup of tea at any point you like. If the phone rings you can pick it up.

This seems a fairly fundamental difference from running a political party attempting to achieve a measure of state power.

But really, doesn’t this tell us everything we need to know? A reference to a computer game that was released initially in 1996. Now granted, last year saw the Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Anniversary version. But even so. There’s something irretrievably 1990s to me about Tomb Raider. If he had said Medal of Honor, or indeed more recent versions of Civilisation, well then. Perhaps some degree of kudos, not much it must be admitted. But they might have lacked the trip off the tongue familiarity, however shopworn of Tomb Raider. And those would be tricky in themselves, opening up intriguing lines of enquiry for the media. Not the least being how he felt about replaying the Normandy landings in the comfort of his home and how this would go down with his prospective partners in Europe [incidentally, anyone notice an intriguing new policy as regards the Lisbon Treaty which is that they will call for a referendum only if "one other EU state has still not ratified the treaty." - now that's what I call playing safe!]. One can see them discussing this in Conservative Head Office, debating the merits of strengthening his Eurosceptic credentials, or go for a more emollient version of violence. So much easier really, to fight Atlanteans than own up to being an Atlanticist.

Anyhow, the article runs with this concept:

To the intense irritation of many ministers, who believe he is no more than a master of PR, Cameron is showing a knack of connecting with voters which has given him a commanding 20-point lead in almost all opinion polls.

And yet, Cameron is ‘connecting’, as the Guardian notes. Somehow whatever the fatuous nature of those references, comparisons and such like, they resonate with some segment of British voters. Sure, there are political aspects to this. A failed British Labour project that spun rapidly towards the centre right and ignored its base. An absence by the Conservatives that made the hearts of the electorate turn from contempt to a degree of fondness. But, I find the dynamic at work here pretty disturbing. The idea is that by referencing a number of identifiable, but politically neutral, references in popular culture or whatever this indicates some sort of down home credibility - some ability to ‘connect’. Surely if anything it indicates the opposite. The worst of it is how calculated this process all is.

Still, this can hardly be more fatuous than the Guardian more or less accepting in total the process.

The image of Cameron striding across our screens as Lara Croft provides a telling, if slightly absurd, illustration of a remarkable political turnaround. It is just a year since Cameron faced his biggest crisis since his election as Tory leader in December 2005 when he had to slap down a group of frontbenchers who defied his authority by speaking up in favour of grammar schools.

And straining, oh yes, straining, across the article to give breath to it:

But Cameron is brushing aside these setbacks, believing he has made such progress in his Lara Croft mission that he has earned the right to venture into new and sensitive political territory. Last week he strode into the Labour heartland of Glasgow East, scene of a tricky byelection next week, to accuse Brown of presiding over a “broken society”. This was a familiar theme from the Tory leader, who warns regularly of a breakdown in social order in inner cities, exacerbated by what he calls Labour’s “top-down” solutions, such as tax credit for the poor, which mask rather than tackle poverty.

Then again, who can entirely blame the Guardian when:

Cameron returns to the image of Lara Croft to explain that his modernisation of the Tory party will not lead to a second wave of Thatcherism. “The point of modernising the Conservative party was not so that we could then, under the cloak of respectability, introduce even bigger privatisation programmes. That is not the point. This modernisation wasn’t just so we could produce unpalatable rightwing policies and stuff them down the throats of the unsuspecting British public. It is because the Conservative party has discovered an exciting new agenda: which is progressive goals and Conservative means.”

The word ‘progressive’. A word used by - progressives. Of which I like to count leftists. Indeed, as an aside it was, if I recall correctly, the great Noel Browne and Jack McQuillan who first introduced it into Irish political discourse. Unfortunately Ireland has a perfect example of how later it was appropriated by the political right. And here is Cameron, taking the shiny fresh term and reworking it to his own ends.

But after all, when your political and conceptual touchstone, as expressed in a purportedly serious newspaper, is Lara Croft what does meaning mean any longer?

And as if to underscore that point, to conclude another fictional character is brought into play:

He is less caught for words as he admits to one his great weaknesses: his love of James Bond films. Asked why he is attracted to Bond - he had every Ian Fleming novel lined up chronologically on his bookshelf at Eton - he says: “I just love the films, I’m afraid. The escapism. I’ve got a lot of the books and I’ve read most of them. The books are very good but I just love the films. I adore, I like the humour, I like that mixture of great, you know, action thriller plus the comedic moments. I mean, I’m a complete bore. I have watched each one more than three times.”

I mean, I could stop here and argue the merits or otherwise of the novels and films. But that’s playing the game, is it not? A game where political discourse reduces down to the illusion of lifestyle choice and taste, whereas the actual grinding reality - particularly in a tanking economy - is very very different for many many people. And added to that the prospect of a Tory victory…

Anyhow, the agony continues:

There is speculation that Cameron is, in fact, a frustrated Bond who will not quite feel fulfilled unless he receives a severe ticking off from “M”, the head of MI6 in the films, even though he would be his - now her - boss as prime minister.

What precisely does the above mean? But worse is to follow.

Asked whether he identifies with 007, he says: “No. No I don’t. I do not. I am not Bond.”

Our [or more accurately their] next prime minister? runs the headline. This is what it comes to?

A piece by Roger Cole of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance, in the Irish Times today raised three points in particular for me. As it happens while the sincerity and activism of PANA is beyond question their general critique is not one I’d share in full, but we’ll come to that later. Cole makes considerable play of the poll results which put issues of neutrality as one of the key contributors the No vote in Lisbon. I can’t help but feel that sovereignty might be a greater element of that, but since Libertas, Coir and indeed SF (and incidentally, is it me, or have they gone a bit quiet recently on this and other issues?) have already claimed a share of the action why shouldn’t PANA?

Interesting too to see how Sarkozy is entering the NO camp demonology.

The French president is a Napoleonic imperialist who wants to speed up the militarisation of the EU - Irish voters said No to his neo-liberal treaty and, if there is a second vote, will do so again.

And the support for this interesting reading of French history?

Now Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president and the current president of the European Council, is paying us a visit seven days after celebrating the anniversary of the French Revolution. Since Wolfe Tone, who wrote a pamphlet in favour of Irish neutrality in 1790 is one of our heroes, it would be reasonable to suggest the alliance and Sarkozy are inspired by the same events.

However, the revolution gave birth not just to the traditions of liberty, equality and fraternity, but also to Napoleonic imperialism. There are no prizes for guessing which tradition Sarkozy belongs to.

Hmmm… maybe. Of course it could be that there is an alternative interpretation, that Sarkozy is a politician who lost his gloss pretty rapidly and is casting around for something, anything, to make a mark.

Sarkozy is then fitted out as the instigator of the following:

He [Sarkozy] seeks to massively accelerate the process of the militarisation of the EU and to establish a 60,000-strong EU army; to improve the maritime and air support for this army; expand the existing EU planning cell into a full EU military headquarters, double the funds for France’s military space assets up to €700 million a year and give a priority via the European War (Defence) Agency to seek the “harmonisation” of the European armaments companies and review the European security and defence policy that already commits the EU states to pre-emptive war in accordance with the Bush doctrine.

Somewhat problematically Sarkozy has simultaneously argued for reductions in the strength of the French national army by up to a sixth of its personnel.

As regards the assertion that a pre-emptive war doctrine is being or has been written into CFSP - the language Cole uses is a bit confused on that point. If a pre-emptive war doctrine was written into it then a review could hardly make it worse. But if we go to PANA’s “The EU Battle Groups: regiments of Empire” by Cole we read that:

The EU Security Strategy, “A Secure Europe in a Better World”, was written by the EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javiar Solana, and endorsed by the EU in December 2003.

The EU strategy totally endorses President Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war:

“Our traditional concept of self-defence…. was based on the threat of invasion. With the new threats, the first line of defence will often be abroad… we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs”.

That’s an interesting take on what is actually written in “A Secure Europe in A Better World” which goes as follows:

Our traditional concept of self- defence – up to and including the Cold War – was based on the
threat of invasion. With the new threats, the first line of defence will often be abroad. The new
threats are dynamic. The risks of proliferation grow over time; left alone, terrorist networks will
become ever more dangerous. State failure and organised crime spread if they are neglected – as we have seen in West Africa. This implies that we should be ready to act before a crisis occurs. Conflict prevention and threat prevention cannot start too early.

Now, that seems to me to indicate that Solana is writing about something rather different from a Bush-like pre-emptive war and suggests that the ‘acting’ before a crisis and ‘conflict prevention and threat prevention’ are not intended to be wars at all.

Indeed Cole himself continues in “The EU Battle Groups” that:

The strategy goes on to state that not all these threats can be countered by military means and a mixture of instruments must be used. This however leaves the way open for humanitarian aid being used as a tool in the fight against “terrorism”.

And by way of comparison the Solana document continues:

In contrast to the massive visible threat in the Cold War, none of the new threats is purely military;
nor can any be tackled by purely military means. Each requires a mixture of instruments.
Proliferation may be contained through export controls and attacked through political, economic
and other pressures while the underlying political causes are also tackled. Dealing with terrorism
may require a mixture of intelligence, police, judicial, military and other means. In failed states,
military instruments may be needed to restore order, humanitarian means to tackle the immediate crisis. Regional conflicts need political solutions but military assets and effective policing may be needed in the post conflict phase. Economic instruments serve reconstruction, and civilian crisis management helps restore civil government. The European Union is particularly well equipped to respond to such multi-faceted situations

One may, entirely correctly, disagree with any or all of those propositions made by Solana. But none indicates a simple replication or indeed ‘total endorsement’ of the Bush strategy of pre-emptive wars (and the idea that avowedly neutral states such as Austria, Sweden of Finland would buy into such a doctrine embedded within the EU seems unlikely. One might also note how even existing military alliances were insufficient to draw their members in full behind the Iraq war adventurism… hence the necessity for a coalition of the ‘willing’), indeed quite the opposite. It’s also worth pointing out that this was written in 2003 less than two years post 9/11 and yet the considered restraint of the document in that context when a vastly more bellicose narrative (where the belief was bandied around by neo-conservatives that war was indeed a substitute for diplomacy, and not merely a substitute but the first and in most cases only port of call) was being constructed on the other side of the Atlantic points to something quite different to that proposed by PANA.

Nor does it seem to me that the EU can ignore problems posed in the Solana document, or wish them away.

Even in an era of globalisation, geography is still important. It is in the European interest that
countries on our borders are well-governed. Neighbours who are engaged in violent conflict, weak states where organised crime flourishes, dysfunctional societies or exploding population
growth on its borders all pose problems for Europe.

PANA seeks a transformed United Nations as the organisation through which Ireland should pursue its security concerns. Yet Solana argues that:

We are committed to upholding and developing International Law. The fundamental framework for international relations is the United Nations Charter. The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Strengthening the United Nations, equipping it to fulfil its responsibilities and to act effectively, is a European priority. We want international organisations, regimes and treaties to be effective in confronting threats to international peace and security and must therefore be ready to act when their rules are broken.

Of course he would say that, wouldn’t he, might well be the response. But, here we have none of the equivocation of the US when it comes to the UN - or indeed subsidiary institutions.

Another small point. I’m never keen on wordplay such as the “European War (Defence) Agency”. It is true that vast buildups of materiel and munitions can in circumstances lead to conflict. But not always and not everywhere. And unless PANA is arguing for the disbandment of national armies, something I’ve not seen articulated by them - but my apologies if they do, then those armies will require equipment.

Now whether our own Defence Forces, with what, about 11,000 members are going to provide any particular muscle to a Europe (ironically already, let it be noted, under considerable criticism from the US for not investing anywhere near enough by US lights in their militaries) that has larger national armies is a moot point.

Bringing it a little closer into view with contemporary events Cole continues:

All this drive towards war and more wars is happening at a time when Nato, EU and US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are under pressure, the wars are spreading into Pakistan and yet another war is threatening to start in Iran. At the same time, the growing cost of all these wars is causing the possible collapse of the western neo-liberal capitalist system.

Maybe. Perhaps. Possibly. Unlikely. Capitalism is a hardy beast and not unaware of the risks to itself, or the necessary means to remedy crises, hence the moves we see in the US as regards government intervention. And today comes the news that real politics, as distinct from the cosmetic charade we’ve been treated to this Summer in the US media, asserts itself in the sudden (but not unexpected to those of us who follow such matters - and indeed of all places the Slate Gabfest hinted at this at the weekend) thawing of relations between the US and Iran with moves already well in advance.

Or as the Guardian notes this very day;

The US plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years as part of a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush.

The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section - a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country.

And that:

The return of US diplomats to Iran is dependent on agreement by Tehran. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad indicated earlier this week that he was not against the opening of a US mission. Iran would consider favourably any request aimed at boosting relations between the two countries, he said.

The reality is that the US and the Iranians have been dealing directly, although quietly, ever since the Iraq War and the occupation, not least by way of Iraqi proxies within the Iraqi government. That is the way things work.

This is not to say that within the US administration there has been support for military action - most likely by Israel - against Iranian military targets. I cannot imagine a more stupid set of actions, although they would be well short of ground war, not least because Iran has it would appear something of a global reach and ability to strike at US targets in the aftermath of any such attacks. Indeed in that respect Iraq both as it stands and in terms of its ability to strike through proxies in the Middle East and elsewhere is a near perfect example of the power of deterrence.

Indeed even these acts are viewed with suspicion within the US, as the Guardian continues:

The US is to send a senior official to talks with Iran on Saturday, the highest level meeting between the two since the 1979 Iranian revolution and a departure from George Bush’s previous hard line.

William Burns, an undersecretary of state, left Washington last night en route to Switzerland to hear Tehran’s response on Saturday to a multinational proposal offering economic and technical cooperation in return for suspension of Iran’s uranium enrichment programme.

Bush has repeatedly ruled out direct talks until Iran suspended its uranium enrichment process. Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear bomb. The White House and the state department denied there had been a turnaround and insisted that it was change in tactics rather than substance. But rightwingers in the US, who have argued for bombing Iranian nuclear plants, accused Bush of appeasement.

And here is my greatest problem with the sort of rhetoric that the Cole article employs. It is simply too exaggerated, too wedded to a manichaean vision of international relations where not merely bad things happen, but the absolute worst must and will occur. Where only absolute perfection will suffice and all else, however halting, will lead inexorably to disaster.

That’s simply not the reality of international politics and foreign affairs. And that leaves events, such as the sudden flip-flop on North Korea by the US, or this latest development, nearly inexplicable in terms of the analysis offered which cleaves to a reductionist reading of a ‘drive to war and more wars…’

This, though, is not to dismiss the PANA ethos as exemplified below:

It is our message of inclusive dialogue, negotiations and social justice that will provide the means by which global stability and sustainable growth can be restored.

The one entity which actually comes closest on a global level to that message is the European Union. It has reified dialogue, negotiation and aspects of social justice to a degree that no other inter-governmental structure I can think of either now or previously has attempted to do. This is not to white wash its flaws, which are considerable. The alternatives? Super-nations such as Russia, China, India and indeed the United States vying for regional and sub-global supremacy. Below them their hangers on, the satraps as it were, following in their wake and hoping (as the UK rather ingloriously did in the very recent past) to grab the scraps from the table. Their democratic credentials either distorted or highly questionable.

And in the context of a world where such super-nations exist and seek to achieve competitive advantage I am far from convinced that a demilitarised EU is in some sense a ’solution’. Pragmatic politics, and any reading of 20th century history, suggests that some degree of self-defensive capability is necessary. Now, for the moment that overwhelmingly resides with national governments, but there are good valid reasons for pooling resources which could feasibly lead to a reduction of militarisation. I would be entirely happy to see the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons from within the EU by member states as well. Indeed it would be a profoundly positive move to see that as a clear stated aim of the EU to oversee French and British nuclear disarmament. I would dearly love to see ’slimmed down’ military forces within the EU. But, I can’t see that happening outside the context of multilateral EU action because if left to individual nation states the internal dynamic will merely perpetuate a status quo where some states will have large military forces, and others (like the RoI) will have smaller ones, where there will be massive replication of equipment and resources that in a resource starved 21st century are simply unconscionable. And this is not to ignore the fact that there are moves to increase military spending EU wide, moves that must be resisted, but simply to suggest that  an EU wide context might bring about the opposite scenario to that proposed in the article. In either case I cannot envisage any future set of circumstances where defensive military formations will not be necessary in the short to medium term. The shape of such formations is an interesting question and one that requires serious discussion. And perhaps a little more so than arguing the following:

As he [Sarkozy] continues to attack the French social model, his popularity with the French people has declined, probably mirroring his growing popularity among the Yes campaigners in Ireland, the vast majority of whom are enthusiastic supporters of his militaristic, neo-liberal agenda.

I’m aware that there is a complexity to these issues and the impulse to simplify is very great - particularly in the constrained context of an irregular offer of a page in the IT. But, I can’t help feel that rhetoric about Sarkozy being a ‘Napoleonic imperialist’, or stating almost beyond question that EU policy is identical to Bush pre-emptive war doctrine, or indeed branding those (some of us on and from the Left) who voted Yes and yet and did so precisely because we believe the EU can point a way out of the militaristic neo-liberal agenda, sells this debate short. He may well be, it may well be, and some Yes voters may well be, time will tell, but so far no great evidence of same. And as Iran and the US snuggling up to each other demonstrates the complexities of the way this world works it way through such issues is both more contradictory and paradoxical than may be expected.

Remarkable times for those who follow the US economy. And particularly a time to have a certain degree of sympathy for those on mortgages. Because as reported in the Guardian the day before yesterday there’s good news and bad news.

The good news?

An emergency plan by the US government to stabilise the nation’s two biggest mortgage finance corporations proved sufficient to calm fears of imminent collapse yesterday…

The bad?

…but Wall Street was gripped by a fresh flurry of alarm over possible failures of regional banks.

Freddie and Fannie were hardly everyday names this side of the Atlantic, but, perhaps that will change now. As the Guardian also noted:

Fannie Mae is America’s largest mortgage lender and was created during the Great Depression of the 1930s to ensure sufficient funds were made available to mortgage lenders. It was rechartered by Congress as a publicly traded company in 1968 and two years later Freddie Mac, the country’s second largest mortgage lender, was created.

Neither company lends directly to house purchasers but they are the lynchpin of the US mortgage market, buying mortgages from lending institutions and holding them in investment portfolios or reselling them as mortgage-backed securities to investors.

Now, one can look with interest at mortgage lenders created by government and taking such a dominant portion of the US mortgage sector and wonder, as I often do, about the actuality as distinct from the rhetoric of a ‘free market’ US economy. It’s not that it is not a free market, rather that there are all manner of intriguing distortions and interventions.

And here’s the problem. Since Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae now own 50% of mortgages in the US and since they were orginally chartered by Congress and get favourable rates investors believed, not unreasonably that they’re implicitly backed by the US government.

Over on KCRW’s To The Point a fascinating discussion between a number of analysts in the financial sector pointed to a broad agreement as to the shape of future events in the area.

James Hagerty of the Wall Street Journal noted that:

Hank Paulson [Treasury Secretary - and the sort of first name of a man you might find good in a difficult spot, or perhaps not...] and the Treasury is seeking authority from Congress so it could increase amount of money it can legally lend to Fannie Mae and to buy stock if necessary and it is proposed that the Federal Reserve be given a role in deciding how much capital FM/FM should be required to hold. Meanwhile the Fed is saying that it could lend money to FM/FM.

Which would result in American taxpayers becoming de facto shareholders in them. Hagerty noted also that:

Although they’re owned by private shareholders there’s always been the assumption that in a crisis the government would bail them out because they’re so important for our economy and over the weekend the Treasury and Fed just strengthened that assumption.

Congress is already on line, with Christopher Dodds of the Senate Banking Committee was already supportive of the government actions. Hagerty agreed:

Congress expected to go along with this although some opposition to it from Congress members who think we’re going down a dangerous path by giving government backing to them. … we’re just encouraging them to take more risk. Some would favour the government take them over and sort out their mess, others would say let them sort out their own problems and we’ll deal with the consequences. Others again would say our economy and housing market are so weak now that we don’t want to go there, we don’t want to look over that precipice and see what might happen if they were unable to form their function.

Peter Cohan of Peter S. Cohan & Associates, a management, consulting and venture capital company was asked for his opinion on these matters. One might think that a venture capitalist might be appalled by this circumstance of direct state intervention. One would be wrong.

When asked did the Government have any choice to intervene, he responded…

PC They had a choice. Years ago, when people were calling for the government to encourage people to raise capital, they had a sliver of capital, at least 5 trillion dollars worth of assets and they did nothing because they were determined to prove that free markets work and what they’ve shown in their practice is that free markets fail if they don’t have proper regulation and we have a situation here where they’ve failed on managing the investment banking industry and they’ve had to bail out Bear Stearns and now they’re doing it again with Fannie and Freddie, you know, just a few weeks ago they were saying everything was fine and then they come in over the weekend with their sneak bailout plan. So they’re doing a fantastic setup job for the next administration to come in and do a proper job of regulating our industries and we need proper regulation for our free markets to function effectively.

Cohan wondered ‘why they hadn’t done their job to manage these institutions and to regulate them and the tax payers will be paying for the losses incurred…’

Michael Mandel, chief economist for BusinessWeek, chimed in with much the same story when asked was this a failure of appropriate regulation by the Bush administration…

MM… not just the Bush administration, both sides of the aisle. It’s the tip of the iceberg, what we have going on now is a housing sector with massive losses and a consumer sector which is over-borrowed and over spent. That’s where we are right now.

Paulson has come out and said that Freddie and Fannie have full guarantees from the US government and that the government can no longer allow them to operate independently. Whether it’s now, three months from now, or when the next President takes office we’ll end up with a very large bail-out, much larger than this one, not just Fannie and Freddie but encompasses the whole housing market. What we saw this weekend was the first step on a path that leads to a bailout.

Which led host Warren Olneyy to ask did that mean ‘…A large bailout and a takeover by the government?’

MM You have to have a takeover. At this point all investors now know that F&F are fully guaranteed by the government. They’re fully safe. Can you allow a private company to operate with a full government guarantee? You can’t, it’s not possible.

From the very beginning, this goes back into the 70s, back into the Depression, they’ve been operating half in and half out of the government guarantee for decades… The way it ends is a much smaller F&F and a much smaller subsidised part of the housing market and a more rational financial sector.

Hagerty had a slightly modified view.

JH I don’t think the Bush Administration wants to take them over. I think that would be the very last resort. I do think that the Administration having tried to marginalise them earlier - they wanted them to shrink back and not be such a dominant player because they thought that was a risk with so much concentration of the mark in so few hands - is now very dependent upon them for providing credit since Wall Street has stepped back from mortgages. And so in the short term F&F are the dominant providers for money for mortgages in this country and no-one has a Plan B apart from bolstering the FHA which is expanding its role right now and which is a federal agency.

And the prospect for the ordinary customer looking for a mortgage?

MM I think we’re going to see it become more difficult, or more expensive, for people who are middle class or prime credits. I’m not so sure it’s such a bad thing because we had an overspending on housing.

But here’s the thing. It’s spreading.

Olney noted that ‘in the meantime a mortgage bank in Pasadena was taken over by the Federal Government last week’.

As the Guardian reported:

…the regulators’ seized … IndyMac Bancorp, a Californian bank which suffered a run on deposits last week. Hundreds of customers queued outside branches yesterday in scenes reminiscent of Britain’s Northern Rock crisis, with some arriving at the bank’s Pasadena head office branch as early as 4am.

And the troubles didn’t end there:

But as confidence returned in F&F’s survival prospects, there were signs of panic selling elsewhere as concern gripped investors about the health of regional banks which have become ensnared in the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

National City’s shares dived by 48%, forcing it to request a suspension in trading and to issue a statement denying that it was suffering a run on deposits. Hours later, Washington Mutual’s stock dived by 35% following a negative note from a banking analyst at Lehman Brothers. The Seattle bank, known as WaMu, responded that it was “well capitalised” and had excess funds of more than $40bn.

And what of the ’survival’ of F&F?

MM These guys still has the option to put them into conservatorship. They were the creation of the government. What’s going to happen is that we’ll inch along this path. Ben Bernanke [head of the US Central Bank] said from the very beginning that the government would have to put in real money and he didn’t mean the Fed, something the Bush government didn’t want to do. To get a handle on the whole housing crisis we’re looking at 400 to 500 billion dollars roughly about the same as the S&L crisis adjusted for inflation.

Now, considering that even today there are after-shocks of the S&L crisis (indeed if I recall correctly John McCain was touched tangentially by it) the necessity for a ‘bail-out’ of that magnitude has both political and economic significance.

In an editorial the day before yesterday the Guardian noted that:

The US government did the right thing. Had it allowed the mortgage firms to keep on haemorrhaging market confidence, the result might well have been curtains for the global banking system. As it is, Freddie Mac was able yesterday afternoon to pull off what would once have been a routine task: getting another $3bn of credit from banks. This story will probably not end here but so far, the two Fs fight on. No, the real issue is summed up in the phrase commonly used by financiers, that Fannie and Freddie are “too big to fail” - and so would be bailed out by the taxpayer. Yet these were private-sector firms (despite being government-sponsored enterprises, successive administrations swore there would be no public support) and had been on the stockmarket for 40 years.

Note too the following, which makes as good an argument for intervention as I’ve read.

“Too big to fail” has been the financiers’ chant throughout this crisis. Northern Rock, Bear Stearns, even a humble German regional bank: all were too big to go under; all came in for either government bail-out, or regulator-organised takeover. The result is inevitably bad news for shareholders in the individual firms, but relief for markets. Too big to fail should surely have a corollary: too big not to be broken up. But a similar syndrome applies even in finance’s lower divisions. Alliance & Leicester announced yesterday that it would be taken over to protect it against “the deterioration in economic conditions and the continuing turbulence in the financial markets”; had it not, the regulators would have waded in. When it comes to banks, the good times and the profits are private; the bad times and the risks are to be shared with everyone else.

It’s an invidious situation. Tony Blankley on Left Right and Centre on NPR was willing to concede that previous deregulations (which he - like Mandel - was quick to pin on both Democrats and Republicans) might have to be rethought with a somewhat greater level of regulation, but he argued that these would lead to greater security but less prosperity [and predictably enough he treated us to airline deregulation as positive case]. I’m unsure as to how anyone can know. These are largely uncharted economic waters.

Still, before we all see this as a ‘left-turn’, or precursor to same, let’s just note that while central, indeed fundamental, to the workings of the US economy Freddie and Fannie have always had this sense of being the Federal Government at one remove. But the broader lesson is clear. Regulation is coming back into vogue, and for all the modish genuflections towards the idea of unfettered markets that has been very much part of economic liberalism in the past number of decades the reality has been, as one might imagine, a vastly more complex and contradictory even in the home of contemporary capitalism. Meanwhile the nostrums that have been used to guide the global economy are called into question in that home while they remain very much part of the language of economic activity further afield. I think that for progressives of all stripes that’s a significant opportunity. Not merely within the US but outside of it. Sure, at best we might see mildly social democratic policies followed in relation to health care, pensions and indeed in this instance. But that alone is a considerable improvement on the pre-existing situation. That said Obama appears to me to be - and always has been - a mildly centrist candidate and his Presidency is unlikely to scare the horses too much. But more fundamental structural problems may well force the changes that political strategies alone could not (or would not) deliver.

And as the Guardian notes;

As Fannie and Freddie show, financial markets rest on an assumption that the public sector will step in. It is not just reasonable for the public to demand proper regulation in return; it is their right.

Not simply due to the cost, but due to the chaotic nature of the events which surround financial markets when the bad times roll. Fannie and Freddie aren’t just a company dealing in mortgages. When they tremble many many people take notice. Or as Robert Scheer on Left Right and Centre noted:

People make it sound like this doesn’t dramatically affect people. This housing crunch is taking away peoples savings, yes there was a fantasy of expanding home ownership, but when you lose your house you lose your net worth, you go into debt deeply…

And in a society with intermittent safety nets…. well you can guess the rest. But what of us, cowering in our island open economy?

Following on from Joemomma’s piece I was reminded that NollaigO asked why we’re not dealing more with the global economic crisis, and it’s a damn good question. In some ways it’s easier to reflect on the fluff rather than the base - and then again Notes on the Front covers that area far better than here. The danger of course being that a blog like this one here then merely becomes a meta-critic of the Irish Times or whatever. On the other hand, with the Irish Times and whatever presenting such excellent targets why not? Still over the next while economic issues will weigh a bit larger in the scheme of things. And to start this process, why not consider a combination of the Irish Times and the economy?

Today I read in my on-line and now, thank God, free copy that:

PROOF THAT the recession really has arrived may be evident from the fact that a fashionable Habitat store near the bottom of Dublin’s Grafton Street could be replaced by a Lidl discount supermarket.

Truly the barbarians are not merely at, but well inside, the gates and heading through on a discount shopping spree. And note:

The German discounter is one of only two businesses – the other is an overseas bank – pitching for the lease of the massive store in Dublin’s most fashionable shopping area.

Think about that. “Dublin’s most fashionable shopping area”. What on earth does that mean? Fashionable to who and why? And how does this impact on reality in any meaningful way? And then let’s think about Habitat. Would it be unreasonable of me to suggest that in amongst the porridgy coloured interior decor and the subdued - to the level of sedation - lighting lurked nothing so much as no bargains at all to be had. And should you really really really want wine glasses tinted primary colours to impress your friends, and toasters with faux streamline stylings to burn your toast (when some of us make do with the grill), or CD racks of byzantine complexity to reassemble and byzantine pricing to regret at leisure, then you’d do as well dropping by that little discount shop beside M&S off Henry Street?

Lidl and its fellow discount chain Aldi are believed to have seen a significant increase in business since the effects of the credit crunch on the economy have become apparent.

Their turnover has also been greatly helped by the National Consumer Agency’s recent survey, which found that a basket of 28 own-brand goods was more than 50 per cent cheaper in Lidl than in Tesco or Dunnes Stores. Tesco is now preparing to launch a new range of own-brand products to slow down the defections to the Germans.

Shurely shome mistake, since last time I was in Tesco a month or so ago I saw a range of own-brand products, and come to think of it, four years ago, and indeed many years before that again. But then, the IT is perhaps somewhat like George Bush Snr who during the 1992, or was it 1988, election demonstrated his worldliness by a simple and child-like delight at an electronic check-out machine thereby demonstrating that the last time he was in a supermarket was probably never.

It get’s better. The ‘C’ word makes an appearance…

The current moves by Lidl to break into the top end of Dublin’s retail market will be seen as a major change in policy by the Germans since they opened their first stores here in 1999. Up to now they have largely targeted rural towns and immigrant and working-class areas of cities.

And perhaps I’m being unkind here, but surely the imputation is that that’s ‘good enough for them‘… the ‘working-class’ areas, but no way should they be on Grafton Street.

And then to add insult to injury those devious Germans are, it is suggested:

[Lidl] …apparently trying to get the Habitat lease without having to pay the receiver key money of €2 million. This figure is well above the going rate of €400,000 to €700,000 generally sought for the leases of good-sized premises on Grafton Street.

Look at that! Attempting to elbow their way onto Dublin, nay, Ireland’s, most ‘fashionable’ shopping street. And without paying their way in full like any other - er - commercial retailer….

Garvan Walsh of estate agents Kelly Walsh, who is advising the Habitat receiver, said he was still confident of securing a substantial premium for the lease of the 2,750sq m (29,600sq ft) premises. The store has an annual rent of €1.3 million.

I think Garvan may be a bit optimistic, although one might also wonder at whether this is merely a cynical publicity puff to get sales rolling…

Still, adding further injury to insult we read:

Lidl is not the only big-name trader to have checked out the former Habitat store. Nearby trader Avoca looked and left, and despite careful preparations and lots of promotional work to attract the American clothing giant Abercrombie, its advisers did not waste much time on the exercise.

Not only was the Habitat store unsuitable but they told their surprised hosts they would not open a store anywhere near Grafton Street because of its poor image and unattractive mix of shops.

Ouch! So much for our ‘most fashionable shopping area’. But it’s the underlying assumptions that are so irritating in this piece. The idea that fashionable has any particular meaning other than to a small segment of the population. The idea that shops that cater to ‘immigrants’ and ‘working-class’ people are somehow unsuitable for ‘fashionable shopping areas’. The sense of disbelief and entitlement, that somehow those who are ‘fashionable’ are above the realities that dictate life for those of us who… well, shop in Dunnes, or Lidl, or Aldi and always have.

And overlay that with an absurd near-self-pitying tone about how yet again WE. HAVE. DISGRACED. OURSELVES. by our inability to attract an international ‘clothing giant’ to this most fashionable area…

So, in a superheated, credit fuelled, contracting economy facing its worst downturn in a generation the IT has it’s priorities absolutely brilliantly and chaotically wrong. We’re crap because our ‘fashionable” isn’t fashionable to the fashionable and we’re not fashionable enough to realise it…

I swear, you cannot make this stuff up.

Apologies for the short post, but here’s a statement from today’s Irish Times editorial on decentralisation to stop you in your tracks:

Only a fool would buy sites or sign expensive office contracts in a falling property market.

Tomorrow’s commercial property supplement should make for interesting reading then.

From the Irish Times this morning…

sloper noted that Breda O’Brien was writing about gay marriage again in the Irish Times following her previous adventure here , and where she goes, I follow. What is interesting about this is that it demonstrates the limitations of her brand of ‘compassionate’ conservatism. For in this piece she writes in greater detail about “that wherever possible, a child should be reared by a mother and a father, and that children have the right to know and have a relationship with their biological parents.”. Now, as was pointed out - I think again by sloper - this presupposes that all gay couples want to have children. But as has also been pointed out the current legislation in progress does not make any provision for adoption. One can argue too that in the medium term that legislation will, most likely, be amended to allow for that situation. But that is all one can argue. There is no absolute certainty.

Which means that O’Briens concerns remain, for the moment, somewhat hypothetical. They are, at best, built upon her fears about the future. Still, there is no sense in her piece that this is indeed a projection of the future. Every sentence is constructed in such a way as to seem to indicate that gay marriage with adoption is soon to be the status quo.

And this week, despite once more presenting us with disavowals of prejudice and sorrow over previous ‘discrimination’ (!) she sets off down the road of - well - prejudice and discrimination as it happens. So we read that:

Gay marriage is more difficult to write about than many other social and moral issues, not least because of our less than exemplary treatment of gays in the past.

And that:

For a long time, I hesitated to write about gay marriage, simply because gay people have been so discriminated against. What then, tipped the balance for me? It is the belief that wherever possible, a child should be reared by a mother and a father, and that children have the right to know and have a relationship with their biological parents.

Now that’s problematic on many levels. Not least because it requires that one argue from a near Platonic perfection as regards each component of the ‘relationship’. Which is where the ‘wherever possible’ comes into play. What exactly does that mean? She does not say. Nor does she seem to be aware that - for example - in adoption procedures there is now provision for contact with biological parents. [Incidentally, as an aside, knowledge and relationships are a two way street. Donors can donate altruistically but with no wish to have a relationship afterwards. That points to a complexity too, one that she simply doesn't address - but I suspect that donor and surrogacy would not be permitted in this best of all possible futures she points to].

And so we learn that:

One could argue that adoption is fraught, as well, but surely acknowledgment of the difficulties that adopted children face should reinforce for us that we need to proceed with caution? In the case of adoption, biological parents feel unable to provide for their children, but in the case of sperm donation, or surrogacy, we are calling a child into being to fulfil a longing for a child, not to care for an existing child. In the case of assisted reproductive technology, it is often planned to exclude a parent of one gender from conception onwards. Two lesbians may make two wonderful mothers. They cannot provide a mother and father, no matter how the child entered the relationship.

But that is true of many relationships. Look around Breda at the world beyond that bound by the middle class mores which you appear to inhabit. Children come into being to ‘fulfill’ a longing for a child every day in entirely ‘traditional’ families. Single parent families, families where a parent has died early and so on all exist today, and did yesterday, and will tomorrow. They cannot provide a mother and father… but somehow, somehow people muddle by.

Sperm donation has been a covert feature of family building (either accidentally or by intent) across millennia. Incidentally, I note she doesn’t touch egg donation, so either (as with the anecdote about Queen Victoria simply not being able to believe that lesbianism could exist) she cannot countenance the prospect or there’s a recognition that that’s a bit trickier again, isn’t it, for her thesis since the latest data indicates that genetic material from both donor and birth mother winds up in the child. A nightmare for O’Brien in any event - once she is told.

And this undercuts her argument that:

Studies are often quoted about the desirability of being raised by gay parents. Ms Justice Dunne, judge in the Ann-Louise Gilligan and Katherine Zappone case where two women sought to have their Canadian marriage recognised, said that “until such time as there are more longitudinal studies involving much larger samples, it will be difficult to reach firm conclusions on this topic”. To date, the studies are flawed in many ways, as pointed out by Prof Linda Waite in the Gilligan and Zappone

Sure. Studies are flawed. But history indicates that, once more, people muddle by and that in a broadly tolerant society people muddle better with far fewer of the residual hang-ups that marked - to pluck an example purely at random that O’Brien might reflect upon - say, Irish Catholic society in the 20th century which was a carnival of misery for many many as people were strait-jacketed into supposedly ‘traditional’ family structures and those beyond those structures were sent into internal or external exile.

As with last week we are treated to a non-sequiter ‘Incidentally, Prof Waite categorises herself as neutral on gay marriage.’ Well that’s that then. I’m convinced. Or not.

Incidentally, this is not to deny the following:

This problem is particularly acute in the area of sperm donation and surrogacy. Lisa Mundy, who broadly approves of assisted reproduction, writes in Everything Conceivable that parents are usually stunned by the degree to which their children long to know their biological parents, even when the children are happy in their families. In a study by the Sperm Bank of California, 80 per cent of children born to lone parents and 67 per cent of donor offspring born to heterosexual couples wanted a relationship with their biological fathers.

I think it would be a very blinkered parent who had been through donations and surrogacy who wasn’t aware of the wish to know on the part of their offspring. But, although there are competing views on this matter, in this state it would not be impossible to implement structures whereby such relationships could be facilitated - not least taking the adoption template as a starting point. So it seems a bit churlish of her not to mention that small but significant fact.

Then we see a curious paradox emerge, for she argues that:

Brian Cowen believes that this will not dilute the meaning of marriage. One wonders what he thinks would, if this doesn’t? Of course marriage is not just about children, but about love, sexual attraction, and commitment. Yet this proposed Bill is yet another step towards removing from marriage the defining paradigm of mother, father and child. It begins to move it entirely towards the adult sexual relationship model, where the needs of adults dominate.

Now surely it is her who is loading marriage with sexual issues. For although she makes a ritual obeisance at the alter of marriage being about more than children she then reduces it to having ‘children’, and indeed very specifically to the nuclear family. And try as she may she diminishes those families that I know of - and more than likely most reading this - that have been built in many different ways. In doing so it not Brian Cowen, hardly Ireland’s leading liberal, who diminishes marriage, but her in her quite indifferent dismissal of the relationships that people of varying circumstances carve out under that umbrella term.

And here, were example needed, we see the central contradiction of such an approach, because for all the talk about love and compassion and respect at the end the only forms which can be officially sanctioned or recognised are those that align with a narrow definition, and one that is increasingly at odds not merely with the realities of the past but the complexities of the present.

And beyond that what of relationships without children. Are they somehow ‘less than a marriage’? Is the only measure of a man or woman their children? That’s an odd argument, not least because this society, as presently constituted recognises both in religious and civil ceremonies marriages where there are no children, and in certain cases where there are never going to be any. They have, and should have, complete legitimacy.

She reprises the Senator Walsh escapade…

Fianna Fáil had an excellent discussion on marriage recently. Twenty-six people signed a motion supporting traditional marriage, and, given that they decided not to approach Ministers or Ministers of State to sign, this was a sizeable chunk of the remainder of the parliamentary party. The vast majority present supported the spirit of the motion. Yet it needs to move beyond words.

As Noel Whelan noted on the same day, there was no broad support within Fianna Fáil for that motion. She still argues that we - as a society - must take a lead from 25 Fianna Fáil parliamentarians from an overall group of around 100. And I like the imputation that those who didn’t vote that way were ‘bought off’. Still, by ignoring and not addressing the issue, she can then give a shopping list of discontents…

Virtually every policy strengthens the “family diversity” model, while no equivalent effort is put into supporting heterosexual marriage. The Government has stood by as property prices crippled young married people and forced them into exhausting commuting. They now stand passively by as people struggle to repay 100 per cent mortgages. This Government has continued to implement tax individualisation, which now penalises some single-income marriages to the tune of €6,270 a year.

She continues:

Many politicians have not thought through the consequences. On Questions Answers this week, under pressure from David Quinn, Mary Harney admitted that she believes children have the right to a mother and father. Yet her last contribution on the topic was that every country that has introduced gay marriage has started with civil partnership. These two positions are hard to reconcile.

Harney could have answered that ideally all children have the right to parents who love them and care for them, in the main opposite sex, sometimes adoptive, occasionally same sex. Exactly as it is today if one cares to look at this society without blinkers. And all the clever wordplay by Quinn, or indeed O’Brien, cannot ignore that. And, perhaps Harney could have directed a counter-question back at Quinn. What sanctions or proscriptions did he intend to stand over to ensure and maintain this ‘right’ to opposite sex parents? Because that is the logical outcome of what O’Brien suggests. If the standards she sets are so high, that only one form of family building has any validity - and should be the only one that is recognised in law - then it follows that at the very least all others should be discouraged…

And where then does that leave all those who come from or are part of non-traditional families. How do they, or we, measure up in her perfect new world?

She concludes:

If there is broad agreement that opposite sex marriage is a building block of society, where exactly has the Government supported this in a practical way, other than funding counselling for marriages in trouble?

Again, if this post tries to argue anything, it is that while opposite sex marriage is a building block of society, it is not the only one, and O’Brien is being reductionist in the extreme to suggest that it is. Nor is it clear how gay marriage diminishes heterosexual marriage. The idea that it is zero sum seems weirdly counter-intuitive. Still, consider her honeyed words about discrimination in reference to gays…

Gay people deserve rights and recognition. However, a same-sex relationship cannot provide a child with a mother and a father. This makes it profoundly different to marriage. Therefore, it is not discriminatory to treat same-sex relationships differently.

Still no clear explanation as to how this lack of a mother and father (or indeed definition of same that might assist in steering us towards how she arrived at this conclusion) is in any sense different to any number of family structures out there already. Which is, one would think, sort of fundamental if one is trying to make this argument.

Yet, she has sort of given the game away in the reference to Harney. …her last contribution on the topic was that every country that has introduced gay marriage has started with civil partnership. Because she must know that the civil partnership legislation does treat same-sex relationships differently - whatever her hopes or fears for the future.

It is never pleasant to take a stance like this, and it must be a thousand times less pleasant to be the person who is told that important values like equality must take second place to the common good. I would prefer if the conflict could be wished away, but it can’t.

Yet since it is at its core based on a fallacious proposition that the up-coming legislation will in some sense be the absolute equivalent of ‘traditional’ marriage it is profoundly disingenuous for her to parade her unpleasantness of stance while simultaneously attempting to demonstrate some empathy for the plight of those outside her golden circle of heterosexual child-bearing marriage. Or to pretend that somehow ‘equality’ must give way to an entirely hypothetical common good - an unreachable aspiration at that, at least short of repressive methods which worked poorly last time round - that doesn’t even come close to reflecting the current state of this society.

The function of the piece - as best one can judge - is scare-mongering in order to undermine what limited provisions are being made for recognition of civil partnerships.

Let me add one small point. She could have stripped away all the verbiage and said something along these lines:

I am concerned about the future in that I believe that civil partnership, which is what we now have on the table, will inexorably lead to gay marriage. This will I believe -although it is not provided for in the civil partnership legislation - lead to gay couples parenting. The logic of this argument is that since - by my lights - gay marriage cannot be equal to heterosexual marriage consequently any other non standard family structure is unequal and therefore lesser. I recognise that there are many different family structures extant within the scoiety, but I don’t care to value them officially and would prefer society to marginalise them and seek to ensure through legislation the pre-eminence of one form. I choose to ignore how this will negatively impact on those within the society who already are within non-traditional relationships.

Had she done so she would at least have been presenting a coherent argument, but it might lack some of the ‘compassion’ and understanding and respect and fellow-feeling that she seeks to infuse her article with. It might also come across as a cold and rather unlovely point of view.

For more on this the comments here by Chekov and Hugh in particular assist - I think - in an understanding of the possible motivations at underpinning the O’B approach… the unpleasantly cynical part of me would argue that if I wanted to write an article like she has last weekend it makes perfect sense to provide the cover, however ineptly, of the previous article. Just so, y’know, she can’t be accused of… homopho… ooops.

If I had any doubts remaining that I was once more able to communicate with the world by email the appearance of spam has dissipated them. And the invitations to ‘be the godsend to the ladies’, or the offers from “Technical Supports” that I should “restore my account access” and not forgetting the generous advice from AIB that I should do something to ensure that my AIB Online Bank Account, which I was strangely unaware that I had, is ‘about to be closed’ are filling up the In-box in Mail.

Oddly enough the worldbystorm email attracts the least amount of spam. The most I’ve ever seen? One I established for an academic/research project a couple of years back where I only sent emails out to a limited number of people. Academics and researchers - eh?

Which brings me to something referenced on the Slate Gabfest last week. McAfee, the antivirus and computer security company [and for a laugh go to their site here and study the computer security 'global threat condition'. It's elevated the day I write this. I wonder is it ever just boring 'low'.] had a bright promotional idea recently. They asked computer users worldwide to respond to spam and see what happened. In an article here they detail the outcomes, which while nowhere near as scientific an ‘experiment’ as McAfee might like to present is nonestheless sort of kind of interesting, albeit none of the information will come as a surprise to any of us using computers on a regular basis…

McAfee today released the results of its S.P.A.M. (Spammed Persistently All Month) Experiment, in which 50 people from around the world surfed the Web unprotected for 30 days. By taking part in the experiment, participants were given permission to go where most Internet users would not dare, in order to discover how much spam they would attract and what the effects would be. Having studied the daily blogs and analyzed the spam itself, McAfee® researchers confirm that spammers are as active as ever; they are increasingly using psychological tricks to lure Internet users to part with their contact details, identity information and cash. The experiment clearly shows that spam continues to evolve, utilizing more local languages and cultural nuances, as well as becoming much more targeted in a bid to avoid detection.

The figures are significant.

In the first experiment of its kind, the participants from 10 countries received more than 104,000 spam e-mails throughout the course of the experiment. That’s 2,096 messages each - the equivalent of approximately 70 messages a day.

Unsurprisingly:

The most popular subject received was financial spam. For example, pre-approved loans or credit card offers were common, which may be symptomatic of spammers taking advantage of the current personal finance climate and global credit crunch.

Despite its notoriety, people are still being fooled by the ‘Nigerian’ spam e-mails, where someone supposedly from Nigeria contacts a user to let them know they are a beneficiary of a long lost relatives’ will, in a bid to extract money from them. Internet users in the United Kingdom are most likely to be targeted by a spam e-mail of this nature, with the United Kingdom participants receiving 23 percent of these scams.

To be honest it astounds me that people fall for this, particularly after this time. It’s hardly news that these sort of scams are in place. But, I guess, try anything enough times and someone will fall for it. And in a way, putting aside the delivery system for these scams the basic aim is pretty traditional… usually just to get bank details.

The diversity of so-called ’social engineering’ e-mails (e-mails that play on people’s emotions to manipulate them into divulging confidential information) received during the experiment gave McAfee researchers valuable insight into this type of spam; something that they have seen grow significantly in the last five years.

And here it is, the (near blindingly obvious) results of their investigation.

The Global ‘Spam League’:

1. United States 23233
2. Brazil 15856
3. Italy 15610
4. Mexico 12229
5. United Kingdom 11965
6. Australia 9214
7. The Netherlands 6378
8. Spain 5419
9. France 2597
10. Germany 2331

Top 10 Most Popular Spam Categories:

1. Financial
2. Advertisements
3. Health and medicine
4. Adult
5. Free stuff
6. Credit cards
7. Education
8. Money making, ‘get rich quick’ schemes
9. IT related
10. Nigerian scams