compassion, collaboration & cooperation iN transistion
IF THE DUNG of llamas could be of especial interest to the sun/worshipping Incas as
oracles in which they discovered omens of the future, then it is not difficult to imagine
that in another part of the world people believed that the earth rested on the backs of
masterpiece I, Leonardo.
Ralph Steadman's obsession with Leonardo da Vinci has resulted in that which is undoubtedly one of the most inspired and magnificent flights of imagination it is possible to find in book form. He travels to Italy to stand in places where Leonardo stood, trying to imagine what it was like to occupy that MIND which would never stop yearning to fly; never sit back with others reassessing Aristotle and Plato and call it an Enlightened day; who refused to accept knowledge unless it came straight from experience and consequently invented everything from the vocabulary of academic drawing to the submarine.
"Impossible as it may seem, it is a fact that Leonardo da Vinci's masterpiece, the
been exhibited in the famous Salon Carre for the last five years," -
reported the New York Times on the 21st August 1911
IT was of course inevitable that the world's most famous painting had been missing
for 26 hours before anyone noticed - in consideration of the total arrogance of the
superior beings that was the hallmark of the French Establishment at the time - and
panic and pandemonium ensued subsequently - people were running about the Louvre
in all directions, including 60 police inspectors and between 100 and 120 gendarmes -
AFTER the thief had just walked into the louvre taken the painting from its frame and
then walked out again the day before.
Even the forensic analysis which the authorities at the time were using, gave little respect
to the use of fingerprinting, to the extent that fingerprints were only taken of the right
hand of suspects - Vincenzo Perrugia had left a left handed thumbprint on the glass of
the frame from which he had stolen the painting whilst the police only had his right hand
prints on file - as a left handed possibly dyslexic artist Leonardo would, I am sure, have
found the whole state of affairs highly amusing - plus ca change !
NO BETTER STATEMENT, to come out of yesterdays demonstrations in the City of London, prior to today's G20 Summit, was that reported by James Hall in today's Daily Telegraph.
”On Old Jewry, a side-street that leads to Cheapside, two young men are dressed in smart suits with canes and copies of the FT under their arms. On first sight, they appear to be ironically-dressed anti-capitalist protesters.
But they are not. Gavriel Merkado and Vladimir Lavrentiev, both 21, are both at business school in London. ”We are protesting in defence of capitalism. People are too willing to blame capitalism if things go wrong,” says Mr Merkado through wafts of marijuana smoke from nearby dancing crusties.
”The current crisis is all about systemic failure of society at every level; people were willing to take on 120pc mortgages, banks were willing to lend them the money and governments were willing to let it happen. Things need to change but you can't blame capitalism as a concept,” says Mr Merkado, as the two men walk off to read the FT in front of the Bank.
It is the most sensible thing I've heard all day.”
IT was John Maynard Keynes who proposed the International Trade Organisation (ITO), supported by an international central bank, the International Clearing Union (ICU), as an innovative project for the future of world trade just after World War II, and as published in Le Monde in 2007
”With an ITO and an ICU, we could have had a world order in which no country could run a huge trade deficit (the United States deficit stood at $716bn in 2005) or the huge trade surplus of contemporary China. Under such a system, crushing third world debt and the devastating structural adjustment policies applied by the World Bank and the IMF would have been unthinkable, although the system would not have abolished capitalism. If we could resurrect Keynes’s concept, another world really might be possible: he figured out how to make it work more than 60 years ago. His plan would have to be dusted off and tinkered with, but its core remains relevant.
It was a neat arrangement. To avoid paying interest or submit to outright confiscation; countries in surplus would race to buy more exports from those in deficit. Those in deficit could sell more and would find it easier to return to equilibrium. Everyone would benefit. Trade would expand, the world would be more prosperous and peaceful, underdeveloped countries would have The International Clearing Union proposal more funds to invest in development, and it would be impossible to accumulate the debts they have today.”
ALL of which poses the question of the G20 London Summit's OWN …
“RENDEZVOUS with DESTINY”
which Tom Stevenson has most succinctly summarised,
again in today's Daily Telegraph …
”The biggest problem facing the G20 leaders is that they are trying to patch up a fundamentally unbalanced system in which the excess production and savings of one handful of countries has to be matched by the excess consumption and borrowing of another handful of nations. Either China and Germany have to learn to spend more or the US and Britain must learn to live within their means.
The optimal solution, of course, would be a bit of both.
No doubt the compromise communiqué that is thrashed out today will be presented as a triumph of shared purpose and international co-operation. Let's hope enough people believe it, because the failure of the G20's predecessor 76 years ago led down a path no one would wish to repeat.”
On the other hand, perhaps IT WAS “perestroika” in the name of PEACE on EARTH, that Barack Obama discussed with President Dmitry Medvedev during their one-on-one meeting in London yesterday ?
THANK GOD for private enterprise newspapers V the government ”influenced” BBC.
… and understanderbly Barack Obama was justifiably angry at Ferraro's race remark, saying …
“I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics
or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who
understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd.
And I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place
in my campaign they shouldn't have a place in Senator Clinton's either.”
Add a Comment