Ruby Pan in Mr Brown Show at the Parliament House

Faith, practice, action in daily life

SSA Times
16 Jul 2008
Adapted from the "Light of Compassion" chapter of The New Human Revolution by SGI President Ikeda

Fumie Shearing, who was acting as the central figure for the members in Washington, DC,USA came out of her house to greet Shin'ichi and his party. Her arm was bandaged, and she wore sunglasses and a scarf around her head.

"What happened?" Shin'ichi asked in concern. "Excuse me for looking like this," she began, and went on to explain that her gas oven had exploded from a gas leak. "Are you alright?" asked Shin'ichi anxiously. "Yes, the doctor said the burns are minor." "Well, I'm glad to hear that," Said Sin'ichi. He continued, "Buddhism teaches the principle of lessening karmic retribution. Through the benefit of faith, we can transform heavy, negative karma accumulated from our past lives and receive its effects in much lighter form in this lifetime. Your accident today may be an example of this principle. For all you know, you may have been saved from a much bigger tragedy. It is important that you dedicate yourself to your practice with this conviction and with a corresponding sense of gratitude. This will open a path towards good fortune and courage. "

"At the same time however, please make a determination not to have any more accidents and pay keen attention to preventing them. If we think we will be protected just because we chant and allow ourselves to grow careless, we are not practicising faith correctly. Rather, because we are practising faith, we must stay alert at all times, doing everything we can to avoid accidents. This is true faith. When we practise this way, the power of our daimoku will come alive as wisdom and good fortune."

Shin'ichi wanted to retute the kind of faith that placed hope for salvation in an external power - a trap that the members could easily fall into.

Struggle of Life is Struggle Against Own Weaknesses

SSA Times
16 Jul 2008
Adaptation from SGI President Ikeda's speech at the graduation ceremony for Soka Junior and Senior High Schools on March 16 1995)

The Steep Slope, a book by Russian author, Aljbert A Likhanov, tells a srtory of a young boy living in Russia at the height of WWII. There is a memorable scene when the young boy's father, a soldier came home on a 3-day leave, afyer which he would return to the batterfield. The day before departure, he takes his son skiing. They ended at a steep slope, which the young boy has never been able to conquer.

"Can you ski down that slope? Go ahead and give it a try!" urged the father to his son. But no matter how many times the boy tried, he falls miserably. The father offered no consolation, but instead speaks to his son as if he was uttering his last words, "You'll be able to do it!" You just have to conquer the sense that you can't succeed... Believe that you're strong! That's the important thing!"

Everyone has his or her own "steep slope" to conquer. The most fearful thing is one's own cowardice, as well as the weaknesses of character to always worry about failure and how others view us. The struggle of life is and will always be a struggle against one's own weaknesses.

Will you become weak and think,"I can't do this. I'm certain to fail?"

Or will you challenge the difficulties that lie ahead with the conviction, "I'm strong and I can become stronger still?"

Your destiny in life will vary greatly depending on the spirit that you maintain.

Nelson Mandela at 90: the secrets of leadership

Time Magazine, 9 Jul
By: RICHARD STENGEL

No. 1 Courage is not the absence of fear — it's inspiring others to move beyond it

"I can't pretend that I'm brave and that I can beat the whole world." But as a leader, you cannot let people know. "You must put up a front."

And that's precisely what Nelson Mandela learned to do: pretend and, through the act of appearing fearless, inspire others. It was a pantomime Mandela perfected on Robben Island, where there was much to fear. Prisoners who were with him said watching Mandela walk across the courtyard, upright and proud, was enough to keep them going for days. He knew that he was a model for others, and that gave him the strength to triumph over his own fear.

No. 2 Lead from the front — but don't leave your base behind

"Things will be better in the long run," he sometimes said. He always played for the long run.

No. 3 Lead from the back — and let others believe they are in front (snippetseamstress: this is my favourite! I feel so lucky that my superior is like that . She never fails to make us feel valued:D)

The trick of leadership is allowing yourself to be led too. "It is wise," he said, "to persuade people to do things and make them think it was their own idea."

No. 4 Know your enemy — and learn about his favorite sport

No. 5 Keep your friends close — and your rivals even closer (snippetseamstress: this is the hardest to achieve!)

Mandela believed that embracing his rivals was a way of controlling them: they were more dangerous on their own than within his circle of influence. He cherished loyalty, but he was never obsessed by it. After all, he used to say, "people act in their own interest." It was simply a fact of human nature, not a flaw or a defect. The flip side of being an optimist — and he is one — is trusting people too much. But Mandela recognized that the way to deal with those he didn't trust was to neutralize them with charm.

No. 6 Appearances matter — and remember to smile

No. 7 Nothing is black or white

Life is never either/or. Decisions are complex, and there are always competing factors. To look for simple explanations is the bias of the human brain, but it doesn't correspond to reality. Nothing is ever as straightforward as it appears.

Mandela's calculus was always, What is the end that I seek, and what is the most practical way to get there?

No. 8 Quitting is leading too

He tried to sell us the idea," recalls Ramaphosa, "but he was the only [supporter]. And he had to face the reality that it would not win the day. He accepted it with great humility. He doesn't sulk. That was also a lesson in leadership."
Knowing how to abandon a failed idea, task or relationship is often the most difficult kind of decision a leader has to make.

Mandela believed that he would be the anti-Mugabe, the man who gave birth to his country and refused to hold it hostage. His job was to set the course and not to steer the ship He knows that leaders lead as much by what they choose not to do as what they do.

What is Soka Education?

"What our world most requires now is the kind of education that fosters love for humankind, that develops character - that provides an intellectual basis for the realization of peace and empowers learners to contribute to and improve society," writes Daisaku Ikeda, respected educator, prolific author and international Buddhist leader.

Soka education strives to do that. Soka is a Japanese word that means "to create value," or to develop within oneself the capacity to find meaning, to enhance one's own existence and contribute to the well-being of others, under all circumstances.

Educators said Soka Education is about:

• Humanism
• creating a student centered community where people create a space where they can feel comfortable
• Interconnectedness
• Teaching students how to find/create/discover their own values
• accepting and taking on the psychological warfare inside educators themselves – not to give up or to despair in times of difficulties and stress
• an integrity of the heart – both in the teacher and student
• being interdependent
• Identifying the evil, isolation and ignorance which keep human spirit down.
• Creating dialogue from the heart which is so powerful it can fight evil
• leaving it as Organic
• Using respect
• Applying the power of Buddhist concepts

From: http://www.getbackonyourfeet.org/constance/rss.xml

Words of wisdom from Warren Buffett

"People will always stop you doing the right thing if it is unconventional."

"It's very important to live your life by an internal yardstick. Would you rather be considered the best lover in the world and know privately that you're the worst -

or would you prefer to know privately that you're the best lover in the world,

but be considered the worst?"

Two men, both running U.S based investment funds - Guy Spier and Mohnish Pabrai, paid US$650 000 to have lunch with Warren Buffett on 25 June.The auction on ebay for next year's lunch with the sucessful investor closed two days later on 27 June. A Chinese money manager named Zhao Danyang won the bid. The sum was a cool US$2.1 million.

From: Time Magazine

Cultures in collision: the future of globalization

Non-fiction
Excerpts and adaptation from The extreme future: The top trends that will reshape the world in the next 20 years
By: James Canton

When some people talk about globalization, they take a narrow view and act as though the concept is nothing more than the ability to produce and sell goods and services across national borders. Globalization means far more than that.

Top 10 globalization trends:

1. linkage of nations' economies into one vibrant, prosperous and interconnected global network economy is the endgame of globalization.
2. Sustainable globalization could be a central force in supporting democratic reforms, reducing terrorism, promoting social progress and narrowing uneven development in the world.
3. promises to increase global trade, standard of living and quality of life
4. it is a powerful force against terrorist recruiters (snippet seamstress: or does it help support? will it be hijacked? more later..) as it develops free minds and creates higher standard of living, poverty reduction, improved health care and education (snippet seamstress: what about those that are unable to gain access? Will they be further polarised?)
5. catalyst for universal human rights as democractic reforms and free trade empower individual self-reliance
6. rise of telecommunications help facilitate global trade, open markets and free enterprise (e.g. TNCs, on-line businesses etc)
7. maybe hijacked by despots, criminals, extremists and terrorists
8. economies of China and India will be positively transformed by globalisation and will offer constructive examples for the developing world (snippet seamstress: 'positively' - a narrow reference to economic advantages? what about environmental impact? China is predicted to be the world's largest polluter in less than a decade time if nothing is done to alleviate it)
9. US will benefit from being an advocate of globalization but must continue to support innovation, global democracy and free trade.
10. help to increase cross-cultural understanding, breaking down barriers among people of different nations as trade alliances grow across borders.

Would globalization serve to unite or seperate nations?

Would it make countries more vulnerable?

The term global business has taken on a higher meaning beyond enterprise. It is now the global business of all countries to ensure world sustainability through transborder cooperation.

Hence, globalization is a new synthesis of ideas, trade, communications and collaboration that should promote future global prosperity, freedom and opportunity. It is the transformation of economies, culture, innovation and trade into a new conversation about how our civilization might evolve for the better.

It is about sustainable globalization. Globalization that is good for business, good for individuals, good for free markets and productive for both the developing and developed nations of the world.

The Snippet Seamstress:

The word 'sustainable' gain popularity or (notoriety?) after the Brundtland Report of 1985. It is now tagged to a whole lot of areas - ranging from sustainable transport, sustainable environment, sustainable agriculature, sustainable energy etc. It is an eclectic concept that remains weakly defined and contains a large amount of debate as to its precise definition.

1. 
   In your own opinion, has the term been overused, abused and devoid of meaning? Is it just rhetoric?


2. 
   
   Or, has it been meaningful? Has it encouraged constructive applications in different fields to ensure the continuity of mankind? To what extent have they been sucessful? How far are we from actualizing the ideology?

Globalization - a double-aged sword: who benefits and who gets left behind?
Increases in trade lead directly to increases is prosperity and standards of living, which in turn lead to democractic reforms and a reduction in conflict, war and terrorism. This is the big idea and is a preferred future for globalization that would bring together the mutual interests and needs of all nations. The developed world must figure out a new way to invest in the developing world, not just give aid and go away. (Interesting point!)

There is more than a global village. Terrorists just live minutes away. The future of globalization will either be postive, hopeful and peaceful, or pockmarked by seperate fortress island states of prosperity and poverty, hijacked by extremists, terrorists, criminals and tyrants. These are each the possible future of globalization.

The preferable future of globalization will not come easy. It will have to overcome dynamic differences both here and abroad. Some still support protectionist policies that will block open trade. This will backfire. the west access information from digital, even wireless sources while much of the rest of the world rely on newspapers or stories head in the local market, sermons of clergy or government-censored media channels. It is a world of differences that one thing - technology - will change faster than any other force?

At the same time, globalization is feared by nations that feel impotent in the face of more powerful nations' resources. Nations fear globalization are concerned about the inability of their local industries to survive global competition. Often, MNCs that have invested in innovation, outsourcing or have access to large amounts of capital and labour pools are viewed by less fortunate nations as having an unfair advantage. In the world of increased globalization, there is a new generation of haves and have-nots which increases global tensions.

In the U.S, there are deep concerns among business leaders about globalization. Many industries are reeling from the changes. The Chinese seem to be at the heart of many of these concerns. The same issues that smaller local companies may have in India or Mexico are shared by US small businesses. Can companies from developed nations compete in the future against companies in China that have access to much deeper resources than I do? In all fairness, there are many nations fearful of the US and Europe, they are concerned about competition and survival.

Globalization: an opportunity or calamity?

Poverty will kill globalization
Poor countries are generally weak in law enforcement. Without being competent to meets their citizens' basic needs, they are easy prey for extreme religious groups and terrorists. They also become havens for international crime. Afganistan is an example. There was a time not too long ago when you could enter a bazaar, an open air market, and buy any type of weapon or explosive made in the world. Afghanistan was central to the global arms trade due to the poverty and lawlessness of the nation. Of course, it was also a nation that produced and still produces much of the world's opiumm for making heroin.

So, in one location, with the convenience of one-stop shopping, criminals or terrorists were able to buy tanks, explosives, rockets and guns - enough to fuel any rougue enterprise. And as a side order, they could profit by buying heroin in bulk then reselling it to drug users in Western democracies.

Numerous studies have shown that poverty drives conflict. It is not much of a leap to conclude that poverty will not just encourage war but doom globalisation unless it is dealt with. The link between poverty and crime and poverty and terrorism is well established.

The Snippet Seamstress:

It is also important for developed and 'democratic' nations to take close look at their immigration and racial policies. The onus should not only be on people from poorer and less developed nations. This view is way too arrogant and ethnocentric. Rather, some questions to ponder:

1. Have enough emphasis been given to create sound immigration and racial policies that seek justice and equality, regardless of race, language and religion? (This, taken from my national pledge now means so much more to me in the current climate. :))


2. Have concrete steps been taken to ensure that migrants are integrated well into their society?


3. Or, have migrants been treated as part of the 'others', as 'pests' to society and deprived of jobs and education?


4. How can patriotism (to their adopted country) be infused?

Terrorism is a terrible act and should never be condoned. It should never be used an convenient excuse in the fight for rights and justice. To sacrifice lives unneccessarily and cause suffering to others in a horrible deed and mistake.

But yet,

1. Is terrorism, for some, a loud, desperate yet ironically simple cry for help and attention?


2. Some terrorists are found to be citizens from 'democratic, developed' nations. What pushed them to join the ranks? Are they sympathizers or part of the marginalized?

The world needs deep reflection.

Nam-myoho-renge-kyo Tina Turner

Hu is in China?

The happiest countries of the world

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, according to the latest World Values Survey published by the United States National Science Foundation. The annual study surveyed people in 97 countries to discover who is happiest. The survey asked people two simple questions about their happiness and their level of satisfaction with life. Puerto Rico and Colombia completed the top three happiest nations.

One EMDC and two ELDCs - interesting...

Zimbabwe was found to be the least happy, with Russia and Iraq also in the bottom 10.

It is surprising for Russia, considering that in the previous post on least unpopular leaders, Russians seem rather satisfied with the performance of their government.

The study was directed by University of Michigan professor Ronald Inglehart. He says that unlike other studies, which have focused on economic factors, his research has found that financial prosperity is not the only reason for happiness.

"Our research indicates prosperity is linked with happiness. It does contribute," he says, "but it is not the most important factor. "Personal freedom is even more important, and it's freedom in all kinds of ways. Political freedom, like with democracy and freedom of choice."

A happier world
The world is becoming a happier place overall, according to the survey, which has been conducted since 1981. Dr Inglehart says that gender equality is also an indicator of happiness, as is rising social tolerance. He says that both of these things have risen dramatically in recent years.

The world's wealthiest nation, the United States, was found to be the world's 16th happiest country, behind Switzerland, Canada and Sweden. The study also found that the countries at the bottom of the list all struggle with widespread poverty or authoritarian governments. Zimbabwe, which is gripped by hyperinflation, and has recently seen a controversial presidential election marred by violence, was found to be the least happy nation amongst the countries covered by the survey.

The seamstress:

There appears to be some contrasting viewpoints between the earlier post titled "Time of the tough guys" and this one.

1. 
   
   "the world is suffering from a serious bout of global pessimism" vs "the world is becoming a happier place over all"


2. 
   
   "Putin - second most popular leader as citizens feel grateful to their national chiefs for restoring their pride and place in the world." vs Russians one of the least happy people on the planet


3. 
   
   "autocracy the new in?" vs "autocracy still out?"

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/7487143.stm

Google must divulge Youtube log

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled. The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement. Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".
The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details. While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere. Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement.

Legal action
When it initiated legal action in March 2007 the firm said it had identified about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes on the website, which had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times. Following the launch of its billion-dollar lawsuit, YouTube introduced filtering tools in an effort to prevent copyright materials from appearing on the site. The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed. But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative". The ruling will see the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users given to Viacom, totalling more than 12 terabytes of data. Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

'Erroneous ruling'
The EFF said: "The Court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube. "We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users." The body said the ruling was also potentially unlawful because the log data did contain personally identifiable data. The court also ruled that Google disclose to Viacom the details of all videos that have been removed from the site for any reason.

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm

Experts: Term ‘100-year’ flood misleads public

Experts: Term ‘100-year’ flood misleads public
Terminology led residents to drop their flood insurance

From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25463476#storyContinued

ST. LOUIS - Fifteen years ago, after the Midwest was swamped with what was pronounced a "100-year" or even a "500-year" flood, some folks figured they would never again see such a disaster in their lifetime. Some even dropped their flood insurance.
Big mistake.
Now, with the region struck by a supposedly once-in-a-lifetime flood for the second time since 1993, some scientists and disaster officials say the use of terms like "100-year flood" should be re-evaluated because they are often misunderstood and can give the public a false sense of security.

"We, the United States Geological Survey, almost need to quit using the term `100-year flood,'" said hydrologist Gary Wilson with the USGS Missouri Water Science Center in Rolla, Mo. "It could happen twice a year, if you're unlucky." Or 200 years could go by without a 100-year flood, he said. Villanova University professor Robert Traver, who specializes in storm water management, was more succinct: "Whoever invented that term should be shot."
Several government scientists say they have tried to move away from using the terms, yet they also say they routinely fall back on the labels as shorthand for measuring a flood's severity.

Costly consequences of terminology

The terms have practical consequences; they are used for such things as classifying a levee's protection level and setting insurance requirements for people who live in flood-prone areas.Many people seem to believe that a 100-year flood should happen once every 100 years, or that a 500-year flood should happen every 500 years. But that's not how it works.

A 100-year flood is defined as a flood so big that it has a 1 percent chance of happening in any given year. A 500-year flood is one with a 0.2 percent chance of happening in a given year — a 1-in-500 chance.

Scientists say it is not unusual to hear from people who want to know if they have lived through a "100-year" event and want to cancel their flood insurance, believing one recent big flood lowers the risk of another. But that's not the case.While the rules of probability say that the odds are 50-50 that a coin will come up heads, it is entirely possible to flip a quarter and come up with heads four or five times in a row.

Mike Russell, an alderman in the Missouri town of Clarksville where a huge sandbagging effort has protected the community's historic downtown, suggested terms like "100- or 500-year flood" don't make sense."I was in my 20s then," he said of the Great Flood of '93. "Here it is 2008 and I'm 40. I didn't think 500 years had already gone by."Some critics argue that it's the government's flood forecasts that are faulty.

FEMA maps may underestimate risk

Carolyn Kousky, a researcher who has studied natural disaster policy, wrote in an opinion piece in Monday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch that maps produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program may underestimate flood risks, though she noted that work to modernize those maps is under way.She said more paved areas leave less ground to absorb rainwater, so more runs into creeks and rivers. The construction of levees and the building of new river channels are also contributing to the risks, she said. And she said it's possible climate change will increase flooding in the Midwest.Government agencies say their flood estimates are sound. The government uses information about a river's elevation and flow rate, along with historical records, to determine the chances of a flood at the 100- or 500-year level.

"We're using the best data we have," said Army Corps spokesman Alan Dooley in St. Louis. He said the agency has improved the way it gathers data over time, and continues to explore ways to improve it. "There's so many variables. Anyone who doesn't want more information and better information isn't doing their job."Residents gambled on flood insurance.

Michael Moran, a 52-year-old pipe insulator in the flood-stricken Missouri community of Winfield, canceled his flood insurance after the Flood of 1993. In recent days, his house swamped again. He said he was misled by the 100-year and 500-year terminology."I gambled on it. I thought I had time," he said. "Who knew in 15 years we'd see it again?"The trouble is, terms that might improve public understanding don't exactly roll off the tongue.For a 100-year flood, "we should be talking about a 1 percent annual chance flood," said Rich Leonard, flood plain management chief for the Federal Emergency Management Agency office in Kansas City, Mo.

Paul and Evelyn Dixon, who live in a 500-year floodplain in Old Monroe, Mo., along the Mississippi River, were not fooled by the terminology. In 1993, floodwaters filled the basement of their ranch-style home and crept a few inches upstairs. This year, their home was threatened again.The 60-something couple said they have always carried flood insurance.
"I wouldn't live here without it," Paul Dixon said.

Food for thought:

1) What are some contributing factors to the higher occurance of 100 year floods?

2) What are some misconceptions about the term "100 year flood"?

3) How do these misconceptions affect residents, polititians and scientists from management agencies when dealing with flood management?

Zap your migraine away

Excerpt from Discovery Channel Magazine

Migraine headaches can be horrible. An intense throbbing pain in the foreheead or the temples. Nausea. Vomitting. Diarrhoea. Sensitivity to light and sound. Currently, there is no known cure.

A neurologist at Ohio State Medical Centre now claims that he has found a way to zap migraines before they begin. Yousef Mohammad says that a hand held transcranial magnetic stimulator (TMS) the size of a cereal bowl can prevent migraines if the is applied during the headache's warning period. “The device's pulses are painless. The patients have felt a little pressure, but that's all,” said Mohammad. When signs like sleeplessness, irritability, fatigue or a light show known as an aura show themselves, the stimulator is placed at the back of the head. When turned on, it creates a magnetic field that sends an electrical current through the brain's neurons and disrupts the abnormal brain activity believed to be the cause of migraines.

Although it is now in the open market for other illnesses such as depression, the US Food and Drug Administration has not approved it for migraines.

What a pain.

Seamstress: After a quick internet search, it was found that Mohammad presented his research and invention on Thursday, June 22, 2006, to coincide with a presentation at the American Headache Society meeting in Los Angeles. it has been two years now and the latest update was reported in CBS News last month.

Here's the article:

(CBS) A strange-looking device may be able to stop a migraine in its tracks. That could be good news for the estimated 30 million Americans who suffer from the condition. It’s called Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - or TMS. The patient puts a device on the back of the head, and pushes a button, sending a magnetic pulse into the skull, CBS News medical correspondent Dr. Jon LaPook reports. "It actually generates a very small amount of current that flows through the brain and the assumption is that current is what turns off the migraine attack," said Dr. Richard Lipton of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

About 25 percent of migraine headaches are preceded by what's called an aura, including visual changes like flashing lights, zigzag patterns and blind spots. The idea is to use the device at the first sign of an aura. "People can treat a headache when they feel it coming on," Lipton said. In results released today by Lipton, a shareholder in the company that makes a device, TMS treatment stopped migraines in 40 percent of patients - twice as effective as placebo. "There are a lot of patients who can't take the prescription drugs that are available for migraine, and this gives me a whole new avenue of therapy,” Lipton said.

There are medications currently available that have been extremely effective at stopping migraines, but they do have side effects. So if the FDA approves this device, it could be a welcome alternative.

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/27/eveningnews/main4216096.shtml

There seems to be other versions too:

The heavyweight-add-more-suffering TMS edition - i think i may suffer from neck and shoulder pains on top of migraines after use. Ouch!

The "Doctor-Octopus-without-tentacles-lookalike" TMS edition. One word: freaky.....

Maybe OSIM or OTO could develop their own versions and we can finally chuck away the panadols. :)

Time of the Tough Guys

Excerpts adapted from Newsweek

Time of the Tough Guys

By Jonathan Tepperman

A new poll taken in 20 countries released exclusively to NEWSWEEK revealed that bosses of what are often cast as the biggest, baddest authoritarian states - China and Russia - are among the planet's most trusted officials. The world's most popular leaders (well, the LEAST UNPOPULAR, anyhow): Hu Jintao, Valdimir Putin and Gordon Brown - one democrat and two dictators were ranked based on a survey where 28%, 30% and 32% of residents of 19 countries answered "a lot" when asked how much confidence they have in each leader to "do the right thing regarding world affairs". Bush received a rating of 25%, just 3% ahead of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Has the tide turned on democracy?

Is autocracy the new in?

To be fair, virtually all leader's standing slipped slightly in the past year. What explains this universal vote of no confidence? The short answer is a serious bout of global pessimism: most people polled seem very unhappy about the state of the world. Ivo Daddlder, a former staffer on the National Security Council suggests that these numbers are simply a "general reflection of how people feel about their own conditions".

Americans for example, were extremely negative giving all leaders in the survey a confidence rating of just 29% and their own leader 42%. In contrast, the Chinese gave high ratings 93% to their leader, 75% to Putin and even 41% to Bush. Steven Hull explains that their generosity by arguing that "when you are on the rise, there's an upbeat feeling that leads to a sunnier disposition. The Chinese feel that life is working for them".

It's nonetheless remarkable to see confidence ratings for major world figures cluster within such a narrow and low band. This supports the cliche that all problems are now global and there's often little that individual governments can do about them. Festering conflicts like acute food and oil shortage, global warming, wars, famines, natural disasters, create scary headlines everywhere. Rapid advancement in technology - high speed internet connections, virtual platforms and the media also spread planetary crises of confidence.

Still, the widespread pessimism doesn't explain the relatively high scores enjoyed by the autocrats. The fact that they did so well in their home countries isn't surprising. Government control of the media is tight in both Russia andChina and Putin and Hu are able to use the full machinery of the state to carefully groom their images. The economies of both states are booming, nationalism is oin the rise and citizens feel grateful to their national chiefs for restoring their pride and place in the world.

What is harder to grasp is why Hu and Putin also scored higher ratings in countries other than their own - better than any democrat with the exception of Brown. One suggestion is that this owes in part to dumb luck. Russia for e.g. sits on huge carbon reserves at a time when oil and gas prices are skyrocketing. This unprecedented generation and accumulation of wealth helps explain the autocrats' confidence rating abroad.

Another contributing factor include the Iraq War which added damage to the US style democracy promotion and the result in a global slide in the public's faith in democracy as a system. Adding to the fuel is autocratic leaders like Putin who turned himself into a poster boy ,an appealing icon for all those who object the perceived arrogance of Washington and its allies; and Hu whose country lauched generous aid programs, maintained a firm commitment to nonintervention and state sovereignity and the protrayal of its growth as nonthreatening, peaceful rise.

If all these sounds like bad news for the West, at least, one hope lies with Gordon Brown who happens to stake his reputation on finding new, cooperative solutions to a range of global ills such as transational problems, HIV/Aids, climate change, African development etc. The British PM's global standing suggests a keen worldwide appetite for a politician who will act on a range of present dangers and one who will take on the world's problems and help the planet through its multiple messes.

And who would that be? The spotlight might be on the next American president, hopefully the right person with a right message - say, a certain young black senator who preaches a gospel of hope, or his colleague from Arizona who promised to "restore the world's faith"? The world is now waiting.