Good Morning, Baltimore.

I listen from London as rumors concerning the National Guard intervening in Baltimore flutter about an old friend circle. Army vehicles line up I-95, shielding Marylanders from an unseen threat. Unlikely rumors, but not unwarranted ones. Twenty-eight murders in one week, “Are we headed down the same path as Detroit?” My mother asked me on FaceTime one evening, concerned. Another friend provided an answer in a different conversation, “We’re just as bad.” A grim conclusion.

Baltimore-Detroit: a connection hard to ignore as news of Detroit’s bankruptcy poured in. As I read on the widening gap between promised pensions and companies ability to pay them to their employees, dim statistics about Maryland’s similar pension schemes floated to the top of my mind.

A long history of Maryland politicians have promised heightened pensions to constituents, a cop-out:  it’s easier to push the promise to the future rather than raise wages in the present. Maryland politicians Stephanie Rowlings-Blake and Martin O’Malley tried and failed to put pension reform at the head of agenda, only to be drowned out by merciless screams of crime victims that propel Baltimore to number 9 on Buisness Insider’s list of 25 most dangerous cities, claiming its place as “Heroin capital of America”.

 Maryland is riddled with corrupted (and naive) government; highlighted by Sheila Dixon’s recent 2009 trial, the only upside of which stripped her of an $83,000 pension to be put back into the dwindling money pot. Simultaneously, Bob Erlich blithely voted to raise pensions for Maryland teachers (the education system being a conversation for an entirely different time).

But what can be done to solve the pension crisis, when Maryland’s voters are being murdered before they have a chance to speak their opinions? Firstly, we need someone to step forward to organize. Someone who can place the problems in an identifiable loop that will allow us to determine which problem set off the domino effect that is destroying our state. Secondly, someone who can reunite the discouraged police force, and enforce legislation that will demand gangs leave. Thirdly, positivity: though The Wire is bringing big money to Hollywood tycoons, it is advertising Baltimore’s bad reputation and giving gangs a bar to measure themselves against.

I only lived in Baltimore for 7 years before moving away for University. It was long enough to fall in love with it. I want people to know of our quirky traditions, to experience a crab feast in summer warmth, to know Old Bay, to watch an Orioles game at a student night. To be able to smile when people sing the opening line of Hairspray, knowing how perfectly that movie embraces our small town.

It makes me sad to hear these rumors from the place I used to love, but it gives me hope thinking that one day, eventually, surely, someone will step forward to help restore Baltimore to the place it used to be. 

BRICs: building more than houses

Although BRIC nations seem to have hit their economic stride, it is not preventing them from laying foundations in other regions; particularly India and their growing interest in Africa.

Though the $65bn of Indian investment pales in comparison to China’s $200bn, they are investing with purpose. While China focuses on shallow, short-term investment almost exclusively limited to resources, India sees itself in Africa’s ever-growing economy. Their investments in sectors such as telecommunications, agriculture, automotive, and education reveal a strategy more likely to pay off in coming years. China, however, continues to view Africa similar to how European nations did during colonization, rather than as potential market worth investing in.

Africa’s finite resources, eager population, and open areas of investment seem to mirror images of India twenty years ago.  Then, India took work too expensive to do in the West and outsourced it domestically, where the same amount of labour could be done at a significantly lower price. They have since adjusted to modernity; as such an advantage is only applicable for a short time. Now, India is increasingly looking to recruit professionals from the United States and Europe, which will allow them to make their international businesses more global, and thus more versatile.

Africa is fast realizing their place within the global economy. While China’s continued investment in African resources heightens demand, Africa can in turn raise price, which could eventually cost the Chinese more than they intended. However, India invests in growing sectors of the economy. Strengthening relations with Africa now means more openness for trade in the future, within the fields that they will have helped advance.

Though India’s surge in growth at the beginning of the 21^st century has declined, projected to be around 5%, nearly half what it was, signs indicate that we have not seen all India has to offer. 

What price tradition?

As royalists and media tycoons cooed at the birth of the royal baby, Facebook critics take it upon themselves to harsh the vibe.
"It's a 'royal' baby, it denotes that the baby is special by virtue of blood," says one Facebook user. Another continues, "I just thought that seeing as we're supposed to be enlightened people we would have moved past this by now."
A fair point, one that seemed to accumulate quite a few 'likes'. But the royalists countered back, "but tradition?!", incredulous at how anyone could be so pessimistic at such a glorious birth.
Well, money.
Republic, a campaign base against the monarchy, found that the royal family costs Britain roughly £202.4 million a year, £7.9 of that coming from public funds (i.e. taxpayers money) to "support the exercise of her duties as head of state".
But is abolishing the monarchy worth the price of the roughly 1200 people the royal family employ? A small number in the long run, but in these financially difficult times any number is significant.
Or the price that would come with changing the branding of the "royal" mail, or bank? Who would grace pound notes? And Buckingham Palace?
It is as if abolishing the royal family would be done simply because it could be.
"Being the royal family now means almost nothing. They are not the kings and queens of old. It's like their keeping the tradition for traditions sake and nothing more".
Another fair point; but consider: if royalty was so  unnecessary, why hasn't it been abolished already?