Aslam Karachiwala: methinks: Ideological Quagmires

Indians and their Eternal Hunger for Pride

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:32:31 GMT

Asks Shashi Tharoor: Should Indians be proud of Bobby Jindal?

Answer: Indians should be as proud of him as black Americans might be about Clarence Thomas being on the Supreme Court.

It's good that Tharoor acknowledged that his classification of the "two kinds of Indian migrants" is overly simplistic. He also doesn't mention that the leadership of an Indian dominated hoteliers' association invited Narendra Modi to speak at their convention, a couple of years ago. Like among their non-Indian counterparts, there are Indian-American businessfolk who would not let a pesky pogrom, or the general misery of fellow humans distract them from their all-important pursuit of profit. They may not like the prospect of their children being required to pray to somebody else's god, but they like even less the slightest drop in their profits. These are the Indians who would be giddy about Jindal and his bonafide conservative stripes in the Louisiana state Capitol.

Incidentally, if there were something to be proud of, the pride would be South Asian, not just Indian. The petty distinctions that tear up the motherland are pointless here. I wouldn't, however, blame non-Indian South Asians if they'd rather we kept this particular instance of "pride" to ourselves.

[Shashi Tharoor | Bobby Jindal | India | South Asia | Louisiana]

In solidarity with Indians in their blog blackout.

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:43:07 GMT

Via Slashdot & BloggersCollective.

The Indian government has apparently asked Indian ISPs to block certain blogs, and the ISPs seem to have blocked entire blog-hosting sites in response.

I would like to think that the ISPs did this in order to publicize this attempt at censorship by the government. Had they just blocked individual blogs, it wouldn't have created the buzz that it has, so quickly. If this wasn't their intention, then I hope that their snafu has the unintended, but desirable, effect of shaming the Indian government for its encroachment on Indians' freedom of speech.

This is not how the government of the world's largest democracy ought to behave.

[India | censorship | democracy]

Talking Power to Truth

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 18:11:59 GMT

I'm now convinced that there's nothing that the Bush administration can't fix with more Executive power. Just listen to how the President can shrink the national budget deficit with the power of a line-item veto:

A line-item veto would allow the president to remove wasteful spending from a bill while preserving the rest of the legislation.

...

A line-item veto would reduce the incentive for Congress to spend wastefully because when lawmakers know their pet projects will be held up to public scrutiny, they will be less likely to suggest them in the first place.

Why don't the stupid Representatives and Senators, representing the even stupider Americans, just do as he says? How many more billions does he have to sink in unending wars with juicy war contracts to Halliburton subsidiaries before we get this simple truth? He even resorted to a grand giveaway to pharmaceutical companies under the guise of Medicare Drug Benefits. This is not what the few real, smart Americans paid all their hard-earned estate taxes for, which, by the way, we greedily want them to continue doing, despite all that these fine folks have already sacrificed for us.

This President has less than two years to turn things around, and the lack of power is really getting in his way. It's not as if he hasn't tried to work around it, but we keep meddling with our nitpicking about esoteric minutiae like "checks and balances" and "constitutional rights." The nation can't afford this level of stupidity.

[power | truth | George W. Bush | USA | line-item veto]

American National Anthem Goes Open Source!

Mon, 22 May 2006 14:09:07 GMT

"New Recoding (sic) of the National Anthem" was the subject of an email that a friend forwarded to me. If "recoding" was a typo, it was a serendipitous one. It's exactly what the US national anthem — and what it symbolizes — needs. The American "manifest destiny" needs to be recoded so that this great country can claim its rightful place as a part of the world, as opposed to its beleaguered, self-defeating stature of being apart from the rest of the world. It can happen, American innovation is alive and well!

Here's the aforementioned email:

Subject: New Recoding of the National Anthem
From: "John Raymond Pollard" <johnpollard@johnpollard.com>;
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 21:24:07 -0700

Hello.

I am pleased to announce the availability of a free download the multi-lingual recording of the Star-Spangled Banner, which I produced. It is performed by Voices United for America, an ensemble of musicians who sing in ten languages and deliver the final two lines in unison in English.

The recording was produced in response to Senate Resolution 458, which was picked up by the house as House Resolution 793. The title as stated in the Library of Congress is "A resolution affirming that statements of national unity, including the National Anthem, should be recited or sung in English." This resolution was passed by the senate by unanimous consent and without amendment. It currently sits before the House Judiciary Committee. .

The recording is available for free download at www.YourNationalAnthem.com. At the site, please sign the petition urging your elected representatives to reject the proposed legislation. If you want to share the music and message with others you are welcome to add the album cover graphic to your site with a link that will link to the download site.

The song will be included as part volume 118 of Next Big Hit New Music Mix podcast. (Get a free subscription to this weekly program that features 12 songs from independent artists at www.NextBigHit.com). Also, The song is slated for broadcast on www.indieairplay.com as part of the New York Live talent showcase at the Village Underground, 130 West 3rd Street (just off 6th Avenue) Tuesday night. It will be played between live music sets, probably around 9PM.

Singing the Star-Spangled Banner in ten languages, including English, Voices United for America is an ensemble of ten New York area musicians: Chris Andersson, Danny Katz, Dave Hall, John Raymond Pollard, Lydia Greenberg, Michael Gilboe, Stella Wixson, Steve Sandberg, Susana Dé, and Vlada Tomova.

I trust that you will enjoy the recording.

E Pluribus Unum.

John Raymond Pollard
www.JohnPollard.com

Oh, and if you digg, then go there and digg this.

[national anthem | US national anthem | USA]

Of Cartoons and Conflagrations

Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:07:38 GMT

So, we see our eschatological fantasy come to life in our time. The great Clash of Civilizations is upon us. This is a time of Profound Upheaval, but even Righteous Warriors need a little humor sometimes; for they must keep their spirits up in the midst of the corporeal carnage that is meant to pave the way to our respective Providential Victories. Turning our civilizations into cartoons is an effective way to achieve that.

Reza Aslan explains how this paradigm was employed recently:

...the sad irony is that the Muslims who have resorted to violence in response to this offense are merely reaffirming the stereotypes advanced by the cartoons. Likewise, the Europeans who point to the Muslim reaction as proof that, in the words of the popular Dutch blogger Mike Tidmus, "Islam probably has no place in Europe," have reaffirmed the stereotype of Europeans as aggressively anti-Islamic.

Civilization W(est) mocked its adversary, Civilization I(slam), using as a stealth weapon one of its strongest, but judiciously used, precepts, Freedom of Expression (FOE). Using caricatures of CI's prophet (Mohammed) as the vehicle of ridicule was a brilliant idea. CI, however, saw through this tactic; it realised that CW knew that CI shared all of CW's prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc.), so could not retaliate in kind. In its retaliation, CI sought to knock down CW's boosted spirits by simulating Hell in the shrines of another of CW's purported precepts, Diplomacy. Having apparently gained the upper hand, CI then proceeded to turn CW's FOE weapon back on CW, and shot back with cartoons mocking the attempted extermination*, 65 years ago, of what is now CW's local proxy. This was an easy target for CI, since this CW proxy's existence and behavior in CI's midst had been a bone of contention between CI and CW for over half a century.

An unintended side-effect of this skirmish was that each side turned itself into a caricature of itself. This must be what they mean when they say that God works in mysterious ways. I wonder if He's laughing with us or at us. Possibly neither...as I think about it...He's most likely going, "Hmmm. A civilization is just like the people it's made of. It can endure injustice and humiliation up to a point. Eventually, if pushed relentlessly, the eruption of its cumulative outrage can be triggered by the slightest jab at a raw nerve."

* Corrected inaccuracy: Changed "attempted genocide" to "attempted extermination."

USA! USA! USA!

Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:03:35 GMT

Jamaal, of Opinionated Voice, said the following in response to my last post:

I think USA was never invincible. It has been unstable for a long time. There is no American dream, and no real democracy. I'm both anti and pro USA. It's difficult to only be one or the other.

Besides pride in or admiration of its principles, being pro-USA requires acknowledging and facing its shortcomings and its inconsistencies. Like the concomitance of pro & anti, America both has a democracy and it doesn't; its citizens vote but only for their favorite ad campaign. The American dream also still endures, because it's being adapted as a fantasy in order to maintain its allure in today's dynamic reality. Of course America was never invincible, it was a role it perfected in front of a mirror and performed it with the conviction of a method actor, so much so that it couldn't tell itself apart anymore from the character. As for being unstable, that could never happen here, those who'd make trouble would be locked up in our flourishing, profitable prisons.

[USA]

Anti-American, Pro-American

Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:17:29 GMT

The New York Times -- which, we're told, is the flagship of The Liberalmedia – was no doubt trying to mend its ways when it dutifully included the following statutory qualification in its reporting of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize acceptance speech (emphasis mine):

The playwright, known in recent years as much for his fiery anti-Americanism as for his spare prose style and haunting, elliptical plays...

He was "anti-American" because he eloquently criticized American foreign policy, or as the NYT puts it (again, emphasis mine):

Mr. Pinter attacked American foreign policy since World War II, saying that while the crimes of the Soviet Union had been well documented, those of the United States had not.

Having established the correct perspective for the reader, it was then safe enough to reveal Pinter's message:

Mr. Pinter said it was the duty of the writer to hold an image up to scrutiny, and the duty of citizens "to define the real truth of our lives and our societies."

The only thing written by Harold Pinter that I've read is his Nobel lecture. Years ago I saw one of his plays in New York, and didn't quite get it. That might make me a philistine, but at least I ain't one of The Liberalelite. So, if what he says resonates with me, chances are that it does with other non-Liberalelite folks as well:

We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East'.

The customary "pro-American" response to this is that this pales in comparison to Saddam Hussein's brutal reign over Iraq, which America ended. Besides, this is the “war on terror” that we must fight where our enemy lives, in order to remain secure in our homes. And, of course, we are America, and we only want to spread freedom and democracy in the world. This response begins with the implicit assumption that, no matter what our government does internationally, it is unlikely that its goals are anything but honorable; and, should there be a tragic outcome for others affected by our actions, it couldn't be helped, and is an acceptable price to pay for our ultimate goals. In case of war, there's always the need to "support our troops," so anything but support for their Commander-in-Chief would undermine their heroic sacrifices. This is the pitch of the salesman that is Pinter's America:

As a salesman [the U.S.] is out on its own and its most saleable commodity is self love.

Americans have bought the pitch and become loyal consumers of this commodity. We let it blind us as recently as November of last year, when we needed to see clearly, and now we're complaining that we were duped. That wasn't very pro-American of us. You could even say that we were anti-American. We accepted the claims of our government, without bothering to inform ourselves. This, unfortunately, is hardly the first time when we have been party to the mockery of our own democracy, by remaining uninterested in what our government does abroad in our name.

Our current President's lack of knowledge and curiosity provides ample fodder for our comics, but the joke's on us. He represents us, particularly since we re-elected him. Perhaps his plummeting poll numbers also reflect the American people's realization that they dropped the ball as citizens of a democracy. If so, then we might have taken a truly pro-American step, and Harold Pinter would likely applaud us (yes, emphasis mine):

I believe that despite the enormous odds which exist, unflinching, unswerving, fierce intellectual determination, as citizens, to define the real truth of our lives and our societies is a crucial obligation which devolves upon us all. It is in fact mandatory.

September 11 punctured America's bubble of invincibility. If our leaders fail to realize that it was indeed a bubble, not a shield, then I hope that we can enlighten them. This is probably not what Congressman John Murtha meant when he said that “the American public are way ahead of us.” He has pragmatic concerns for our military, and rightly so. However, if Americans cannot see beyond extricating themselves from this misadventure and bringing our troops home, then we'll have failed to appreciate our folly. America has the power, might and know-how to impose our will outside our borders in a way that no other nation can, but this, by itself, makes us neither invulnerable, nor effective as a world leader, particularly if we like to think of ourselves as seeking to spread our enlightened principles. If we are not prepared to engage with the rest of the world, then those whom we give the power to act on our behalf will have to do so assuming our consent, because we are not exceptional enough not to need our co-inhabitants on the planet.

[Harold Pinter | US Foreign Policy | democracy | USA]

[Nothing to see here.]

Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:48:03 GMT

No Need to Click Here - I'm just claiming my feed at Feedster feedster:d4d7c787596fcac8916bd04e1a13063a

Boston Bugaboo

Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:22:16 GMT

A lot of bogeymen appear in the run up to elections. This could be because our election season is at its peak around Halloween. The problem with bogeymen, however, is that they can be recognized as imaginary, which renders them bereft of their horror. It's therefore not surprising that the once horrifying Rent Control (RC) has now sprouted another head, which goes by the name of Higher Property Taxes (HPT). People around Boston came home to scary messages on their telephone answering devices about the doom and destruction that would be wrought by this old, tired demon, now with a newly grafted identity.

These horror purveyors are no fools, though. For Bostonians, HPT is not an unfounded fear, it's a reality. This makes it useful as a scare inducer, in case...oh, I don't know...say, you want people to vote for your favorite candidates, and diss the others. What they don't tell you is why property taxes here are as high as they are, because then we might get educated about the real causes, and the element of fear may not work for them anymore.

At issue is the Community Stabilization Act that was rejected by the Boston city council last year. It didn't propose to unleash any RC ghouls on an unsuspecting public. What it did propose, however, was to put in place measures to protect those most vulnerable to being displaced by Boston's irrationally exuberant housing market. These measures accounted for the Economics 101 arguments against rent control, and most homeowners (local owners of six or less units) were exempt.

Of course, that's not good enough if it might bring down the return on your giddy real estate investments a notch or two; and it would go against the edicts of the Church of Ayn Rand to have "society" meddle with the free enterprise of the strong and dashing uber-individual, just so the sub-individuals among us can claim a modicum of humanity.

[My del.icio.us: community stabilization • affordable housing | Boston | Economics | Ayn Rand]

This was posted on Thursday, November 3 -- the permalink is http://iq.mythicflow.com/2005/11/03.html#a107. If the date above is October 3, then it's due to a bug in the software.

Why did the FBI go nuts in Hormigueros, Puerto Rico?

Tue, 04 Oct 2005 02:46:50 GMT

Driving home, last Saturday night, after kibbutzing with friends, I was listening to Con Salsa on WBUR, like I usually do, to extend the revelry of the evening. As if to remind me that the joy of revelry gets its heart from the tragedies woven into its rhythms, the host talked about the killing of Puerto Rican nationalist Filiberto Ojeda Ríos by the FBI. I knew nothing about him, and know very little about Puerto Rican nationalism, which, I'd guess, is true of most Americans.

Among the many news stories about this incident, CNN's had the headline, "Domestic terror suspect dies in FBI standoff," with the following explanation, referring to Ojeda Ríos' alleged involvement in a Wells Fargo depot robbery of $7.2 million dollars in West Hartford, Connecticut:

The robbery is considered an act of domestic terrorism because it allegedly was carried out by 19 members of the Puerto Rican nationalist Macheteros, or Cane Cutters. The federal government believes most of the money was used in Puerto Rico to finance the independence movement.

I must be one of those "Stupid Americans" that I keep hearing about. I can't tell what makes this robbery an act of "terrorism." That it was carried out by 19 people, as opposed to 15 or 22? That they were called "Macheteros," which wouldn't be allowed in the passenger cabin of any airplane? That the money was believed to be used "to finance the independence movement"? I think I know, though, why the following, mentioned at the end of the story, isn't considered an act of terror:

The group also claimed responsibility for the 1981 bombing of 11 military planes at a U.S. National Guard base in Puerto Rico. Two marines were killed.

Firstly, because I don't think planes can feel terror, and I'm certain that the U.S. military cannot be terrorized either. Secondly, because, even though the death of the two marines is tragic, if that would make this bombing an act of terror, then the collateral damage in Iraq would make the ongoing U.S. military operations there an act of terror as well, which, of course they are not. If they were, then the U.S. would certainly keep track of how many Iraqis constitute the "collateral damage" in this nation that it's building.

The Washington Post reported:

According to the FBI, agents had been watching for several days the farmhouse where Ojeda Rios was hiding, and decided to move in after they were spotted by someone inside. As agents approached the front door about 4:30 p.m., the FBI said, Ojeda Rios opened it and began shooting, hitting one agent in the stomach.

A gun battle followed. In all, local authorities have said, the FBI left 110 spent shell casings, and Ojeda Rios 18. When the shooting stopped, the agents waited, fearful that the house was rigged with explosives. A backup team did not arrive until 4 a.m. Saturday, almost 12 hours after the shootout began, and no one entered the house for eight more hours.

They found Ojeda Rios dressed in combat boots and a bulletproof vest, with 12 bullets in his gun and 15 more in reserve. An autopsy found that he bled to death from a single bullet wound.

An investigation has been promised by Puerto Rican Justice Secretary Roberto Sanchez Ramos, who said he was convinced that Ojeda Rios could have been saved if the agents had not waited to enter the home.

"How is it," Sanchez Ramos asked, "that three days after the stakeout, they lack the personnel and equipment to finish the raid?"

A member of the Real (as opposed to So Called) Liberal Media interviewed Puerto Rican political analyst and radio host Juan-Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua:

What happened was that the special team of the Federal Bureau of Investigations entered Filiberto Ojeda's home in a rural barrio in the town of Hormigueros by crashing the gate and shooting one hundred times against the house. Filiberto then put on his fatigues and his boots and responded the fire with ten shots. And the number of -- the number of spent cartridges shows that he was shooting ten times, and the F.B.I. was shooting a hundred times.

After that, again, none of the hundred shots caught him, but a sharpshooter that was located on a high ground, maybe in a helicopter, shot him with a single bullet through again his neck or his -- place near the face. And he fell, and then for 12 solid hours, the F.B.I. refused to enter or let anyone enter the house waiting for Filiberto Ojeda Rios to bleed to death, which is exactly what the coroner certified this morning that Filiberto Ojeda Rios died of a single wound brought because of bleeding caused by that wound that lasted for hours without any medical or any other help. So, once again, it is clear this was a political assassination.

We know, don't we, that the U.S. has no imperial or colonial claim to stake here? So, why did the FBI decide to create such a gruesome spectacle on the day when Puerto Ricans were commemorating their historic anti-colonial uprising?

On Sept. 23, as hundreds of workers and their families were participating in the annual pro-independence commemoration known as “El Grito de Lares,” agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation descended on the town of Hormigueros in western Puerto Rico and fired the shots that killed Puerto Rican liberation hero Filiberto Ojeda Ríos.

El Grito de Lares—The Cry of Lares—marks the historic 1868 uprising carried out by peasants and workers against Spanish colonial rule. This rebellion is considered the birth of the Puerto Rican nation.

Minimum Mehta

Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:19:39 GMT

Via Sepia Mutiny, I came across Suketu Mehta's NYT piece on outsourcing. I'm reading, and very impressed with, his Maximum City, so was utterly disappointed with this muddled rant:

Of course I feel a loyalty to America: it gave my parents a new life and my sons were born here. I have a vested interest in seeing America prosper. But I am here because the country of my ancestors didn't understand the changing world; it couldn't change its technology and its philosophy and its notions of social mobility fast enough to fight off the European colonists, who won not so much with the might of advanced weaponry as with the clear logical philosophy of the Enlightenment. Their systems of thinking conquered our own.

Huh? I wonder if he mistakenly submitted for publishing notes of some random thoughts that he might've been working on. How else can you explain these unsupported, unexplained claims, seemingly trying to be provocative, and the following baseless Pollyannish conclusion?

But we have a resource of incalculable worth right here to help us compete: the immigrants who've been given a new life in America. There are many more Indians in the United States than there are Americans in India. Indian-Americans will help America understand India, trade with it to our mutual benefit. Just as Arab-Americans can help us fight Al Qaeda, Indian-Americans can help us deal with the emerging economic superpower that is India. This is the return of the gift of citizenship.

He does with economics and policy what he does with history: make glib assertions without bothering to explain their bases.

[Suketu Mehta | outsourcing | India | colonialism | offshoring]

Could it finally be OK to join the civilized world?

Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:28:02 GMT

My President says:

The attack in London was an attack on the civilized world, and the civilized world is united in its resolve: We will not yield, we will defend our freedom.

His loyal British Subject said of the terrorists:

...they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and other civilized nations throughout the world.

I don't know what they know, but I suspect that Red Ken's statement hints at what this civilized world might be like:

...the city of London is the greatest in the world, because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack. They will stand together in solidarity alongside those who have been injured and those who have been bereaved and that is why I'm proud to be the mayor of that city.

So, it looks like Messrs. President & Subject want us to start getting civilized as well, despite our need to out-uncivilize the presumably uncivilized "men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity" and anyone who looks like them. But it's all going to be different from now on. No more indefinite detentions of dubiously identified "material witnesses." I guess treating people this way because they are Muslim men makes it difficult to achieve the harmony in their respective communities that being civilized calls for.

Why, my wise Pundit tells me that even terrorists, murderers and bad people are about to be freed! I'd be completely lost in this newly emerging civilization if it weren't for a certain inspiring, Nobel Peace Prize worthy Poor Man, who enlightened me about what my place in this new world might be.

Torturing God's Children

Fri, 08 Jul 2005 20:06:09 GMT

It takes an artist's sensibilities to make religion relevant. (Via The Revealer.)

[My del.icio.us: torture | Jesus | Crucifixion]

Kevin Sites on NPR

Tue, 10 May 2005 22:40:39 GMT

Kevin Sites, who shot the video last November of the Marine corporal shooting a wounded Iraqi, was interviewed this afternoon on NPR. The video in question is also available on the NPR page. (Via Xeni at Boing Boing.)

One would hope that Americans will see their responsibility in what the Marines and their targets faced that day. Like it or not, this is our war, we let our President wage it. Whether we support it or not, there is no escaping our responsibility in what it does to our soldiers and the people whose land they invaded, and now occupy, on our behalf.

[media | Kevin Sites | Iraq]

Another chance for America to wake up.

Sat, 07 May 2005 07:37:12 GMT

Aldon Hynes' post on greaterDemocracy.org has the scoop on the recently leaked secret British intelligence memo, dated July 23, 2002, revealing Tony Blair's knowledge of the "inevitability" of US military action against Iraq because...

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

Some 88 US Representatives have so far signed a letter asking President Bush whether his Administration disputes the accuracy of the memo, and four other questions about the timing of the decision and arrangements to invade Iraq, and the "fixing" of the intelligence supporting the purported reasons for the invasion.

Now, if I agree that it's good to have a brutal dictator out of power, then would a Bush supporter concede that the above smacks of deception of the American - and (some would say less important) non-American - people? If so, then...like...shouldn't we have an honest investigation of this? No, I'm just saying...you know...that being a patriotic conservative really shouldn't mean letting your favorite Administration send our soldiers to kill/maim and be killed/maimed for cooked-up reasons.

Anyways, should you want to do more than kvetch or rant then call your Representative to tell him/her that you want them to sign the letter (PDF), if they haven't, or...that you don't want them to even touch that letter because your Administration is above the law and can lie to you if it deems it necessary.

[Iraq | George W. Bush]

India's fancy satellite "for the poor"

Thu, 05 May 2005 05:48:17 GMT

From the Financial Times (via Slashdot):

India will tomorrow inaugurate a new launch pad at its Satish Dhawan space port near Chennai, on the south-east coast, by putting the world's first stereographic mapping satellite into orbit.

...

The most innovative feature of the 1.6-tonne Cartosat-1 is its pair of cameras, which will give stereo images of the earth's surface that can distinguish features down to 2.5 metres across. They will directly generate three-dimensional maps that have until now been achievable only indirectly, by combining data from a large number of satellite passes over the same place.

"Such a stereographic imaging system does not exist in the civil sector anywhere else," says Mr Nair, chairman of the Bangalore-based Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro). "It will give information about heights that will be very useful in applications such as planning power lines."

And here's the kicker (emphasis mine):

Although India attracted worldwide headlines last year with its decision to send a probe to the moon in 2007-08, its achievements so far have been in earth's orbit, with missions designed primarily to "bring the benefits of high technology to the people and particularly the poor people of India".

...

The data are used in agriculture, water planning, urban development, mineral prospecting, drought and disaster relief, and various environmental applications. In areas where Isro advises villagers where to dig new wells, for example, satellite-based hydrological mapping has raised the average success rate in finding clean water from 30 to 90 per cent, Mr Nair says.

[India | ISRO]

Keep that amendment off the flag of the USA.

Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:51:06 GMT

The US Congress is once again talking about the constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the US flag. The House joint resolution (H.J. Res. 10, 108 sponsors) was introduced on March 2, and the Senate (S.J. Res. 12, 51 sponsors) on April 14.

What Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy said when this was introduced the last time, in 2004, still holds true:

...this comes at a time when there already are many, many pressing demands on this Committee’s time. There is a serious lack of ongoing and meaningful congressional oversight in connection with the war on terrorism. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not fulfilled its responsibility to ensure the rights of the American people, and the government’s accountability to the American people, by providing vigorous oversight of the most insular and unilateral Administration in memory.

In 2000, General Colin Powell said:

I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will still be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.

When this came up in 1997, Roger Pilon of the CATO Institute concluded his Congressional testimony thus:

It is said also that the flag is special because men have fought and died for it. Let me suggest in response that men have fought and died not for the flag but for the principles it represents. People give their lives for principles, not for symbols. When we dishonor those principles, to protect their symbol, we dishonor the men who died to preserve them. That is not a business this Congress should be about. We owe it to those men, men who have made the ultimate sacrifice, to resist the pressures of the moment so that we may preserve the principles of the ages.

I came across the following on a blog called We Are Not Sheep, which happened to be precisely what I was thinking when I first heard that this proposed amendment had reared its head again (emphasis is the blogger's):

...any action taken to diminish the First Amendment, and the right to dissent contained (therein) is, in and of itself, flag desecration.

I am also reminded of what an old friend said about this long, long ago, in the pre-Internet dark ages: "I think it's desecration of the flag to have the KKK carry it in their marches." Well, what more could I say? You don't even need to deface the flag in order to desecrate it. All it takes is not honoring what it stands for. The flag can be that fragile if we undermine what it represents - the Constitution and the Rights that it guarantees.

[My del.icio.us: flag desecration | civil liberties | US Constitution]

This is not about book burnings, only a precursor to it.

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:14:18 GMT

Republican Alabama legislator Gerald Allen wants to ban books by gay authors and about gay people to "protect the souls and minds of our children." Got this via AMERICAblog, which links to the story on CBS News.

Is it really true that today, in the USA, this is of concern only to godless liberals with no family values, as we're called? Surely there are conservatives, even those who vote Republican, who are incensed by this. Yes, opposing censorship is a fundamentally liberal stance, but does that make it anathema for a thoughtful conservative?

So, you ban gay authors. Well, then why not also ban any book that argues for a woman's right to choose? And then there are all those books that sing the praises of prophets...er, saviors that are not Jesus, why expose your children to those?

If I were a non-nut Republican, I'd be very scared that my party is hurtling towards becoming marginalized in American politics. Of course, a Republican would call it wishful thinking on my part, but that's not the point. Regardless of their individual party affiliations, Americans deserve at least two viable alternatives for political parties. Today we have none.

Infomania...

Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:10:35 GMT

is "worse than marijuana"! Now we know that all those FOIA nuts are only liberal information junkies like the hippies in the '60s, only with a new drug of choice. It's about time we made information illegal, you know, for the sake of our children. Good to know that the government (of the only country that matters, the USA) is leading this effort by example...

I was wondering...since it ain't so bad, can we now legalize marijuana?

America, the Clueless

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:49:11 GMT

My favorite of the "Bush in 30 Seconds" finalists was Wake Up America. No matter how vile the Bush administration may be, half of the voters among us (give or take...) put him where he is today and then all but a handful of us went on to rally around him as he fanned our fears after 9/11 only to hook us on his ideology of self-ascribed providence and its attendant rights to omnipotence. It is no coincidence that this coincides nicely with a cherished, if mythic, aspect of our national pride - we are invincible because we deserve to be so. Reality check: we're neither.

What was it that caused 70% of us to think that there ever was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection when there was neither any evidence of it nor was it prompted by specific information from Washington? Sure, Bush took advantage of this but we didn't need much convincing, much like the other reason for attacking Iraq. We justified our hostilities in Iraq by pointing to the three thousand of us whom "they" had killed. We either were ignorant or we didn't care that "they" were not the same people as the ones we were bombing but who can blame us? "They" all look the same, speak the same language and hate America in that part of the world. So, it could only be our benevolence and solemn resolve that made us defy and ridicule our allies and most of the world for not seeing the omniscient wisdom of our mission to deliver democracy to "them" through our bombs and guns.

It is telling that we are now going to see Fahrenheit 9/11 in throngs and getting duly agitated. Could Dubya be our next demon? We're apparently beginning to sour on our lofty mission and perhaps that Presidential smirk isn't as comforting anymore. Hypothetical exercise: What if we had deemed it our patriotic duty not to trust our leaders implicitly, particularly in a time of crisis? It's hard to swallow but this is something we can learn from others - the Spaniards voted their government out right after the train bombs in Madrid because they didn't want a government that lied to them. Of course, we're just vain enough to think that they did it to chicken out of our "alliance of the willing."

The most compelling parts of F9/11 are those in which Moore lets his subjects speak for themselves and I hope that that's what is drawing people in. Moore is otherwise a lazy documentarian here, heavy on polemics and light on argument. An infinitely better documentary is Control Room, which is about Al-Jazeera, the Iraq war and the American occupation that followed. Don't see it if all you want is to know the good guys from the bad guys so you know whom to identify with. I doubt that anyone will come away not being struck by Lt. Josh Rushing, the Marine PR guy. His painful realization is palpable as he discovers the complexity of the situation in which he must defend and promote his side. Well, he has been "reassigned" and forbidden to give interviews but he's precisely the kind of person who should be representing us in an environment where we have a deficit of goodwill. If I were King, I'd hold him up as an example of what we as a nation should be proud of.

At the beginning of Control Room, just before the American attack, Hassan Ibrahim, an Al-Jazeera journalist, is despondent in his amazement that the U.S. has managed to unite Arabs behind a despot. Later, exasperated as the war unfolds, as if holding on to a final hope, he says, "I have confidence in the American Constitution...only the United States can stop the United States...I have confidence in the American people."

Amen, brother.

--aslam

What I'm asking for.

Sat, 14 Feb 2004 07:13:13 GMT

In my last post, I aired my misgivings about the American show of Democracy currently traveling through its states. Felt that I should now give some more thought to the "good karma" that I talked about.

This takes me back to Howard Dean because, as Jon Lebkowsky at Greater Democracy points out:

We need a government that listens broadly to many people with many interests, and is responsive in a balanced way. Howard Dean has been running a campaign that seemed to work that way. Dean and Joe Trippi encouraged people to participate and gave them permission to do their own thing, to speak with their own voice. The campaign tried to be responsive (though constrained by lack of bandwidth, especially as demands grew). Dean and Trippi seemed to get the relevance of the technologies they were using, the possibility for greater citizen participation via computer-mediated communication: email, weblogs, chats, RSS feeds, forums, etc. The Dean campaign had many ways to have conversation and many conversations were happening.

The blogosphere is abuzz with punditry about what went wrong and who's to blame for the Dean debacle. Earnest and passionate discussions abound about the promise of the "New Politics." I am both an aspiring pundit and an aspiring visionary and I am an expert skeptic. When I first heard about the wonders of the New Politics, my eyes rolled instinctively because it reminded me of similar sounding pseudo-wonders from not so long ago: the New Democrats and the New Economy. Apparently, I'm not the only one who seems to have made such a connection, at least in the case of Dean, who arguably got the most leverage out of aspects of the New Politics. Comparing his fall to the dot-com (aka New Economy) bust is now a cliché.

I'd consider myself a blogger and possibly better informed and more tech-savvy than the average American. My guess is that I have fewer time constraints than the average American. Despite this, the Internet is only a supplemental source of news for me and I have not been able to glean useful info often enough from the multitudes of blogs to look to them as a news source. I get most of my news from NPR when I'm doing other stuff like waking up, washing dishes, driving, etc.

I'm fortunate enough to have access to NPR & PBS, two of the better media outlets in the country. Earlier this evening, I watched one of my preferred sources of news and commentary on TV: NOW with Bill Moyers. There was a sobering report on the reach and influence of the fiercely ideological talk shows, virtually all of which are of the conservative ilk. These are essentially entertainment shows that exercise no diligence in factual reporting but are seen as serious journalism by their audiences. Consider this in an environment where media ownership is getting consolidated, diminishing the diversity of options for news and information.

So what's my point? The Internet-based New Politics will be yet another flash in the pan if it ignores the reality of people's lives and how social and political forces affect them. Just as all of Joe Trippi's tech-smarts and all the net-savvy volunteers couldn't win the real races for Dean, the New Politics is unlikely to have any real effect if its modus operandi is restricted to the Internet and its denizens.

There's no shortage of expert opinions on this stuff so I don't need to pretend to offer one. The good karma does not come from any technology or concept but can benefit from them if their promise doesn't get in the way of their utility to it.

--aslam

Be careful what you ask for.

Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:31:52 GMT

"Anyone but Bush in 2004!" That may sound like a rallying cry but it's more one of desperation. Its logic seems kinda like one of the Bush administration's rationalizations for attacking Iraq: Saddam was a bad guy and everyone is better off without him in power no matter what the means and consequences of his overthrow. In other words, "Anyone but Saddam!"

Like Saddam, though perhaps not on the same demonic level, Bush's actions make him indefensible to his opponents. As Shimon Rura says, "Let's face it: if this election is about one man, it is about George Bush." We want him out and we'll back anyone who convinces us that he can oust Bush. This, by the way, is the one we shall anoint "The Electable One."

The first opponent of Bush in the race was of course Howard Dean and he sounded great and he gave many of us hope. William Greider explained in The Nation what it was that inspired the good karma that surrounded him. David Corn, who "dis-endorsed" Dean after he switched campaign managers, described this good karma thus:

There has always been a disconnect in the Dean campaign between the man and the movement. If two years ago someone cooked up the idea to create a progressive, reform-minded grassroots crusade that would focus on harnessing "people power" to confront Washington's money-and-power culture and a leader for such an effort was needed, Dean's name would not have jumped to mind. Senator Paul Wellstone maybe, not Dean. Yet thousands of Americans were yearning for such an endeavor, and Dean found a way to tap into their desires. It was not the most natural or conventional of couplings, but it happened. And he was propelled to the front of the presidential pack.

The first sentence (emphasis mine) is the detail that got lost once Dean was "propelled to the front of the pack" and The Limelight spotted him. The race among the Bush opponents became about Dean, the phenomenon. There was a veritable anti-Dean campaign and The Limelight loved him for that. However, those of us hoping for some due diligence on this promising candidate found very little that was illuminating. The Limelight loved Dean only for his persona and it beamed at the impolitic tendencies that he freely exhibited. Seeing little else, we decided that he was not The Electable One. The Limelight immediately lost interest in him and effectively all but rendered him irrelevant.

Now The Limelight has found John Kerry and the struggle continues among his remaining contenders to steal it from him. It would seem that we have found The Electable One and it also seems somewhat likely that our wish for "Anyone but Bush" will be fulfilled. I want Bush out as much as the next gal who wants Bush out but I'm uneasy about the prospect because I'm afraid that that will be just another example of The Limelight's fickleness. When it ditched Dean, it was unfortunate, not so much for Dean but for the good karma that he inspired and which The Limelight didn't seem to have much use for. In November, when The Limelight once again chooses the winner, I have no reason to believe that I won’t remain blinded by its glare and still groping for the good karma, the existence of which will continue to be denied.

--aslam

My Candidate, Your Candidate

Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:41:59 GMT

Much of the campaigning for the Democratic nomination seems to be a race between Dean and the various not-Deans and the stronger contenders among the not-Deans have resorted to anti-Dean campaigning. This was inevitable given Dean's unmatched success so far in securing support among the potential primary voters. For all the negativity that this has generated, it is healthy for our democracy that the front-runner be thoroughly scrutinized before he is chosen to lead the party and potentially the country. However, there is a serious downside to this situation. While everyone is digging into Dean's record and challenging his qualifications, the rest of the candidates have escaped similar scrutiny and that is worrisome, particularly if something makes enough of those leaning towards Dean rethink their choice. There may not be enough opportunity to look beyond the rhetoric of the alternatives.

I have not yet found a reason to reconsider my support for Dean but I'm open to a better candidate should one become apparent. I cannot let off the hook those candidates who, for instance, voted to give Bush carte blanche on Iraq, supported the PATRIOT act or are supportive of the "war on drugs." Eliminating these and the ones that have no chance of getting elected in our current cultural state regardless of the Republican opponent, Clark was my only likely alternative to Dean. I was buoyed by his emphatic mention of civil liberties when he declared his candidacy and his strong criticism of the Bush administration's decision to unilaterally invade Iraq. I contributed the same amount to both the Dean and the Clark campaigns because I wanted their campaigns to gather enough steam in order to attract the attention that would lead to their scrutiny.

I was bummed, however, to find that Clark wasn't exactly sure about his opposition to the Iraq war. His public wavering about this is cause for serious concern considering that he was presenting his stand on this issue as a primary aspect of his campaign. He also touts his foreign policy experience so I'd like to learn more about his decision that might have "started World War III" in Kosovo if it weren't overruled from above. Then there's his stint on the board of Acxiom, during which he lobbied the U.S. government and secured a contract for Acxiom's participation in the development of the CAPS II system which "color-codes" the threat level of airline passengers based upon their personal data, the gathering of which quietly undermines our privacy rights.

Last Friday, on NOW with Bill Moyers, Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity had the following to say about Clark, which made me regret contributing to his campaign:

MOYERS: You report that when General Wesley Clark retired from the military, he earned over $800,000 lobbying former pals and peers for airline and homeland security contracts and that he didn't tell us that when he appeared on CNN as a commentator on the war on terrorism. Why would a man do that, thinking he's going to run for President? Because that's bound to be harmful when it is ultimately disclosed?

LEWIS: Well, that's sort of what I thought. It's the first time I know of a major Presidential candidate running who's also currently a lobbyist. When he announced, September 17th, he was still registered in Washington as a lobbyist.

MOYERS: Yet the new Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barber, was one of the most successful lobbyists in the history of Washington.

LEWIS: Well, we're getting a new phenomenon now, the new shamelessness where people don't care any more. It used to be that a lobbyist ran, people would laugh him out of the room, and it would be unacceptable. Now you have a guy who just got elected Governor of Mississippi and we have a Presidential candidate who not only was a lobbyist, but he was a commentator objectively commentating on the war while he was trying to get homeland security and defense contracts and meeting with the Vice President among others.

And I'm not sure CNN knew this, by the way. We talked to CNN. We're trying to get information about what did they know and when did they know it. But ... everyone should have disclosed that. No question.

This is the kind of stuff that we need to know before we pick our candidate. It behooves the honest supporters of individual candidates to seek out this information and have their candidates address them. What Chuck Lewis said about Dean in the same interview did reinforce my support for him...

MOYERS: Is Dean any cleaner because he raised so much money from small donors on the internet?

LEWIS: You know, I'm always reluctant to use words like "cleaner" just because I don't want to sound like I endorse anybody. But the numbers are… certainly he has smaller donor numbers. And even as governor for 11 years, Vermont has limits on their contributions of $400. So his numbers are… his third highest patron are his campaign staff members at $15,000. That tells you… compare that with 600,000 from Enron.

...but I also heard his cautionary note loud and clear:

The problem is when you get up around 40 million and you go past 40 million, Howard Dean has opted out of the matching fund system. He is gonna have to keep raising at that pace.

And what's happening is if he does get the nomination and every nominee since 1975 who raises the most money the year before the election gets the nomination without exception, history shows in recent years. The power elite, the financial elites will begin to coalesce around the Democratic person on the, in their minds, off chance that a Democrat beats the incumbent in 2004. And so my point is, the money, the texture of Howard Dean's money is gonna and probably already has begun to substantially change.

There will never be a White Knight running for President and there will never be a democracy without flaws, which makes citizen vigilance and diligent inquiry all the more important.

--aslam

Unconquered Demons

Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:58:07 GMT

Saddam's brutality cast the dark cloud of fear and blight on the lives of Iraqis for unending decades. Theirs should be the first and foremost claim to rejoicing at his capture because it is their generations of misery that his rule leaves in its wake.

Yes, it was we Americans who overthrew the despot, and for those risking their lives in this war this is undoubtedly a good reason to celebrate. For us, on whose behalf these folks are there, it is also celebratory if their presence helps the Iraqi people build and hope.

When the American President went to war to vanquish this monster, it was evident that, given our military superiority and prowess, he would likely be killed or captured. That we were not afforded such closure upon overthrowing him was perhaps cosmically unfair but we persevered. We did manage to ferret out this demon only to find a sorry shell of a man. But there was no doubt that this was our demon, the same one that we don't remember aiding with full knowledge of his monstrosity. The one who leads us declared him to be deserving of "the ultimate penalty." I am told that our leader is a devout man, is he trying to tell us that we are witnessing a scriptural parable? Could it be that by destroying this demon we will conquer the demon within us that aided him?

--aslam

While I wasn't blogging...

Tue, 25 Nov 2003 05:02:05 GMT

bombs continued to explode, Dubya and his cabal continued to run our world, the economy got out of bed and all was well in the U.S. of A. Seemed as though my silence was helping. Little did I know that there was trouble brewing right here under my nose in Massachusetts.

Turns out that our Constitution can't prevent pansy-ass fairies like me from getting married. Now, when I do find that suitable boy and finally give my mother what she wants -- to see me married -- I will have the power to destroy the sanctity of each and every one of them breeder marriages. OK, America, it's all my fault but, when I agreed to commit the abomination of homosexuality, I didn't really expect the devil to keep his promise of giving me this awesome power over the God-fearing procreators...who in their right mind would trust the devil? I agreed to it only because being a homosexual was the only way I could justify wanting to sleep with men.

I'm really sorry, though, there ain't much I can do to correct this. I realize that I could divorce my suitable boy a few years after our wedding like so many good breeders do to preserve the sanctity of their marriages but I just couldn't bring myself to let the devil down after all that he has done for me.

--aslam