Another poor defense of freedom

Another poor defense of freedom

A recently published article on the magazine Guernica, “Stone Wars”, attempts to present the horror of a people living under foreign subjugation [1]. Unfortunately, it lets down those it would serve, by making a few significant errors.

The author clearly states his role as an observer: “(I did not) throw any stones”. However, he admits something that makes it hard to retain a good opinion of him: “I may have handed a couple of small pebbles lying next to me to a teenager—a stone warrior—who was running short.” The first objection, of course, is to encourage a younger person (a minor?) to engage in an activity that might possibly rob him of his ability to get an education or a job, or even cost him his life, while keeping one’s own hands clean. The writer gets to observe the spectacle, and go back to a comfortable existence, and write about it, transferring the risk to one of those he wishes to defend.

The second objection is that the writer insists that what he supplied consisted of pebbles. Now, pebbles are small stones. But the author goes further. He supplied “small pebbles”. Small, small stones. These could not possibly harm anyone, especially if they don’t reach the intended victims, and said victims have full-on body armor anyway. This act of proclaiming participation, and moral backing, but only in a way that would allow any court to instantly acquit the journalist, but not those with whom commiseration is declared, is shabby. In an earlier draft, perhaps, the author would have surreptitiously disinfected those small pebbles, and discarded any with rough edges.

A horrible crime is described. “The bodies had been found on the banks of a gently flowing stream no more than knee deep, in close proximity to three large Indian security camps. Why the bodies had struggle wounds, why at least one was found stark naked—for these questions, the government had no answer.” This appears damning. How did the courts react, though? The journalist makes no comment on this. When the executive commits excesses, the courts must step in, and the press, surely? All we are told, or can infer, is that the crime took place in May or June, 2009, in an unnamed town close to Anantnag. Perhaps the journalist does not wish the exact facts (as far as they are easily available in the public domain) to be studied?

But perhaps the exact facts do not matter. “In the night, my friend told me, the CRPF goes into the alleys hurling abuses and beating against the doors of people’s homes. Occasionally they break into the houses and beat up men, molest women, and loot valuables.” If that’s true, then injustice is rife, and must be challenged. But our author does not try to delve further, to ascertain details, to raise a stink, to inform the national and international press, and the courts. He leaves it as “a friend told me”. Surely, we may expect more from a journalist? Our author, perhaps as compensation, gives us a culinary portrait of Kashmir: the article references “date palms”, “choicest flaky bagirkhanis”, “samovars of almond kahwa”, “roasted peas and ice-kulfis” and “grilled kabab or a rista”. All this in an article that appears to be about a subjugated people resisting the oppressor.

There is a picture accompanying the article. It shows what appear to be two Indian policemen. No date is suggested, no location is mentioned, and while there are at least two vehicles in the background, their license plates cannot be read, for only the two men are in focus. The picture is attributed to another website, but, there too, we find no identifying information. Surely, we are past putting in pictures for the sake of pictures, which may or may not have anything to do with the article?

The author describes young boys and men throwing stones at the armed aggressors. This appears to be something every lover of liberty must applaud – as long as no one gets hurt. That should be quite achievable, for the author suggests:

“…..nor are they (the stones) intended to injure”

This is a little incredible. A group of people throwing stones at another group of people, and not intending to injure them? Perhaps our author confuses stones with orchids, as far as their effect on being flung at human tissue is concerned.

However, he does attempt two strokes in the defense of his thesis: that the soldiers are “always in full body armor”, and that “Stones are thrown from a distance where the stone throwers can outpace soldiers if chased, but this necessary distance also ensures that the stones don’t reach the soldiers”. That sounds plausible, except that the picture with the two uniformed men shows them with their faces exposed. And, the author goes on to add,” Mostly, the stones hit no one”.  That bit seems to detract from the too-far-to-hit and have-body-armor-anyway defenses, no pun intended.

Also, the author permits himself too much adolescent romanticizing.

“The soldiers are not artists, but part of the creation itself. If the streets are canvasses where stone pelters perfect their techniques, soldiers are just olive-colored blotches symbolizing Indian domination of the region.”

Very poetic, if it wouldn’t attempt to conceal the fact that the olive-colored blotches were human beings.

And some naiveté too:

“SOG specializes in torture and killing, and is loathed by one and all. They show a level of brutality disproportionate to their puny salaries—it is believed that they are paid 1500 rupees a month, or around 30 dollars, along with food and lodging for their services….”

Disproportionate? So, if their salaries were less puny, then they would be even more brutal? Surely, higher-income levels might be expected to reduce the desire to wade into a group of “stone-warriors” (yes, the author so refers to the throwers of stones)?

Of course, one of the major themes of the conflict is domination and freedom. Alas, our journalist refrains from presenting a balanced view, in terms of the democratic process, access to courts, the (nominally?) free media, the historic origin of the conflict, the religious and ethnic angles to the issue et cetera.

Once again, Nietzsche: “a poor defense of truth is a disservice to truth”. Or something similar.

[1] http://www.guernicamag.com/features/stone-wars/

[2] http://www.flickr.com/photos/sujuhyte/6688366017/sizes/l/ 

Good faith: a disservice to the world's poor

The BBC reported recently that the "100 richest people in the world earned enough last year to end extreme poverty suffered by the poorest on the planet four times over" [1].

If true, this might well appall. But, even if true, it does beg a question or two.

The BBC article attributed the statement to Oxfam, without providing a more specific reference. The article went on to mention an Oxfam publication, "The Cost Of Inequality: How Wealth And Income Extremes Hurt Us All".

Now, this publication is publicy available [2], and it does indeed make at least a similar assertion, "The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012- enough to end world poverty four times over".

Is the $240 billion enough to end world poverty four times over? Or is it the total wealth of the top 100 billionaires enough to end world poverty four times over?

More importantly, where do these numbers come from? There is a footnote.

Following the footnote, we are led to: "http://www.globalresearch.ca/billionaires-gain-as-living-standards-fall/5318471 and http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-billionaires-index/
the top 100 billionaires added $241 billion to their income in 2012. Jeff Sachs has estimated that it would cost $175 billion a year for 2 years to end extreme poverty."

Now that appears to be two links to support the statement "the top 100 billionaires added $241 billion to their income in 2012".

All well and good.

But the second half of the headline assertion is not really referenced. All we have is a name: Jeff Sachs. We are not told where he demonstrated that it would "cost $175 billion a year for 2 years to end extreme poverty.".

We do not give up - we search the Internet for Jeff Sachs and $175 billion.

The Wall Street Journal states, "Jeffrey Sachs, the Columbia University economist, has estimated that the cost to end extreme poverty in the world is about $175 billion annually." [3] Note that the timespan is missing here.

Another source [4] states, "To end extreme poverty worldwide in 20 years, Jeffrey Sachs calculated that the total cost would be about $175 billion per year." This source suggests that Jeff Sachs asserted this in 2005, in a publication called The End of Poverty.

Note that we have now moved from $175 billion per year over two years to $175 billion per year over twenty years.

Two other sources [5] [6] appear to confirm the twenty year timeframe.

Is it two years or is it twenty years? It would make quite a difference.

175 x 2 = 350
175 x 20 = 3500
3500 - 350 = 3150

The difference would be more than three trillion dollars.

Let's go back to the Oxfam assertion. Now, $240 billion that the world's top 100 billionaires made last year is obviously not going to be enough to end world poverty, even if we take the two-year timeframe (as we need $350 billion for that). But perhaps they meant $240 billion each year. That would do it, but not four times over.

Perhaps they meant total wealth of the top 100 billionaires, and not just what they made last year.

Their first link claims, "The top 100 controlled an aggregate $1.9 trillion as calculated by the prices on world stock markets December 31, for an average of nearly $20 billion apiece."

That would seem to make the cut, for if we take the two year estimate to fix poverty, we need $350 billion, and multiplying that by a factor of four, we reach $1.4 trillion, which is less than the $1.9 trillion figure.

Even ignoring the fact that stock markets are volatile, and not even diving into the J Sachs model, surely there is enough ambiguity and probable error (2 v/s 20) here to wonder whether the BBC has been sleeping on the job, or has decided to take it on good faith.



[1] BBC on 19 Jan 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21094962

[2] Oxfam on 18 Jan 2013 http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf

[3] WSJ 14 Sep 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444017504577647502309260064.html#

[4] http://www.sinsinawa.org/site_map/dvjan2013/work_for_justice.html

[5] http://www.visionofearth.org/economics/ending-poverty/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-extreme-poverty-in-the-world/

[6] http://www.lastthroes.com/2011/12/469-billion-how-much-americans-will.html

The Economist on the UK exiting Europe

The Economist's 2012 take on Britain leaving the EU

This week's cover article on the Economist was on a possible EU exit by the UK, "Making the break", December 08 - 14th, 2012. It is not an example of impressive journalism.

Apart from the pretty visuals, reminiscent of oil paintings of a bygone era, the article does not offer very many perceptive insights into Britain’s prospects of exiting the EU.  It does make for a laundry list of many factors which are relevant, e.g. the opinion of the media (and the Economist is part of that estate), the stances of various political parties, public opinion, the case of Switzerland and Norway, the significance of London’s financial industry, relations with NATO, access to EU-wide talent etc.. It ignores, however, some other points, e.g. examining the extent of Britain’s trade with the (rest of the) EU compared with non-EU partners, the non-financial benefits of EU-membership (such as freedoms, security, stability, cultural exchanges etc.), a look into precisely which areas in the UK receive EU aid (and whether the same areas and functions may count on the same extent of UK aid, once EU funds are blocked), a possible Greek exit from the Eurozone, access to the EU-wide job-market etc.. And there is little financial analyis, for an economics publication.

Prejudice against Poles

> "Britons have come to associate the EU with the uncontrolled immigration of Poles and other east Europeans, seemingly to every village."

This is fascinating. Note that the anonymous author (or authors) of this article does not make any attempt to reveal how he or she gained this insight into the opinions of Britons. Of course, the language suggests that it could be four Britons who have this opinion – easy enough to obtain that confirmation in most pubs at around half past nine in the evening. Of almost any opinion, that is.

The author therefore seeks to establish a prejudice by treating it as being universal, by making it passé. If everyone already uses the word Lonky to refer to a disabled Irishman, surely it is acceptable to do so?

The author's own opinion comes through, of course – when one examines the use of the definite article in the assertion: "...the uncontrolled immigration...", which suggests that the immigration of Poles etc. is definitely uncontrolled (out of control, implying deleterious), as compared to the mere association of that phenomenon with the EU, or as compared to the mere appearance of Poles in every single village (i.e. it may not be quite the case that the Pole stands in every village, but it appears to be, as compared to the certain uncontrolled immigration of said Poles and their neighbors).

The will of the people as accident

The article goes on to suggest that the British exit could be "almost by accident". Which is peculiar, given that the article quotes a poll which suggests that overwhelmingly more Britons would like to leave (49%), than would like to stay (32%). A decision to exit would, therefore, appear to reflect the will of the people. We are asked to ignore the fact that the article, as is typical for the Economist, does not really (“...latest YouGov poll...”) describe where the reader may find out more about the scope and rigor of the poll.

The abuse of statistics

The article claims that Britain would be GBP 8 billion better off each year. Let us examine this number. The UK's total national contribution in 2011 was EUR 11273.4 million. That includes the rebate of EUR 3595.9 million (from the UK correction, which, incidentally, is not mentioned anywhere in the Economist article). The operating budgetary balance for the UK in 2011 was EUR -5565.6 million. If we use the EU's year-end exchange rate of 1 EUR = 0.8353 GBP, the UK forked out around GBP 4.65 billion in 2011.

(2011 exchange rate taken from the consolidated annual accounts of the EU, available at

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2011/eu_annual_accounts_2011_en.pdf)

All this from the EU's latest annual financial report, available freely online. None of this "Treasury figures suggest...." skullduggery – where may we find these figures, which year do these figures refer to, is that a figure published by the Treasury or is it derived from Treasury sources?

 (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2011/fin_report/fin_report_11_en.pdf)

Now, this EU figure of GBP 4.65 billion is off by the Economist's by a huge margin, of a few billion pounds – where does the difference come from? Alas, we are not privileged to know, for the Economist does not reveal its sources.

A clumsy look at EU-driven legislation

The article picks the Solvency II legislation, as an example of an advantage to be had by Britain no longer having to follow an EU directive, suggesting that its burden would become less onerous. Given that Solvency II is widely welcomed – and also shaped – by the insurance industry, this does not appear to be very relevant. Also, given the schedule of that Directive's enforcement, one assumes that a significant part of the compliance effort has already been made, in terms of the one-off changes to systems, organizations and processes.

Not saying much at all

The article concludes with the pedestrian, "And one certainty: that having once departed, it would be all but impossible to get back in again". The phrase "all but impossible" suggests that it is not quite a certainty.

Why would it be almost impossible to get in again? The article-writer does not deign to state his or her reasons. Now, there is a bunch of people paid to explore ways in which to expand the EU – surely they would be excited about gaining a country so closely linked to the history of Europe, representing a large market and having a fundamentally sound economy?

What about the Scotland exit?

Interestingly, the Economist article does not once mention the upcoming referendum on Scotland exiting the United Kingdom, and how that could influence Britain's exit. Indeed, the BBC, in an article published at the same time, asserts that “Scotland's membership of the EU has been a key to the independence debate”.

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20675705)

What if the UK exits the EU, Scotland exits the UK, and the EU accepts Scotland as a full-fledged member?

Conclusion

Generally, the article leads one to conclude that the research the Economist quotes suggests that the UK would like to exit, but the Economist does not wish that to happen. The Economist, in this article, has chosen to label the lobby representing British farmers as being "noisy", which comes across as not particularly complementary. It would be interesting to see what impact a British exit from the EU would have on the Economist, and on the business interests of those who own the Economist. Indeed, a sense of fair play ought to have led it to make clear whether this organization has a vested financial interest.

Will we ask the questions?

An article published today, 09 April 2012, by Reuters [1] carried the headline “Ex-KGB man wins South Ossetia presidential election”.

It describes the winner of the Presidency, Leonid Tibilov, as a former KGB officer and as being pro-Russian. These two are the only attributes the article feels appropriate to assign to Mr. Tibilov. Apart from his gender and his age.

The KGB hardly has a happy reputation. In many minds, it may well be associated with the cellars of the Lubyanka in Moscow, where horrible crimes were committed. And, of course, with the Gulags, and the general repression of the Stalin era. Being an ex-employee of this organization may not instantly recommend one in many drawing-rooms on this planet.

However, the article does not state how long Mr. Tibilov worked for the KGB, nor in which period or periods, nor in which capacity. Surely, there is a difference if he was a senior official in a remote Soviet city, or a polisher of computer screens in a large office complex. Was he at the KGB as an eighteen-year old, for three weeks, or as a thirty-five-year-old for a few years? Was he convicted of crimes? Accused of any? Are there grounds to suspect that he was involved in deportations, or corruption, or targeted killings? Or can it be he was in the Press Office, translating Japanese press-articles into Russian for another department?

Incidentally, Mr. Putin of Russia also worked for the KGB. And Mr. Bush of the USA worked for the CIA, roughly the equivalent of the KGB in the USA. Do we imagine Reuters reporting Mr. Bush’s ascendancy to the Presidency as “Ex-CIA man wins US presidential election”?

The article goes on to say that Mr. Tibilov “headed South Ossetia’s security agency”, but does not name this agency. Perhaps because it is not as infamous as the KGB?

Ø “…the West, which accuses Russia of seeking to redraw borders by recognizing South Ossetia as independent.”

The article suggests that the West has a unified voice. This is a little presumptuous.

And even more presumptuous is the insinuation that the West has problems with the redrawing of borders.

The BBC, also today [2], chose to go with the headline “Ex-KGB chief Leonid Tibilov wins South Ossetia poll”.

This other article sheds some more light on Mr. Tibilov’s past offices:

Ø “The head of the South Ossetian KGB from 1992-98, Leonid Tibilov later became first deputy prime minister and then co-chairman of the Georgian-Ossetian peacekeeping commission.”

The BBC does not appear to approve of South Ossetia either, but chooses the “International community”, and not “the West” as its proxy of choice.

Ø “But almost all the international community except Russia considers South Ossetia as still part of Georgia.”

The article does not, however, describe the de-facto situation. Are Western energy companies investing in this country? Do other countries have an issue doing business with Russia on this score? Is there any influential international organization, or country in America, Asia, Africa or Western Europe that intends to deny South Ossetia its statehood?

[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/09/us-georgia-southossetia-election-idUSBRE83805O20120409?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FworldNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+International%29

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17655843

Journalists, inanity, taste and acquaintance with the language

A story run by the Telegraph earlier today boasted the headline “Senator accused of sexism over 'thank God' remark about female opponent”.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8813978/Senator-accused-of-sexism-over-thank-God-remark-about-female-opponent.html)

So the opponent was female. That’s the only attribute about her that our journalist thinks to be relevant, in the first instance. We learn, later, that she is a professor, teaches at Harvard, 62 years old and a Democrat. But, first and foremost, she has a vagina et cetera, is what the journalist wants us to know.

What about the senator? What gender does this protagonist have? The story, later, suggests that it is of the masculine sort. The headline does not, choosing only to bring out the gender of the other protagonist. This appears to be evidence of sexist thinking, on the part of the journalist. One assumes that the name Jon Swaine and the accompanying headshot is that of a real person, one often called a journalist, given that it is a newspaper, and that this person takes responsibility for what this person writes. Of course, the story might have been written by Clara, thus freeing Mr. Swaine of all guilt, but Clara is a female, and do we really need to acknowledge their contribution?

“Scott Brown, a..Republican…helped pay for university by appearing in Cosmopolitan. Asked how she funded her own education, Prof Warren.. said she had "borrowed money", adding: "I kept my clothes on." During a radio interview, Mr Brown, 52, responded: "Thank God."”

Now the headline claims that the senator has been “accused” of sexism. What does that mean? Accused by the State, or the local public prosecutor’s office? By pitchfork-carrying mobs of enlightened thousands? In dozens of letters written to local newspapers? The article itself quotes two individuals who make this suggestion. One is an paid employee (one assumes Executive Directors is not a pro bono job) of the political opponent, who is clearly partisan. The second source is the President of the National Organization for Women, an organization of feminists. Given that there are only two sources, one manifestly interested, one wonders whether the journalist may used the term “accused” in this generic fashion. In any public house, one can find eight people who are probably happy to do the same. Would that mean the Pope is “accused” of being lenient towards child molesters? By four times as many people as in this case? Are not fairness and veracity better served with “President of NOW accuses Senator of sexism; Senator repudiates”? But she actually said it was a “sexist misogynistic attack” (She is referring to the senator having said “Thank God”). A bit of stretch there, perhaps, but it is her opinion, and that may well be reported by the journalist. And if it wasn’t a stretch, then why was the misogyny accusation not mentioned in the headline? Analysis and perspective – are those part of a journalist’s brief? That would involve some contemplation. Perhaps more on Clara’s part. It’s her fault, really.

On eccentric chess-players and independent journalists

The Telegraph reported yesterday, 13 Jun 2011, on the visit of Mr. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to Tripoli, where he met Col. Gaddafi, the beleaguered leader of Libya (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573080/Col-Gaddafi-refuses-to-step-down-playing-chess-instead.html).

The sub-headline referred to the visitor as being “eccentric”, as did the caption of the accompanying photograph. Indeed, the caption also suggested the reason why he is regarded as being eccentric: he has apparently claimed to have spoken to aliens. Interestingly, the photography is attributed to Reuters TV – did that source provide the writer of the Telegraph article with the caption as well, or did he happen upon “eccentric” on their own?

Now, the visitor labeled by this journalist as being eccentric is, according to the same article, the head of the World Chess Federation, a wealthy businessman and was the head of the Russian republic of Kalmykia for more than a decade.

The article does not state why the writer thinks the President of FIDE to be eccentric, but the juxtaposition in the caption appears to imply it is because he has claimed to have met aliens from space.

Now why would this make anyone eccentric? We live in a world where people believe in all sorts of invisible Gods, and whole systems of hells and heavens for which not the slightest proof exists. Indeed, some of the fundamental claims of some of the currently dominant religions are proven to be false. Yet there are those who believe in them. Would the journalist take it upon himself to call the Pope eccentric? The Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque? The millions of poor in India who generally tend to look towards a God-figure? The journalist is entitled to his opinion, but surely a little sense of taste would not be awry?

> “He (Gaddafi) is thought to spend his time constantly on the move, driving around Tripoli, and sleeping in hospitals and religious places that Nato would never dare bomb.”

By whom? By the journalist? In that case, why not “I think he spends his time…….”? Or by two Libyans who accosted him at the bar whilst they were getting some more ice for him? Why not state that source? The “is thought” device suggests common wisdom, an almost-truth, the truth.

The Independent followed suit the next day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dictators-gambit-look-whos-joined-the-chess-set-2297106.html), referring to the first President of Kalmykia as “the eccentric chess supremo”.