Monday, August 05, 2013

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.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

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