On the Israeli military engaging a convoy in international waters
[Following on from readers' comments on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/05/was_israel_right_to_board_the.html)]
Firstly, I think people should stop calling any other people "barbaric". It is a little petty and very much ridiculous. If it has not been accepted as a maxim throughout human history, then surely the ancient Sanskrit ("What sin is it that a hungry one will not commit?") and Latin ("A man is a wolf to his fellow man") adages can be looked to. This labelling as a barbarian leads to a dehumanization of human beings which makes it very easy to start building the walls, not of Jerusalem, but of Auschwitz.
It is easy to blame the Israeli actors in this case, for they belong to a universally understood definition of an armed force. A litte intellectual effort, and surely the dead and the living are owed this, however, and things become slightly less dichotomous, slightly more colourful.
The fact that the ships in the convoy were boarded in "international waters" is not without importance. However, it can be too much stressed. Firstly, international borders are not set by God (or any human-external agency). They are set, and changed, through armed human forces, in the name of King, Gods, some sort of holy-looking book, or a variation of "those dodgy dark-skinned people over there will be thankful to us for bringing them civilization, you wait and see, and, anyway, this is really our duty", or, even, lucre.
Thus, borders are more bureaucratic than sacred. This is not to reject the value of the creative arts which have so long celebrated love of fatherland, but surely the Age of Patriotism is over? But perhaps we need another Nietzsche to proclaim its demise, and the shadow of the Buddha will be shown in caves for a century more.
If a ship in international waters attempts to fire a short-range tactical weapon at a country, or bring equipment that can be used to assemble a weapon or better target it, or bring information that can be similarly used, or resources that can free up other resources which may be used for a military purpose, surely the targeted country has a right to defend itself by attacking this ship, after attempts to dissaude its approach through non-aggressive means have failed? Or must we wait till the ship actually enters the waters of the targeted country? Or is it all right if it is, say, thirty metres away? Must the threat be clearly proven before action may be taken?
Who were the owners of the ships in this convoy? Did they, or their agents, clearly inform the people on board (including the artists, journalists and intellectuals; incidentally, I always find the latter term rather amusing) that there is a bit of a situation going on in that part of the world where the lives of humans on both sides of the religious or racial divide are constatly threatened, where soldiers (people trained and willing to use deadly weapons) actively expecting to be used to further state or party policy are not the rarest of sights? That Israel had clearly warned the convoy not to proceed? I believe the agents and owners of these ships and the passengers themselves (inasmuch as they were aware of the warnings and their presence was a matter of choice) are not entirely free of blame.
With what means may we defend the lands of our fathers and cousins? All? Then both the Israeli soldiers and the convoy participants were in the right (perhaps even those who were seeking some sort of desperate glory?). Who was in the wrong, then? Religious, political and professional opinion makers, some of whom are no longer alive? Those who gambled that one of the parties must be bluffing and endangered multiple lives? Or must there be a right and a wrong? Would it have been all right if no one had been killed immediately? Not from a stab wound or a bullet, but from insufficient heating later this winter, or through a home-made rocket outside a mall? What if the convoy were to be repeated in a week?
Our intertwined modern economies, political systems and supply chains do not allow any group of, say, hundred people to take the guilt upon their heads, even if they so choose to.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Economical with the quote
An article published yesterday in the New York Times (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/what-is-a-philosopher/?th&emc=th) on philosophy claimed:
> As Alfred North Whitehead said,
> philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato.
According to Wikiquote, Whitehead writes in his Process and Reality, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
So, not philosophy, but western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, at least, according to Whitehead. And one assumes that the definition extends to around 1929, when the work was published. Had Whitehead read Nietzsche? His colleague Russel was obviously misinformed about Nietzsche, with at least the factual bits misrepresented in his history of philosophy.
The extension of Whitehead's thesis to all of human philosophy makes it hard to defend the charge of either arrogance or ignorance on the author's part.
An article published yesterday in the New York Times (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/what-is-a-philosopher/?th&emc=th) on philosophy claimed:
> As Alfred North Whitehead said,
> philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato.
According to Wikiquote, Whitehead writes in his Process and Reality, "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
So, not philosophy, but western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato, at least, according to Whitehead. And one assumes that the definition extends to around 1929, when the work was published. Had Whitehead read Nietzsche? His colleague Russel was obviously misinformed about Nietzsche, with at least the factual bits misrepresented in his history of philosophy.
The extension of Whitehead's thesis to all of human philosophy makes it hard to defend the charge of either arrogance or ignorance on the author's part.
Friday, May 07, 2010
The Economist attempts irony
A pity, that the Economist once again (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16059928) stoops so low. The irony and sarcasm in this article might do a fourteen-year old credit, or, at least, suggest that she has a grasp of the language. Not, however, an education in taste or ethics.
Consider the following:
> Anyone who doubts his people’s love need only
> note the admirable 95% support for him in a
> presidential poll last November.
Democracies do not require love, they require votes. It doesn't matter if a people love, detest, are sexually infatuated with or secretly look down upon their leader, as long as they vote in regular,free and fair elections.
Ah, but love is important! How can we have a leader in power who is secretly detested by all?
Well, all right then, but can be sure that the leader is indeed hated? We could start by asking everyone on our speed dial list, so that's ten people right there. Anyone else, or is that enough?
What about that bloke who's always at the pub and drinks girlie mixed drinks? He might have an opinion too.
You know what, let's just ask everyone. Let's call this an election.
And after we have a winner and we think that he's murdering people on the sly, then let's not write shabby insinuations in the media, but be straightforward about it - say that there's a rumour, and that that rumour ought to be investigated, bring in the judicial check-and-balance.
Or does journalism have no point, that bit about defending truth and freedom not really to be taken seriously?
> Was not Alfred Nobel an arms maker before
> he became a prize-endower?
That's correct. What of it, though? Is there a point here, or is this an attempt to list examples of superficial irony? Oooh, and Hitler was a vegetarian. Any chance that can be used in this article?
> The World Health Organisation could surely seduce
> Italy’s prime minister into providing some cash for
> a Silvio Berlusconi medal in sex education.
Given that the Italians are well acquainted with the notion of civil law (didn't they have something to do with its early history, back in the day?), one assumes that Mr. Berlusconi will be prosecuted, if guilt is proven. If, however, it is not proven, then surely it might be a good idea to not make slanderous and petty (because not technically actionable) insinuations?
Or shall the only response to this exercise in non-superlative irony be: "The free peoples of this world ought to ask the Econimist for the Good Taste Award". Bah, I can't do it. Long live the irony of the Economist and death to taste and ethics.
A pity, that the Economist once again (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16059928) stoops so low. The irony and sarcasm in this article might do a fourteen-year old credit, or, at least, suggest that she has a grasp of the language. Not, however, an education in taste or ethics.
Consider the following:
> Anyone who doubts his people’s love need only
> note the admirable 95% support for him in a
> presidential poll last November.
Democracies do not require love, they require votes. It doesn't matter if a people love, detest, are sexually infatuated with or secretly look down upon their leader, as long as they vote in regular,free and fair elections.
Ah, but love is important! How can we have a leader in power who is secretly detested by all?
Well, all right then, but can be sure that the leader is indeed hated? We could start by asking everyone on our speed dial list, so that's ten people right there. Anyone else, or is that enough?
What about that bloke who's always at the pub and drinks girlie mixed drinks? He might have an opinion too.
You know what, let's just ask everyone. Let's call this an election.
And after we have a winner and we think that he's murdering people on the sly, then let's not write shabby insinuations in the media, but be straightforward about it - say that there's a rumour, and that that rumour ought to be investigated, bring in the judicial check-and-balance.
Or does journalism have no point, that bit about defending truth and freedom not really to be taken seriously?
> Was not Alfred Nobel an arms maker before
> he became a prize-endower?
That's correct. What of it, though? Is there a point here, or is this an attempt to list examples of superficial irony? Oooh, and Hitler was a vegetarian. Any chance that can be used in this article?
> The World Health Organisation could surely seduce
> Italy’s prime minister into providing some cash for
> a Silvio Berlusconi medal in sex education.
Given that the Italians are well acquainted with the notion of civil law (didn't they have something to do with its early history, back in the day?), one assumes that Mr. Berlusconi will be prosecuted, if guilt is proven. If, however, it is not proven, then surely it might be a good idea to not make slanderous and petty (because not technically actionable) insinuations?
Or shall the only response to this exercise in non-superlative irony be: "The free peoples of this world ought to ask the Econimist for the Good Taste Award". Bah, I can't do it. Long live the irony of the Economist and death to taste and ethics.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Collective interest sounds nicer
An article in the Economist on the geography of nuclear technology (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16007289) caught my eye on account of its concluding statement (well, the eye catching had probably already taken place, for me to have reached the conclusion).
> This is a time to put the collective interest first.
This sort of blanket statement is scary. By "collective" interest is obviously not meant the collective interest of all humans on the planet (for then there would be no question of an ordering). So let's put the interests of some before the others, oh, let's put our interests first, if someone's must take precedence. Fair enough, but let's not degrade ourselves and insult the others by calling it "collective interest".
Voltaire, a few hundred years ago, had the courage to describe the true price of sugar in Europe - surely, we can do the same.
ps: Why is it "scary"? Because it provides a clean chit in advance to anyone who wishes to use pointy missiles to clean up the mess down there, even if a couple of dozen bystanders are no longer able to stand by.
An article in the Economist on the geography of nuclear technology (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=16007289) caught my eye on account of its concluding statement (well, the eye catching had probably already taken place, for me to have reached the conclusion).
> This is a time to put the collective interest first.
This sort of blanket statement is scary. By "collective" interest is obviously not meant the collective interest of all humans on the planet (for then there would be no question of an ordering). So let's put the interests of some before the others, oh, let's put our interests first, if someone's must take precedence. Fair enough, but let's not degrade ourselves and insult the others by calling it "collective interest".
Voltaire, a few hundred years ago, had the courage to describe the true price of sugar in Europe - surely, we can do the same.
ps: Why is it "scary"? Because it provides a clean chit in advance to anyone who wishes to use pointy missiles to clean up the mess down there, even if a couple of dozen bystanders are no longer able to stand by.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Et tu, Economist?
Disappointingly, even the Economist can stoop low indeed.
An article titled "The opposition marks time" with the sub-title "The rulers sound cocky as an inchoate opposition ponders its next move" (and the supra-title "The struggle inside Iran") published on 18 March 2010 at http://www.economist.com/world/middle-east/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15731556 is the case study which provoked the surmise at the beginning of this piece.
> Shorn of his distinctive beard, Mr Rigi
> was paraded before Iran’s television cameras
> and “confessed” to receiving aid from the
> American arch-enemy.
Interesting use of the double-quote device, this. Does it mean that Mr. Rigi didn't really confess, that he had his fingers crossed the whole time, concealed beneath the latest issue of the Economist? Perhaps he was "shorn" of his beard - i.e., the beard was present, but covered up with make-up and putty, to give the appearance of clean-shavenness. Or does the author possess evidence that Mr. Rigi was tortured and made public statements under duress, but wishes, out of sensibility, to spare us the horror?
> ...a traditional fire festival, which
> Iranians celebrate by jumping over bonfires
> and letting off crackers,
This is a new milestone in bad taste. Would the author describe the Christ-on-crucifix figure as a dying, bleeding, convicted criminal, and express contempt at its being made an object of worship? Or a belief that millions of Indians have (that bathing in a dirty river produces a cleansing effect) as mass delusion?
> A recent annual meeting of
> the Assembly of Experts,....
> sounded like a Soviet plenum
> without the vodka.
Why is that, I wonder? Because the Iranians were speaking a Godless language (certainly not even close to English), exactly like the Soviets (who, as we all know, all had alcohol on the mind, and were definitely Godless)? Or because the affirmation of the country's leadership by this group was couched in too strong terms? What language is appropriate, what words must be avoided ("sublime", perhaps?), will the Economist publish a glossary of such?
> Iran’s economy is barely growing
This is absolutely true. However, let us anyway have a glance at data published by the IMF for Annual % change in GDP (constant prices) for Iran:
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
7.825 2.506 1.484 2.179 3.189
So, current growth doesn't apprear impressive at all.
But when one compares it to some other countries:
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2.260 0.323 -2.358 0.903 1.755
4.036 2.933 -0.753 -0.064 0.660
6.024 -3.036 -7.500 -2.500 1.026
3.565 0.856 -3.767 -0.743 0.863
Iran's growth appears to be far superior. Ah, but what banana repuplics are these, the shrewd reader asks. They are not. The statistics above belong to, in order, France, Greece, Ireland and Spain.
"Yes, yes, the garlic-eating French, the boy-loving Greeks, the less said about the Irish the better and the Spanish are probably more interested in their siestas." (Given the "bonfire jumping" and "vodka" insinuations above, this is how I imagine the author sees these countries)
Here are some of the world's richest countries - some of them even speak English and know how to use a knife and fork, so they are obviously all right:
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2.516 1.248 -5.297 0.336 1.470 (Germany)
1.564 -1.040 -5.145 0.240 0.744 (Italy)
2.337 -0.705 -5.369 1.676 2.379 (Japan)
2.559 0.742 -4.385 0.909 2.493 (UK)
2.141 0.439 -2.730 1.518 2.768 (USA)
Even here, Iran seems to be not warrant the "Iran’s economy is barely growing" pronouncement. China and India have probably more impressive (growth) figures, even if they are way behind in terms of per capita income and quality of life, but they are the among the fastest growing economies in the world.
Disappointingly, even the Economist can stoop low indeed.
An article titled "The opposition marks time" with the sub-title "The rulers sound cocky as an inchoate opposition ponders its next move" (and the supra-title "The struggle inside Iran") published on 18 March 2010 at http://www.economist.com/world/middle-east/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15731556 is the case study which provoked the surmise at the beginning of this piece.
> Shorn of his distinctive beard, Mr Rigi
> was paraded before Iran’s television cameras
> and “confessed” to receiving aid from the
> American arch-enemy.
Interesting use of the double-quote device, this. Does it mean that Mr. Rigi didn't really confess, that he had his fingers crossed the whole time, concealed beneath the latest issue of the Economist? Perhaps he was "shorn" of his beard - i.e., the beard was present, but covered up with make-up and putty, to give the appearance of clean-shavenness. Or does the author possess evidence that Mr. Rigi was tortured and made public statements under duress, but wishes, out of sensibility, to spare us the horror?
> ...a traditional fire festival, which
> Iranians celebrate by jumping over bonfires
> and letting off crackers,
This is a new milestone in bad taste. Would the author describe the Christ-on-crucifix figure as a dying, bleeding, convicted criminal, and express contempt at its being made an object of worship? Or a belief that millions of Indians have (that bathing in a dirty river produces a cleansing effect) as mass delusion?
> A recent annual meeting of
> the Assembly of Experts,....
> sounded like a Soviet plenum
> without the vodka.
Why is that, I wonder? Because the Iranians were speaking a Godless language (certainly not even close to English), exactly like the Soviets (who, as we all know, all had alcohol on the mind, and were definitely Godless)? Or because the affirmation of the country's leadership by this group was couched in too strong terms? What language is appropriate, what words must be avoided ("sublime", perhaps?), will the Economist publish a glossary of such?
> Iran’s economy is barely growing
This is absolutely true. However, let us anyway have a glance at data published by the IMF for Annual % change in GDP (constant prices) for Iran:
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
7.825 2.506 1.484 2.179 3.189
So, current growth doesn't apprear impressive at all.
But when one compares it to some other countries:
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2.260 0.323 -2.358 0.903 1.755
4.036 2.933 -0.753 -0.064 0.660
6.024 -3.036 -7.500 -2.500 1.026
3.565 0.856 -3.767 -0.743 0.863
Iran's growth appears to be far superior. Ah, but what banana repuplics are these, the shrewd reader asks. They are not. The statistics above belong to, in order, France, Greece, Ireland and Spain.
"Yes, yes, the garlic-eating French, the boy-loving Greeks, the less said about the Irish the better and the Spanish are probably more interested in their siestas." (Given the "bonfire jumping" and "vodka" insinuations above, this is how I imagine the author sees these countries)
Here are some of the world's richest countries - some of them even speak English and know how to use a knife and fork, so they are obviously all right:
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
2.516 1.248 -5.297 0.336 1.470 (Germany)
1.564 -1.040 -5.145 0.240 0.744 (Italy)
2.337 -0.705 -5.369 1.676 2.379 (Japan)
2.559 0.742 -4.385 0.909 2.493 (UK)
2.141 0.439 -2.730 1.518 2.768 (USA)
Even here, Iran seems to be not warrant the "Iran’s economy is barely growing" pronouncement. China and India have probably more impressive (growth) figures, even if they are way behind in terms of per capita income and quality of life, but they are the among the fastest growing economies in the world.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Guardian and the Common Editorial on Climate Change
The Guardian's view on the common editorial on climate change shared by 56 newspapers is stated here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/06/climate-change-leader-editorial
> A number of major US titles evinced support for
> the project, but stopped short of signing up,
> leaving the admirably independent-minded Miami Herald
Independent-minded obviously means "agreeing with me"!
Let us, of course, excuse the irony of independence being equated with signing up for a common editorial.
> One US paper's response: "This is an outrageous
> attempt to orchestrate media pressure. Go to hell."
Interesting this, that the Guardian chose not to respond to this very valid accusation.
The "go to hell" bit is a little over the top, not just because the US paper said it (in an official statement?) but that a UK paper, ostensibly the guardian of truth, justice and good taste, chose to leave it in. Why? To remind us that the Americans are ill-mannered? Or to suggest that anyone who can use such a phrase probably has an untenable argument. This is the sort of cloaked ad hominem attack that makes one want to switch to The Sun. Half-naked people and too much football, but there is a lack of underhandedness.
Unfortunately, there is no list of papers which were invited to carry it, nor indeed, of those asked, whether they were given enough time, clarification and meta-information to either accept or reject the idea, with enough background.
Why do we need multiple newspapers? Shall we not just settle on one party line? One accepted scientific position - perhaps multiple centres of research are superfluous. Just leads to unnecessary debate, when we all know that we are right.
The Guardian's view on the common editorial on climate change shared by 56 newspapers is stated here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/06/climate-change-leader-editorial
> A number of major US titles evinced support for
> the project, but stopped short of signing up,
> leaving the admirably independent-minded Miami Herald
Independent-minded obviously means "agreeing with me"!
Let us, of course, excuse the irony of independence being equated with signing up for a common editorial.
> One US paper's response: "This is an outrageous
> attempt to orchestrate media pressure. Go to hell."
Interesting this, that the Guardian chose not to respond to this very valid accusation.
The "go to hell" bit is a little over the top, not just because the US paper said it (in an official statement?) but that a UK paper, ostensibly the guardian of truth, justice and good taste, chose to leave it in. Why? To remind us that the Americans are ill-mannered? Or to suggest that anyone who can use such a phrase probably has an untenable argument. This is the sort of cloaked ad hominem attack that makes one want to switch to The Sun. Half-naked people and too much football, but there is a lack of underhandedness.
Unfortunately, there is no list of papers which were invited to carry it, nor indeed, of those asked, whether they were given enough time, clarification and meta-information to either accept or reject the idea, with enough background.
Why do we need multiple newspapers? Shall we not just settle on one party line? One accepted scientific position - perhaps multiple centres of research are superfluous. Just leads to unnecessary debate, when we all know that we are right.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The wolf in a journalist's clothing
The Pakistani newspaper Dawn (www.dawn.com), which I have been following for a couple of years now, generally tends to be slightly more responsible than the papers of its class. Aside from the letters written by its readers, the most hatred and disregard for logical reasoning and the norms of civilized debate is shown by its regular columnists Javed Naqwi and Kuldip Nayar, both based in neighbouring India. Hatred for what? Generally speaking, India, the West, democracy and liberal values.
However, I was more than usually shocked to read an article about Pakistan's nuclear program architect titled "A.Q. Khan in the news again" by Cyril Almeida, published today (25 September 2009) at http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/cyril-almeida-a.q.-khan-in-the-news-again-599.
And what was shocking?
> The security establishment/army high command
> has acted foolishly (Kargil and support for
> militancy beyond its sell-by date are just
> two examples), but nuclear weapons are an
> entirely different category.
Firstly, the notion that militancy (i.e. terrorism, i.e. the indiscriminate murder of civilians) was acceptable till a certain point, as implied by its "sell-by date". What was this date? A point till which the support for terrorism could remain secret and would be without consquences? (Of course, nurturing terrorism is seldom without consequences - it affects generations and societies, and can come back to haunt one, as the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan can probably testify)
Also interesting is why the journalist implies that nuclear weapons are somehow holy, and beyond the reach of those with dastardly designs. If you train militants, surely there is a chance that they, the trainers and the trainees, will use all means of violence to achieve their ends, and not just the ones on the lower side of the scale.
> In any case, it can be argued that the
> government is barking up the wrong tree
> by going to the courts because the law
> is not geared to deal with hard cases
> such as A.Q. Khan.
This is the repellent bit. Is not a lynch mob being summoned here? "The law is too good for him, bring on the noose"! Of course, the journalist attempts to absolve himself by the phrase "it can be argued", i.e. he himself is not arguing it.
It can be argued that the earth is flat, or, at least, was flat, till 1360. It ought to be argued that journalists should have the courage to stand up for their opinions.
And then, towards the end, the journalist drops all pretence of being civilized.
> After all, if one thing is certain it is
> that Khan is a man with a big ego. Hack
> away at his standing in the domestic public
> eye, and he may choose to live out his days
> in quiet retirement.
A man with a big ego? Do not all men have big egos? And all women? And everyone else? Or does the journalist possess the skill of looking into the thoughts of another human being and measuring the size of the ego?
And then he calls for destroying someone's reputation, not on the basis of the other person's actions, inactions or published beliefs, but because doing so would profit some agenda that the journalist holds dear. This is the most despicable of incitements.
Disclaimer: I have nothing against wolves and do not seek to imply that they would ordinarily have anything to do with journalists.
The Pakistani newspaper Dawn (www.dawn.com), which I have been following for a couple of years now, generally tends to be slightly more responsible than the papers of its class. Aside from the letters written by its readers, the most hatred and disregard for logical reasoning and the norms of civilized debate is shown by its regular columnists Javed Naqwi and Kuldip Nayar, both based in neighbouring India. Hatred for what? Generally speaking, India, the West, democracy and liberal values.
However, I was more than usually shocked to read an article about Pakistan's nuclear program architect titled "A.Q. Khan in the news again" by Cyril Almeida, published today (25 September 2009) at http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/cyril-almeida-a.q.-khan-in-the-news-again-599.
And what was shocking?
> The security establishment/army high command
> has acted foolishly (Kargil and support for
> militancy beyond its sell-by date are just
> two examples), but nuclear weapons are an
> entirely different category.
Firstly, the notion that militancy (i.e. terrorism, i.e. the indiscriminate murder of civilians) was acceptable till a certain point, as implied by its "sell-by date". What was this date? A point till which the support for terrorism could remain secret and would be without consquences? (Of course, nurturing terrorism is seldom without consequences - it affects generations and societies, and can come back to haunt one, as the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan can probably testify)
Also interesting is why the journalist implies that nuclear weapons are somehow holy, and beyond the reach of those with dastardly designs. If you train militants, surely there is a chance that they, the trainers and the trainees, will use all means of violence to achieve their ends, and not just the ones on the lower side of the scale.
> In any case, it can be argued that the
> government is barking up the wrong tree
> by going to the courts because the law
> is not geared to deal with hard cases
> such as A.Q. Khan.
This is the repellent bit. Is not a lynch mob being summoned here? "The law is too good for him, bring on the noose"! Of course, the journalist attempts to absolve himself by the phrase "it can be argued", i.e. he himself is not arguing it.
It can be argued that the earth is flat, or, at least, was flat, till 1360. It ought to be argued that journalists should have the courage to stand up for their opinions.
And then, towards the end, the journalist drops all pretence of being civilized.
> After all, if one thing is certain it is
> that Khan is a man with a big ego. Hack
> away at his standing in the domestic public
> eye, and he may choose to live out his days
> in quiet retirement.
A man with a big ego? Do not all men have big egos? And all women? And everyone else? Or does the journalist possess the skill of looking into the thoughts of another human being and measuring the size of the ego?
And then he calls for destroying someone's reputation, not on the basis of the other person's actions, inactions or published beliefs, but because doing so would profit some agenda that the journalist holds dear. This is the most despicable of incitements.
Disclaimer: I have nothing against wolves and do not seek to imply that they would ordinarily have anything to do with journalists.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Poor style and worse journalism
An article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn protested against supposed US plans to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan. Poorly and without any respect for the norms of debate.
(http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-us-plans-imperial-presence-qs-10 ; Karamatullah K. Ghori; 30 August 2009)
> But they are, for the record, just geared to
> Washington’s diplomatic stake in Pakistan,
> lest the Pakistanis routinely clobbered in
> the ‘civilised western world’ for their outbursts
> of emotions over supposedly petty little things.
This is, of course, not a syntactically valid sentence. One can merely guess what the journalist wishes to express, although a weak attempt at sarcasm appears to have been made.
The following paragraph, apart from the use of the singular where a plural is called for, first refers to reports by "media pundits in Pakistan" as being the source for the proposed increase in US consular staff, but then swiftly introduces statements which appear to be the author's personal truths, i.e. he or she is confident that they are true, and are not attributed to "media pundits".
>..... huge parcel of 18 acres of prime land
> in Islamabad’s exclusive diplomatic enclave
> has been ‘sold’ to the American Embassy for
> just one billion rupees, a fraction of its market worth.
One wonders why the verb "sold" is enclosed in quotation marks. Was it really leased, and not sold? Was only a pretence of selling it made? In either case, it entirely changes the tone of the deal. The journalist goes on to imply that the price was below market value (notice that he does not state what the market worth is, how this has been determined, and, of course, a fraction can be the number one, or even two, i.e. that the American's paid twice the so-called market worth). Furthermore, given that the "prime land" is in the capital city's diplomatic enclave, one expects it to be given to consulates, and not used for holiday homes, high rise office buildings or malls. That would put a constraint on the "market worth". The journalist insinuates that the Pakistanis were short changed -- given that the Americans are pouring in billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan, this seems a little churlish.
> The American wars in Korea and Vietnam were
> triggered by this policy of offence-being-the-best-defence.
> George W. Bush, an ardent practitioner of
> Pax Americana couldn’t be more articulate
> than coining the shibboleth of
>‘taking the war to the enemy.’ The invasion of
> Afghanistan, on the heels of 9/11 was justified
> on this premise, besides being a prop to Bush’s
> dream of an imperial America holding the world
> in its thrall.
The journalist does not appear to be aware of the meaning of the word "shibboleth". A little pathetic, then, this attempt at high-flown language. Perhaps the journalist should stick to simpler words. For example: "America bad, we good.".
The "dream of an imperial America" is the sort of anti-US rhetoric one might expect of an ill-informed schoolboy. Or journalist.
An article in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn protested against supposed US plans to expand its diplomatic presence in Pakistan. Poorly and without any respect for the norms of debate.
(http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-us-plans-imperial-presence-qs-10 ; Karamatullah K. Ghori; 30 August 2009)
> But they are, for the record, just geared to
> Washington’s diplomatic stake in Pakistan,
> lest the Pakistanis routinely clobbered in
> the ‘civilised western world’ for their outbursts
> of emotions over supposedly petty little things.
This is, of course, not a syntactically valid sentence. One can merely guess what the journalist wishes to express, although a weak attempt at sarcasm appears to have been made.
The following paragraph, apart from the use of the singular where a plural is called for, first refers to reports by "media pundits in Pakistan" as being the source for the proposed increase in US consular staff, but then swiftly introduces statements which appear to be the author's personal truths, i.e. he or she is confident that they are true, and are not attributed to "media pundits".
>..... huge parcel of 18 acres of prime land
> in Islamabad’s exclusive diplomatic enclave
> has been ‘sold’ to the American Embassy for
> just one billion rupees, a fraction of its market worth.
One wonders why the verb "sold" is enclosed in quotation marks. Was it really leased, and not sold? Was only a pretence of selling it made? In either case, it entirely changes the tone of the deal. The journalist goes on to imply that the price was below market value (notice that he does not state what the market worth is, how this has been determined, and, of course, a fraction can be the number one, or even two, i.e. that the American's paid twice the so-called market worth). Furthermore, given that the "prime land" is in the capital city's diplomatic enclave, one expects it to be given to consulates, and not used for holiday homes, high rise office buildings or malls. That would put a constraint on the "market worth". The journalist insinuates that the Pakistanis were short changed -- given that the Americans are pouring in billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan, this seems a little churlish.
> The American wars in Korea and Vietnam were
> triggered by this policy of offence-being-the-best-defence.
> George W. Bush, an ardent practitioner of
> Pax Americana couldn’t be more articulate
> than coining the shibboleth of
>‘taking the war to the enemy.’ The invasion of
> Afghanistan, on the heels of 9/11 was justified
> on this premise, besides being a prop to Bush’s
> dream of an imperial America holding the world
> in its thrall.
The journalist does not appear to be aware of the meaning of the word "shibboleth". A little pathetic, then, this attempt at high-flown language. Perhaps the journalist should stick to simpler words. For example: "America bad, we good.".
The "dream of an imperial America" is the sort of anti-US rhetoric one might expect of an ill-informed schoolboy. Or journalist.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
We lecherous ones
An article in The Economist, published on 20 August 2009, titled "Snap it, click it, use it" (http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14257721) had the following implicit judgement:
> Lecherous readers who photographed it
> were rewarded with additional pictures
This seems to suggest that readers who were not lecherous, but photographed anyway, were not rewarded with additional pictures.
The author seems not to be at peace with his or her morality, or at least, that aspect of it which makes him or her judge readers who take photographs of models in swimsuits to be lecherous, quite irrespective of whether such readers are interested perhaps in fashion, or do not come from a prudish background where the human form is considered repulsive, especially as the author then speaks of the readers being "rewarded", implying that receiving (additional) pictures is a good thing.
This is 2009. Can we please stop calling people lecherous? What next? Heathen? For those pagans who do not believe in Our Lord who died on the Cross for our Sins?
An article in The Economist, published on 20 August 2009, titled "Snap it, click it, use it" (http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14257721) had the following implicit judgement:
> Lecherous readers who photographed it
> were rewarded with additional pictures
This seems to suggest that readers who were not lecherous, but photographed anyway, were not rewarded with additional pictures.
The author seems not to be at peace with his or her morality, or at least, that aspect of it which makes him or her judge readers who take photographs of models in swimsuits to be lecherous, quite irrespective of whether such readers are interested perhaps in fashion, or do not come from a prudish background where the human form is considered repulsive, especially as the author then speaks of the readers being "rewarded", implying that receiving (additional) pictures is a good thing.
This is 2009. Can we please stop calling people lecherous? What next? Heathen? For those pagans who do not believe in Our Lord who died on the Cross for our Sins?
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Of Indians and Chinese
A faithful reader of the Financial Times, I was slightly put off by a tasteless remark in the article "Costly lesson for Indians in Australia" by Amy Kazmim, published on page 8 on 24 June 2009.
Ms. Kazmin reports that "her (Ms. Thakur, an Indian student's) first semester was spent in a disappointing accountancy course pushed hard by an agent but filled only with other students from India and China". (emphasis added)
The usage of "filled with" to refer to humans is bad enough, but the insinuation that it is sub-obtimal to have said filling done with Indians and Chinese is appalling. Would it have been better if there were lesser Chinese and more Scandinavians? The obvious implication is that the mere presence of Indians and Chinese, quite irrespective of intellectual ability or motivation, tends to lower the credibility and quality of a host academic institution, and is not on at all.
I hesitate to use the word "racist", but am not sure if Ms. Kazmin's opinion is entirely undeserving of that epithet.
A faithful reader of the Financial Times, I was slightly put off by a tasteless remark in the article "Costly lesson for Indians in Australia" by Amy Kazmim, published on page 8 on 24 June 2009.
Ms. Kazmin reports that "her (Ms. Thakur, an Indian student's) first semester was spent in a disappointing accountancy course pushed hard by an agent but filled only with other students from India and China". (emphasis added)
The usage of "filled with" to refer to humans is bad enough, but the insinuation that it is sub-obtimal to have said filling done with Indians and Chinese is appalling. Would it have been better if there were lesser Chinese and more Scandinavians? The obvious implication is that the mere presence of Indians and Chinese, quite irrespective of intellectual ability or motivation, tends to lower the credibility and quality of a host academic institution, and is not on at all.
I hesitate to use the word "racist", but am not sure if Ms. Kazmin's opinion is entirely undeserving of that epithet.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Of journalist and runners
Having recently watched the film Midnight Express (1978) based on the book of the same name by William Hayes, I looked up the Wikipedia article, and saw an article titled "Revisiting the land of 'Midnight Express'" by a Stephen Handelman published on 24 June, 2007 in The Star (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228860).
The subtitle refers to Mr. Hayes as an "escaped hashish runner". The journalist's distaste for Mr. Hayes is unmistakeable, but surely he ought first to inform the police if he believes that Mr. Hayes continues to "run" hashish (which is what the noun "runner" implies).
Perhaps he meant ex-runner, and that too would be admissible only if Mr. Hayes "ran" hashish repeatedly. One is not called a jogger after having gone for one's second jog.
> I asked Hayes whether he
> worried about being part
> of a propaganda ploy.
> "I've always loved Turkey,"
> he answered cautiously.
I wonder how the journalist knows that Mr. Hayes answered cautiously? Can it be that the journalist means "sofly", or "slowly", presumably possessing no means of looking into the thought processes of another human being? But "slow", "soft" and other intonations of speech are relative - did the journalist perhaps capture a large sample and figure out what the standard deviation is?
> In the land of the Midnight Express,
> morning still arrives with a caveat.
The caveat, presumably, is that one might be subjected to the outpourings of a journalist who seems to have parted ways from truth, style and fair reporting, when one picks up the newspaper, no matter how glorious the morning otherwise is.
Having recently watched the film Midnight Express (1978) based on the book of the same name by William Hayes, I looked up the Wikipedia article, and saw an article titled "Revisiting the land of 'Midnight Express'" by a Stephen Handelman published on 24 June, 2007 in The Star (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/228860).
The subtitle refers to Mr. Hayes as an "escaped hashish runner". The journalist's distaste for Mr. Hayes is unmistakeable, but surely he ought first to inform the police if he believes that Mr. Hayes continues to "run" hashish (which is what the noun "runner" implies).
Perhaps he meant ex-runner, and that too would be admissible only if Mr. Hayes "ran" hashish repeatedly. One is not called a jogger after having gone for one's second jog.
> I asked Hayes whether he
> worried about being part
> of a propaganda ploy.
> "I've always loved Turkey,"
> he answered cautiously.
I wonder how the journalist knows that Mr. Hayes answered cautiously? Can it be that the journalist means "sofly", or "slowly", presumably possessing no means of looking into the thought processes of another human being? But "slow", "soft" and other intonations of speech are relative - did the journalist perhaps capture a large sample and figure out what the standard deviation is?
> In the land of the Midnight Express,
> morning still arrives with a caveat.
The caveat, presumably, is that one might be subjected to the outpourings of a journalist who seems to have parted ways from truth, style and fair reporting, when one picks up the newspaper, no matter how glorious the morning otherwise is.
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Words that move a city
The Welt Kompakt evidently thought it would be a good idea to jump on to the media bandwagon following the tragic terrorist incident in Mumbai that took in the last days of November, 2008. Their illustrative graphic of the situation shows where the terrorists struck, and an outline of "Bombay (Mumbai)". Some of these places are very familiar and personal to me through my visits to that exciting metropolis: Cafe Leopold and the Taj Hotel. However, I was under the distinct impression that Mumbai is on the western coast of India, on the Arabian Sea. The good people at the Welt Kompakt (print edition of 28 November 2008, page 2) decided to situate it on the country's eastern coast, touching the Bay of Bengal. A citation beneath the image attributes it to "AFP".
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Crude journalism
[snipped from an editorial "Yet more protests in Kashmir" published on 27 Aug 08 in Dawn; http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/27/ed.htm#1]
> Most immediately the Indian security forces
> need to show restraint.
But perhaps the journalist would do better to ask the government to show restraint, for the security forces take their brief from the Executive, which entity is deemed responsible. Or is it possible that the journalist stretches the example of Pakistan's autonomous military to other countries?
> The enormous crowds that have gathered in
> the Kashmir valley on several occasions in
> recent weeks have for the most part been
> peaceful and non-violent.
This is interesting, but does appear to contradict an assertion made in the preceding paragraph, namely: "THE wave of protests and violence in Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir continues unabated." Indeed, this is the opening statement of the journalist.
> The Kashmiris have a right to protest peacefully.
It would have been hard to come up with a more inane statement. What about the Keralites? And the Thais? And the Americans? May they also protest peacefully? Or, is it the case, even in the freedom-loving lands, that the right to protest has caveats: i.e. no trespass on private property, no rallies on public highways without prior permission, no marches during wartime, terrorism or other extreme situations?
> Muslims in the Kashmir valley feel their
> homeland is occupied by foreign, Hindu elements.....
Yes, of course. Muslims had been living in the valley since time immemorial. A few centuries ago, a bunch of foreigners, in a foreign land, came up with a new religion called Hinduism, and invaded other countries. No, no, no, I seem to have my facts mixed up. Can it be that India is where the Indians come from, and that Muslims are derived from Arabia, hundreds of miles to the West. It is scary to see distortions of history in print.
> With cross border violence having subsided
> for the moment, the unrest in the Valley
> is of a purely indigenous character.
One wonders if the writer is not aware of the terrorist training camps that the Indians and the Americans allege exist on Pakistani soil (incidentally, the highest elements of the Pakistani establishment, the previous military dictator included, have admitted this). That the Taleban has bases in Pakistan, that hate is preached in Madarassas? Any student of terrorism in Kashmir knows that terrorism there is anything but indigenous.
But perhaps we are debating the finer points of epistemology. What is truth? Whose ancestors lived in which land, which religions are Arabic and which are not etc. etc..
[snipped from an editorial "Yet more protests in Kashmir" published on 27 Aug 08 in Dawn; http://www.dawn.com/2008/08/27/ed.htm#1]
> Most immediately the Indian security forces
> need to show restraint.
But perhaps the journalist would do better to ask the government to show restraint, for the security forces take their brief from the Executive, which entity is deemed responsible. Or is it possible that the journalist stretches the example of Pakistan's autonomous military to other countries?
> The enormous crowds that have gathered in
> the Kashmir valley on several occasions in
> recent weeks have for the most part been
> peaceful and non-violent.
This is interesting, but does appear to contradict an assertion made in the preceding paragraph, namely: "THE wave of protests and violence in Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir continues unabated." Indeed, this is the opening statement of the journalist.
> The Kashmiris have a right to protest peacefully.
It would have been hard to come up with a more inane statement. What about the Keralites? And the Thais? And the Americans? May they also protest peacefully? Or, is it the case, even in the freedom-loving lands, that the right to protest has caveats: i.e. no trespass on private property, no rallies on public highways without prior permission, no marches during wartime, terrorism or other extreme situations?
> Muslims in the Kashmir valley feel their
> homeland is occupied by foreign, Hindu elements.....
Yes, of course. Muslims had been living in the valley since time immemorial. A few centuries ago, a bunch of foreigners, in a foreign land, came up with a new religion called Hinduism, and invaded other countries. No, no, no, I seem to have my facts mixed up. Can it be that India is where the Indians come from, and that Muslims are derived from Arabia, hundreds of miles to the West. It is scary to see distortions of history in print.
> With cross border violence having subsided
> for the moment, the unrest in the Valley
> is of a purely indigenous character.
One wonders if the writer is not aware of the terrorist training camps that the Indians and the Americans allege exist on Pakistani soil (incidentally, the highest elements of the Pakistani establishment, the previous military dictator included, have admitted this). That the Taleban has bases in Pakistan, that hate is preached in Madarassas? Any student of terrorism in Kashmir knows that terrorism there is anything but indigenous.
But perhaps we are debating the finer points of epistemology. What is truth? Whose ancestors lived in which land, which religions are Arabic and which are not etc. etc..
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Almost as shocking
IBN Live seems to have a touched a new low (or high?) in its standard of journalism. Consider the article titled "Boy held for slandering Sonia on Orkut" written by a Shilpa Dhamija, published on 21 May 2008, at 00:21.
(URL: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/boy-held-for-slandering-sonia-on-orkut/65642-11.html?xml)
> Boy held for slandering Sonia on Orkut
> Twenty-two-year old Rahul...Vaid....
Interesting that a 22-year-old male is referred to as a "boy". Wonder till what age one would be called a boy by the journalist, given that the "boy" in question is empowered by the state to vote, get married, buy alchohol, and be treated as an adult as far as the Indian Penal Code is concerned.
> But obscene and vulgar data is
> punishable under IT act,
Ah, but that does not sound like slander, as mentioned in the headline.
> Vaid had posted the content an
> Orkut community titled 'I hate
> Sonia Gandhi'.
Missing preposition between "content" and "an".
> ...if found guilty, he will have
> to face up to five years of
> imprisonment and...
Redundant use of the phrase "have to"; "...he will face up..." is adequate.
> The police are now looking for
> everyone who has posted anything
> obscene about the Congress leader.
This sort of a blanket statement is a little worrying, for those who are worried by witch-hunts.
> Interestingly, the creator of the
> community has not been charged as
> hating prominent personalities or
> having an opinion is not illegal
> in India.
Either this is sophisticated irony (but one thinks not, looking at the quality of English used in the article), or shocking (in a professional journalist, but that begs the question!) naiveté.
> So till India has strict privacy laws
> like the US, the only safeguard is to
> either join communities after due
> diligence or stay away.
Or make an effort to improve the situation: marshal public opinion towards creating such laws and safeguards, or is this not the whole point of having journalists?
"Stay away" advises the journalist. Cower in your homes in fear, never mind what you believe to be true and right, choose inaction. Sad.
IBN Live seems to have a touched a new low (or high?) in its standard of journalism. Consider the article titled "Boy held for slandering Sonia on Orkut" written by a Shilpa Dhamija, published on 21 May 2008, at 00:21.
(URL: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/boy-held-for-slandering-sonia-on-orkut/65642-11.html?xml)
> Boy held for slandering Sonia on Orkut
> Twenty-two-year old Rahul...Vaid....
Interesting that a 22-year-old male is referred to as a "boy". Wonder till what age one would be called a boy by the journalist, given that the "boy" in question is empowered by the state to vote, get married, buy alchohol, and be treated as an adult as far as the Indian Penal Code is concerned.
> But obscene and vulgar data is
> punishable under IT act,
Ah, but that does not sound like slander, as mentioned in the headline.
> Vaid had posted the content an
> Orkut community titled 'I hate
> Sonia Gandhi'.
Missing preposition between "content" and "an".
> ...if found guilty, he will have
> to face up to five years of
> imprisonment and...
Redundant use of the phrase "have to"; "...he will face up..." is adequate.
> The police are now looking for
> everyone who has posted anything
> obscene about the Congress leader.
This sort of a blanket statement is a little worrying, for those who are worried by witch-hunts.
> Interestingly, the creator of the
> community has not been charged as
> hating prominent personalities or
> having an opinion is not illegal
> in India.
Either this is sophisticated irony (but one thinks not, looking at the quality of English used in the article), or shocking (in a professional journalist, but that begs the question!) naiveté.
> So till India has strict privacy laws
> like the US, the only safeguard is to
> either join communities after due
> diligence or stay away.
Or make an effort to improve the situation: marshal public opinion towards creating such laws and safeguards, or is this not the whole point of having journalists?
"Stay away" advises the journalist. Cower in your homes in fear, never mind what you believe to be true and right, choose inaction. Sad.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The journalism bar
Does one actually need formal education to be a journalist, or is the ability to construct the odd sentence adequate? An essay grandiosely titled "A lesson for South Asia", written by a Kuldip Nayar appeared on a newspaper website on 18 Apr 2008. The writer is described as a "leading journalist based in Delhi".
[snipped; http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/18/op.htm#1]
> ELECTION results in Nepal should come
> as a surprise to India.
Why? Because the Nepalese electorate did not inform the Indians in advance about whom they intended to vote for? Did they inform the Bangladeshis? Or the Austrians? In any case, resentment against the monarchy has been evident for a couple of years now.
> People were changing and New Delhi
> was stuck in its wishful thinking
> of saving the kingship and its old
> ally the Nepal Congress.
What were people changing? Or does the journalist refer to ethnic migration?
> People have returned the Communist
> Party of Nepal (Maoists) in the
> election. Who are we to comment
> on their choice?
Apart from the fact that the article appears to be a commentary on the Nepalese elections, surely every free society reserves to itself the right to debate, to pose questions, to introspect? One might even consider these intellectual exercises form part of the remit of an ideal journalist. But such an animal may or may not exist.
> ...., however unpalatable, the
> outcome of free and fair elections
> is final.
Can elections not be called again? Can elected governments not be overthrown? Or do these phenomena occur only on far-away worlds, quite alien to ours?
In any case, the journalist appears to have had a change of mind. Not too long ago, he ranted on first about how Narendra Modi, a sitting Chief Minister, could not possibly be voted back into power, in the Indian province of Gujarat, and later, after the voters had (inexplicably! shamefully! treacherously! and so on, I'm sure) voted him back, went on about how sad it all was, and the "ills of democracy".
One cannot have too much contempt for this hollow moral posturing.
> ...I do not understand
> former President Carter’s appeal to
> America to accept the change in Nepal.
The journalist appears to be ignorant of the US's strong aversion to communism, especially because every single communist state so far has restricted basic freedoms, of travel, expression and public demonstration, values which are fundamental to the US, and much of the West.
> It does not matter if one country
> does not like the government in another.
It does matter very much -- this is the stuff wars are made of. The journalist appears not to be aware of Herodotus, or even high-school history. Wonder how the Iraq war passed the journalist by?
> The promise to switch over to a
> republican setup gave them hope
> of change. They have supported
> the change, pinning their faith
> on the betterment of the people.
"To switch" is "to change". So a "promise" of a change is alleged to have given them "hope" of a change. They then supported the hoped-for change, placing their faith on their own betterment? I do not pretend to understand the journalist here.
> It was, however, amusing to see
> election posters showing a photo
> of Stalin along with pictures of
> Karl Marx, Lenin and Engels.
I'm sure we are all glad that the journalist was amused, though the celebration of a murderous dictator ought to be a matter of concern for all those who cherish freedom and tolerance.
> Stalin killed hundreds of thousands
> who dared to differ or speak out.
The numbers were slightly higher, weren't they? And it wasn't just those who had a difference of opinion. To quote the BBC, "His (Stalin's) regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions". (snipped from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml)
The journalist is either ignorant of the history of the erstwhile USSR, or is attempting to defend Stalin and his rule.
> Nepal is, however, an example
> which can teach the South Asian
> region a lesson if it is willing
> to learn.
Which lesson is that? To replace monarchies with republican forms of government? Democracy? All this has been done in South Asia, quite some years back too. Indeed, much of South Asia is India, which is often called "the world's largest democracy".
Or is it communism? With armed gangs roaming the land, ready to violently eliminate any opposition?
Does one actually need formal education to be a journalist, or is the ability to construct the odd sentence adequate? An essay grandiosely titled "A lesson for South Asia", written by a Kuldip Nayar appeared on a newspaper website on 18 Apr 2008. The writer is described as a "leading journalist based in Delhi".
[snipped; http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/18/op.htm#1]
> ELECTION results in Nepal should come
> as a surprise to India.
Why? Because the Nepalese electorate did not inform the Indians in advance about whom they intended to vote for? Did they inform the Bangladeshis? Or the Austrians? In any case, resentment against the monarchy has been evident for a couple of years now.
> People were changing and New Delhi
> was stuck in its wishful thinking
> of saving the kingship and its old
> ally the Nepal Congress.
What were people changing? Or does the journalist refer to ethnic migration?
> People have returned the Communist
> Party of Nepal (Maoists) in the
> election. Who are we to comment
> on their choice?
Apart from the fact that the article appears to be a commentary on the Nepalese elections, surely every free society reserves to itself the right to debate, to pose questions, to introspect? One might even consider these intellectual exercises form part of the remit of an ideal journalist. But such an animal may or may not exist.
> ...., however unpalatable, the
> outcome of free and fair elections
> is final.
Can elections not be called again? Can elected governments not be overthrown? Or do these phenomena occur only on far-away worlds, quite alien to ours?
In any case, the journalist appears to have had a change of mind. Not too long ago, he ranted on first about how Narendra Modi, a sitting Chief Minister, could not possibly be voted back into power, in the Indian province of Gujarat, and later, after the voters had (inexplicably! shamefully! treacherously! and so on, I'm sure) voted him back, went on about how sad it all was, and the "ills of democracy".
One cannot have too much contempt for this hollow moral posturing.
> ...I do not understand
> former President Carter’s appeal to
> America to accept the change in Nepal.
The journalist appears to be ignorant of the US's strong aversion to communism, especially because every single communist state so far has restricted basic freedoms, of travel, expression and public demonstration, values which are fundamental to the US, and much of the West.
> It does not matter if one country
> does not like the government in another.
It does matter very much -- this is the stuff wars are made of. The journalist appears not to be aware of Herodotus, or even high-school history. Wonder how the Iraq war passed the journalist by?
> The promise to switch over to a
> republican setup gave them hope
> of change. They have supported
> the change, pinning their faith
> on the betterment of the people.
"To switch" is "to change". So a "promise" of a change is alleged to have given them "hope" of a change. They then supported the hoped-for change, placing their faith on their own betterment? I do not pretend to understand the journalist here.
> It was, however, amusing to see
> election posters showing a photo
> of Stalin along with pictures of
> Karl Marx, Lenin and Engels.
I'm sure we are all glad that the journalist was amused, though the celebration of a murderous dictator ought to be a matter of concern for all those who cherish freedom and tolerance.
> Stalin killed hundreds of thousands
> who dared to differ or speak out.
The numbers were slightly higher, weren't they? And it wasn't just those who had a difference of opinion. To quote the BBC, "His (Stalin's) regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions". (snipped from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stalin_joseph.shtml)
The journalist is either ignorant of the history of the erstwhile USSR, or is attempting to defend Stalin and his rule.
> Nepal is, however, an example
> which can teach the South Asian
> region a lesson if it is willing
> to learn.
Which lesson is that? To replace monarchies with republican forms of government? Democracy? All this has been done in South Asia, quite some years back too. Indeed, much of South Asia is India, which is often called "the world's largest democracy".
Or is it communism? With armed gangs roaming the land, ready to violently eliminate any opposition?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Threat to taste
The article "Threat to Olympic Flame" by a Gwynne Dyer gives one an interesting insight into the workings of a journalist's mind.
[snipped; URL http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/11/op.htm#4]
> His intention was to mock this
> pathetic neo-pagan ceremony that....
Wonder if being neo-pagan automatically makes one pathetic? What about just pagan? The journalist obviously believes in the One True God and the millions of "primitive" peoples whose souls still need to be saved. Unfortunately, pagans and heathens thrive in countries like India, China and Nepal. Or is this another not-too-subtle attack on China, and on cultural diversity.
> ..the revived Games got along without
> an international relay race just fine
> for forty years before the Berlin
> Olympics of 1936 -- but if there was
> one thing the Nazis did well, it was propaganda.
The world got along without the Games just fine for much more than forty years. This argument can be used to put any change in a derogatory light.
Ah, the Nazis. Anything the Nazis liked is bad, and anything they despised must deserve our sympathy. Surely this argument may not be admitted in an adult forum?
> Leni Reifenstahl even made a
> documentary film..
The name is spelt Riefenstahl, not Reifenstahl. Or is this the journalist's revenge at having Gwynne spelt incorrectly by others?
> This year’s Olympic Games were
> supposed to be Communist China’s
> coming-out-party, and the route
> is even more ambitious:.....
This is artless arrogance, given that China is not exactly a new civilization, and communist China is a reasonably-seriously-taken entity in world politics, nuclear state, world's largest army, one of the fastest growing economies of history, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and all that sort of thing.
> As England is the spiritual homeland
> of irony, so is Australia the world
> capital of mockery,.....
This reveals the journalist's narrow world-view. Doubtless similar titles exist (in the journalist's mind) for New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and the USA. That about covers the English-speaking world. There are a couple of other peoples who do not speak English, and yet can claim to be almost civilized. China, for example.
> After the propaganda triumphs for
> the “Free Tibet” movement in London..
The dictionary defines propaganda as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature". So the journalist appears to be against the Tibetans, Nazis and the Chinese. Or for all three of them. A little confusing.
> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has already
> said that the blue-track-suited
> Chinese thugs....
> The “thug” description is courtesy
> of Sebastian Coe....who was overheard
> on the phone...
This is quite a way to insult someone without taking responsibilty for the libel. Has Mr. Rudd accused the Chinese of being thugs? Or is it Mr. Coe who refers to them as thugs? Can an "overheard" (eavesdropped?) phone conversation be legitimately taken as one's stated views on a subject? In any case, even if the chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games does believe that the Chinese are thugs, surely that is his personal opinion, and not to be exhibited as objective truth, as our worthy journalist has chosen to do: the inverted commas around the word thug come
only in the second instance.
> It has become a nightmare for the poor,
> doomed Chinese bureaucrats who set this
> thing up.....
Ah, the journalist calls for sympathy for the Chinese! Or is this perhaps an example of the irony referred to earlier. Straight from the spiritual homeland, even.
Also, one admires the use of the word "bureaucrat", laden with associations far beyond the literal. Is the President of the USA a bureaucrat? The Permanent Secretary of the Treasury? Any official in an office? Or is this appelation only reserved for those in the East?
> So far, though, I haven’t been hearing
> much criticism.
Have you been listening to Chinese radio? Or is an opinion meaningful only if articulated in English?
> Never mind the silly torch,...
The silly torch is a symbol, like the silly flags and silly seals of all the silly people around the world who still believe in symbols.
> ..the actual Olympics Games of today.
> (An international athletics
> competition on the bottom...
Olympic Games, not Olympics Games.
And there is more to the Olympic Games than athletics. Like cycling, fencing and shooting. Or is it too much to expect a journalist to do some elementary research before broadcasting her valuable insights to the rest of us.
> What’s actually colliding here are
> two irreconcilable views of the world.
Try replacing "What's" with "What are", as there is more than one view that allegedly collides.
The article "Threat to Olympic Flame" by a Gwynne Dyer gives one an interesting insight into the workings of a journalist's mind.
[snipped; URL http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/11/op.htm#4]
> His intention was to mock this
> pathetic neo-pagan ceremony that....
Wonder if being neo-pagan automatically makes one pathetic? What about just pagan? The journalist obviously believes in the One True God and the millions of "primitive" peoples whose souls still need to be saved. Unfortunately, pagans and heathens thrive in countries like India, China and Nepal. Or is this another not-too-subtle attack on China, and on cultural diversity.
> ..the revived Games got along without
> an international relay race just fine
> for forty years before the Berlin
> Olympics of 1936 -- but if there was
> one thing the Nazis did well, it was propaganda.
The world got along without the Games just fine for much more than forty years. This argument can be used to put any change in a derogatory light.
Ah, the Nazis. Anything the Nazis liked is bad, and anything they despised must deserve our sympathy. Surely this argument may not be admitted in an adult forum?
> Leni Reifenstahl even made a
> documentary film..
The name is spelt Riefenstahl, not Reifenstahl. Or is this the journalist's revenge at having Gwynne spelt incorrectly by others?
> This year’s Olympic Games were
> supposed to be Communist China’s
> coming-out-party, and the route
> is even more ambitious:.....
This is artless arrogance, given that China is not exactly a new civilization, and communist China is a reasonably-seriously-taken entity in world politics, nuclear state, world's largest army, one of the fastest growing economies of history, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and all that sort of thing.
> As England is the spiritual homeland
> of irony, so is Australia the world
> capital of mockery,.....
This reveals the journalist's narrow world-view. Doubtless similar titles exist (in the journalist's mind) for New Zealand, Ireland, Canada and the USA. That about covers the English-speaking world. There are a couple of other peoples who do not speak English, and yet can claim to be almost civilized. China, for example.
> After the propaganda triumphs for
> the “Free Tibet” movement in London..
The dictionary defines propaganda as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature". So the journalist appears to be against the Tibetans, Nazis and the Chinese. Or for all three of them. A little confusing.
> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has already
> said that the blue-track-suited
> Chinese thugs....
> The “thug” description is courtesy
> of Sebastian Coe....who was overheard
> on the phone...
This is quite a way to insult someone without taking responsibilty for the libel. Has Mr. Rudd accused the Chinese of being thugs? Or is it Mr. Coe who refers to them as thugs? Can an "overheard" (eavesdropped?) phone conversation be legitimately taken as one's stated views on a subject? In any case, even if the chairman of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games does believe that the Chinese are thugs, surely that is his personal opinion, and not to be exhibited as objective truth, as our worthy journalist has chosen to do: the inverted commas around the word thug come
only in the second instance.
> It has become a nightmare for the poor,
> doomed Chinese bureaucrats who set this
> thing up.....
Ah, the journalist calls for sympathy for the Chinese! Or is this perhaps an example of the irony referred to earlier. Straight from the spiritual homeland, even.
Also, one admires the use of the word "bureaucrat", laden with associations far beyond the literal. Is the President of the USA a bureaucrat? The Permanent Secretary of the Treasury? Any official in an office? Or is this appelation only reserved for those in the East?
> So far, though, I haven’t been hearing
> much criticism.
Have you been listening to Chinese radio? Or is an opinion meaningful only if articulated in English?
> Never mind the silly torch,...
The silly torch is a symbol, like the silly flags and silly seals of all the silly people around the world who still believe in symbols.
> ..the actual Olympics Games of today.
> (An international athletics
> competition on the bottom...
Olympic Games, not Olympics Games.
And there is more to the Olympic Games than athletics. Like cycling, fencing and shooting. Or is it too much to expect a journalist to do some elementary research before broadcasting her valuable insights to the rest of us.
> What’s actually colliding here are
> two irreconcilable views of the world.
Try replacing "What's" with "What are", as there is more than one view that allegedly collides.
Monday, March 24, 2008
So what did he really say?
This article by a journalist (Fatima Bhutto; incidentally a relative of the assassinated ex-PM of Pakistan) underlines the perils of picking up quotes from anthologies, as opposed to coming by them within the context of the main work. (titled 'And then they came for me')
[URL: http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_detail.asp?id=47306]
> Martin Niemoeller, a German theologian and anti-war
> activist, was made famous by a poem he wrote during
> the Nazi takeover of Europe: "First they came for
> the socialists, and I didn't speak up, because I
> wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade
> unionists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a
> trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
> didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they
> came for me, and there was no one left to speak up
> for me".
There are a couple of issues here.
Firstly, there is no such poem, written by Niemöller (or anyone else).
Here's what the Martin Niemöller Foundation has to say about it (text in German; Niemöller himself refutes the quote): http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a46_print
And here's another article on it, written in English, by a professor of German history: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm
Incidentally, what must strike any thinking person, is the fact that it is evidently significant to (other) thinking persons:
a) which communities, ethnic groups or political movements he spoke of about when first Niemöller did (in the famous, "Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Kommunist. usw.", quote) .
b) the order in which he listed them.
c) whether he actually said or wrote those exact words, and when he did so.
Granted that what is of importance (to quite an extent) is the idea, not who stated it, or when, in which language, or in which context, or whether it was supposed to be a joke etc. etc.; that notwithstanding, a journalist must remain true to as much of the truth as possible.
Secondly, in any case, this is a curious train of thought. "Let us defend the Jews/Communists/Trade Unionists et al, for otherwise, we will be killed."
This sort of neighbourly love is especially contemptible. As Nietzsche might say, "Dergleichen kann man nicht genug verachten.". (One cannot have too much contempt for this sort of thing.)
The journalist is not the only one who can quote a German theologian.
This article by a journalist (Fatima Bhutto; incidentally a relative of the assassinated ex-PM of Pakistan) underlines the perils of picking up quotes from anthologies, as opposed to coming by them within the context of the main work. (titled 'And then they came for me')
> Martin Niemoeller, a German theologian and anti-war
> activist, was made famous by a poem he wrote during
> the Nazi takeover of Europe: "First they came for
> the socialists, and I didn't speak up, because I
> wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade
> unionists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a
> trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
> didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they
> came for me, and there was no one left to speak up
> for me".
There are a couple of issues here.
Firstly, there is no such poem, written by Niemöller (or anyone else).
Here's what the Martin Niemöller Foundation has to say about it (text in German; Niemöller himself refutes the quote): http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a46_print
And here's another article on it, written in English, by a professor of German history: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm
Incidentally, what must strike any thinking person, is the fact that it is evidently significant to (other) thinking persons:
a) which communities, ethnic groups or political movements he spoke of about when first Niemöller did (in the famous, "Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Kommunist. usw.", quote) .
b) the order in which he listed them.
c) whether he actually said or wrote those exact words, and when he did so.
Granted that what is of importance (to quite an extent) is the idea, not who stated it, or when, in which language, or in which context, or whether it was supposed to be a joke etc. etc.; that notwithstanding, a journalist must remain true to as much of the truth as possible.
Secondly, in any case, this is a curious train of thought. "Let us defend the Jews/Communists/Trade Unionists et al, for otherwise, we will be killed."
This sort of neighbourly love is especially contemptible. As Nietzsche might say, "Dergleichen kann man nicht genug verachten.". (One cannot have too much contempt for this sort of thing.)
The journalist is not the only one who can quote a German theologian.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The press on the press
A journalist in an article titled "Whither the Indian press?" (URL: http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/15/op.htm#1) bemoans the loss of a fellow journalist's employment.
> ....who owned the Deccan Chronicle, a money-spinning
> publication centred in the south Indian city of Hyderabad.
Wonder what "money-spinning" means? That it generates revenue? But that is also the case of other newspapers referred to in the article, like the Times of India, Hindustan Times and even, the Asian Age. This juvenile attempt at bad-mouthing the opponent should be spotted by any fair thinker.
> Was Reddy told that the Congress Party would support him
> for a Rajya Sabha seat, provided he got rid of Akbar?
> That is the speculation and it will be confirmed if
> such a scenario actually comes to pass.
No, it will not. And here our journalist reveals a complete and mind-boggling lack of logical thinking. Or is this a deliberate attempt at misleading the reader? It is a valid speculation, certainly. However, if the Congress Party does support Mr. Reddy, it may be because they believe him the right man for the job, or because he gives really good dinners, or plays the tabla with a virtuosity that would bring every khadi-wearer to tears or indeed deserves a quid pro quo for services rendered. But there is no reason to accord, on the basis of the information shared by the journalist, one of these reasons supremacy over another, as the journalist has unashamedly tried to do.
> Indian newspapers have become brands and products
>, not agents of change and enlightenment.
> This trivialisation of what is one of the
> main pillars of democracy should disturb all
> thinking Indians.
And if it does not, does it prove that the undisturbed one is not a thinking Indian? A newspaper is not end-in-itself, and this is what the journalist seems unable to grasp. Neither, and this will probably further shock the journalist, is democracy. What about television, or the Internet, or radio, or magazines - are newspapers somehow more useful to democracy than these?
And, in any case, I fail to see why a foreign-language publication should pretend to be the main pillar of Indian democracy.
The journalist may bewail the loss of the job (though the fired one, as mentioned in the article, was the owner of a significant share of a newspaper) of an ex-colleague of his father's (also mentioned in the article), but surely he will be glad that the law has been upheld, that the owner of a publication has had the right to exercise his prerogative. Or will he defend every dismissal? Or only that of journalists? Or those of journalists who were acquainted with his father?
A journalist in an article titled "Whither the Indian press?" (URL: http://www.dawn.com/2008/03/15/op.htm#1) bemoans the loss of a fellow journalist's employment.
> ....who owned the Deccan Chronicle, a money-spinning
> publication centred in the south Indian city of Hyderabad.
Wonder what "money-spinning" means? That it generates revenue? But that is also the case of other newspapers referred to in the article, like the Times of India, Hindustan Times and even, the Asian Age. This juvenile attempt at bad-mouthing the opponent should be spotted by any fair thinker.
> Was Reddy told that the Congress Party would support him
> for a Rajya Sabha seat, provided he got rid of Akbar?
> That is the speculation and it will be confirmed if
> such a scenario actually comes to pass.
No, it will not. And here our journalist reveals a complete and mind-boggling lack of logical thinking. Or is this a deliberate attempt at misleading the reader? It is a valid speculation, certainly. However, if the Congress Party does support Mr. Reddy, it may be because they believe him the right man for the job, or because he gives really good dinners, or plays the tabla with a virtuosity that would bring every khadi-wearer to tears or indeed deserves a quid pro quo for services rendered. But there is no reason to accord, on the basis of the information shared by the journalist, one of these reasons supremacy over another, as the journalist has unashamedly tried to do.
> Indian newspapers have become brands and products
>, not agents of change and enlightenment.
> This trivialisation of what is one of the
> main pillars of democracy should disturb all
> thinking Indians.
And if it does not, does it prove that the undisturbed one is not a thinking Indian? A newspaper is not end-in-itself, and this is what the journalist seems unable to grasp. Neither, and this will probably further shock the journalist, is democracy. What about television, or the Internet, or radio, or magazines - are newspapers somehow more useful to democracy than these?
And, in any case, I fail to see why a foreign-language publication should pretend to be the main pillar of Indian democracy.
The journalist may bewail the loss of the job (though the fired one, as mentioned in the article, was the owner of a significant share of a newspaper) of an ex-colleague of his father's (also mentioned in the article), but surely he will be glad that the law has been upheld, that the owner of a publication has had the right to exercise his prerogative. Or will he defend every dismissal? Or only that of journalists? Or those of journalists who were acquainted with his father?
Friday, February 29, 2008
On failure
Some comments on an article titled "State of Indian economy" by a Kuldip Nayar, published in the newspaper Dawn on 29 February 2008.
[snipped from http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/29/op.htm]
> Two reports emanating from official circles
> say that nearly 70 per cent of people live
> in dire, dismal conditions.
Both dire and dismal? Perhaps the epithets are divided between the two reports. Wonder what "official circles" refers to? Wonder who creates these reports, and with what brief?
> The latest national sample survey says
> that the people in the countryside live
> on a daily earning of Rs8.00-Rs12.00.
What is a "national sample survey"? Who are "people in the countryside"? Does "earning" mean that everyone is employed? Does the sample only includes adults, or one per household?
> This is apart from the suicide that
> farmers are committing all over India,
> including rich Maharashtra and Punjab.
> The figure is one every half an hour.
> (In 2006, the number of suicides was 7,006).
Ah, a lesson in geography - Maharashtra and Punjab are included in India. But not in the English language, for more than one death is perpetrated, evidently, and hence "suicides" in place of "suicide".
Does 7,006 represent the total number of suicides in India, in 2006? Or is it only the number of farmers who killed themselves? Is a farmer anyone who works in the agricultural sector, or someone who actually works on a farm? And is this figure strictly related to farmers who kill themselves because of poverty? Who looks into the mind of a dead person and identifies the driving force? Who presumes to do this, even in the case of a living person?
> The humiliation of not paying the debt is too much for a respectable person to face.
This is a moral opinion, and a sordid one at that. So what does it imply? That the suicides were all "respectable" persons? Is this a defence of suicide? I cannot conceive of poets writing ballads to celebrate the honourable farmer who killed himself because he couldn't repay a bank loan. But the writer of the article is perhaps even now doing the needful.
> If Sharad Pawar is the food minister, sordid deals cannot lag behind.
This appears to be libel. If the journalist actually has proof of dodgy dealings, perhaps duty dictates that he share this with our judiciary. Or is journalism without end, except for paying restaurant bills or eulogizing farmers who kill themselves?
> The Central Vigilance Commission is looking
> into the import of 2,300,000 tons of wheat at
> a far higher cost than was necessitated. After
> testing the quality of wheat, it has been
> found to everyone’s horror that the imported
> wheat failed all quality tests.
Almost by definition, the notion of a quality test suggests that is a device to detect, well, poor quality. One assumes that 2.3 million tons of wheat are not imported, obligations of the supplier brought to an end, and only then quality checks initiated.
Interesting that "everyone" was "horrified". Wonder if they were similarly shocked with the suicide-per-30-minutes figure.
> Influenced by public opinion, the government
> has introduced the National Rural Employment
> Guarantee Act to give work or dole to a villager
> a minimum of 100 days of work in a year.
Always a good thing to know that a democratically elected government is influenced by public opinion.
The sentence, however, is dubiously constructed, with perhaps a preposition or more called for. Also, "...in an year" and not "...in a year".
> The scheme has already been perforated by corruption.
That is tragic. At least, the guilt of the corrupt has been proven in a court of law, and justice done. What? It has not? Do you suggest that there is no proof to back the journalist's accusation?
> However, the rural employment scheme is said to have awakened people to their needs.
Said by whom? The people? The designers of the scheme? The journalist's next-door neighbour?
"Awakened to their needs"? This implies that they were ignorant of what they needed, right? I thought the journalist's central concern in this article was the poverty of the people? Now that the government statistics and schemes are in place, the people finally know that they are poor.
> They have all the money to buy goodies.
> But this class of consumers is still
> crazy about phoran (foreign) goods.
These are the words of a "leading journalist"? The trailing ones probably lack the writing skills of five year old children.
> What hurts one the most is that the rich
> do not even feel embarrassed in flaunting
> their wealth.
This is what hurts the most? The corruption in high places, the suicides of respectable farmers don't quite make the mark, apparently. What constitutes "flaunting"? Should India not have any artistic and cultural expression, like plays, movies, parties, weddings, dances, grand buildings, celebrations which involve wasted food etc. because there are still citizens who are poor? (for such expression is quite unnecessary for survival of the human, treated as animal, and this is what the journalist seems to view the species as)
> But if in the process the country loses its soul
> or allows disparities to yawn, the result is nowhere
> near the dream of freedom fighters.
Ah, the "soul" of the country? What is it? The wearing of khadi? Who shall decide what is the soul of India? Is it democracy? Thought that was the soul of Athens. Or is it the suppression of ancient Indian customs? The speaking of English?
The "dream of freedom fighters"? What do we have to do with their dreams? Is the entire history of the sub-continent to be repudiated in favour of one single, rather small, part of the struggle against the British Empire? What were these freedom fighters dreaming of? The creation of Arabian-religious states on Indian soil? Getting a lawyer's education in England? What of our dreams?
> Frankly speaking, in a poorly developed country,
> the capitalist methods offer no chance.
Well, one is glad that the journalist finally speaks frankly. Perhaps it is the frankness that is responsible for the redundant article, before "capitalist". Fair enough, maybe the head of the Indian government really should take economics lessons. Maybe even get a degree in it. No, wait, he does have a First from Cambridge, in Economics, and a PhD in the same field from Oxford.
> We have again failed.
Ah, surely things are not all bad. At least our suicide statistics, and the calibre of our journalism, are quite outstanding.
Some comments on an article titled "State of Indian economy" by a Kuldip Nayar, published in the newspaper Dawn on 29 February 2008.
[snipped from http://www.dawn.com/2008/02/29/op.htm]
> Two reports emanating from official circles
> say that nearly 70 per cent of people live
> in dire, dismal conditions.
Both dire and dismal? Perhaps the epithets are divided between the two reports. Wonder what "official circles" refers to? Wonder who creates these reports, and with what brief?
> The latest national sample survey says
> that the people in the countryside live
> on a daily earning of Rs8.00-Rs12.00.
What is a "national sample survey"? Who are "people in the countryside"? Does "earning" mean that everyone is employed? Does the sample only includes adults, or one per household?
> This is apart from the suicide that
> farmers are committing all over India,
> including rich Maharashtra and Punjab.
> The figure is one every half an hour.
> (In 2006, the number of suicides was 7,006).
Ah, a lesson in geography - Maharashtra and Punjab are included in India. But not in the English language, for more than one death is perpetrated, evidently, and hence "suicides" in place of "suicide".
Does 7,006 represent the total number of suicides in India, in 2006? Or is it only the number of farmers who killed themselves? Is a farmer anyone who works in the agricultural sector, or someone who actually works on a farm? And is this figure strictly related to farmers who kill themselves because of poverty? Who looks into the mind of a dead person and identifies the driving force? Who presumes to do this, even in the case of a living person?
> The humiliation of not paying the debt is too much for a respectable person to face.
This is a moral opinion, and a sordid one at that. So what does it imply? That the suicides were all "respectable" persons? Is this a defence of suicide? I cannot conceive of poets writing ballads to celebrate the honourable farmer who killed himself because he couldn't repay a bank loan. But the writer of the article is perhaps even now doing the needful.
> If Sharad Pawar is the food minister, sordid deals cannot lag behind.
This appears to be libel. If the journalist actually has proof of dodgy dealings, perhaps duty dictates that he share this with our judiciary. Or is journalism without end, except for paying restaurant bills or eulogizing farmers who kill themselves?
> The Central Vigilance Commission is looking
> into the import of 2,300,000 tons of wheat at
> a far higher cost than was necessitated. After
> testing the quality of wheat, it has been
> found to everyone’s horror that the imported
> wheat failed all quality tests.
Almost by definition, the notion of a quality test suggests that is a device to detect, well, poor quality. One assumes that 2.3 million tons of wheat are not imported, obligations of the supplier brought to an end, and only then quality checks initiated.
Interesting that "everyone" was "horrified". Wonder if they were similarly shocked with the suicide-per-30-minutes figure.
> Influenced by public opinion, the government
> has introduced the National Rural Employment
> Guarantee Act to give work or dole to a villager
> a minimum of 100 days of work in a year.
Always a good thing to know that a democratically elected government is influenced by public opinion.
The sentence, however, is dubiously constructed, with perhaps a preposition or more called for. Also, "...in an year" and not "...in a year".
> The scheme has already been perforated by corruption.
That is tragic. At least, the guilt of the corrupt has been proven in a court of law, and justice done. What? It has not? Do you suggest that there is no proof to back the journalist's accusation?
> However, the rural employment scheme is said to have awakened people to their needs.
Said by whom? The people? The designers of the scheme? The journalist's next-door neighbour?
"Awakened to their needs"? This implies that they were ignorant of what they needed, right? I thought the journalist's central concern in this article was the poverty of the people? Now that the government statistics and schemes are in place, the people finally know that they are poor.
> They have all the money to buy goodies.
> But this class of consumers is still
> crazy about phoran (foreign) goods.
These are the words of a "leading journalist"? The trailing ones probably lack the writing skills of five year old children.
> What hurts one the most is that the rich
> do not even feel embarrassed in flaunting
> their wealth.
This is what hurts the most? The corruption in high places, the suicides of respectable farmers don't quite make the mark, apparently. What constitutes "flaunting"? Should India not have any artistic and cultural expression, like plays, movies, parties, weddings, dances, grand buildings, celebrations which involve wasted food etc. because there are still citizens who are poor? (for such expression is quite unnecessary for survival of the human, treated as animal, and this is what the journalist seems to view the species as)
> But if in the process the country loses its soul
> or allows disparities to yawn, the result is nowhere
> near the dream of freedom fighters.
Ah, the "soul" of the country? What is it? The wearing of khadi? Who shall decide what is the soul of India? Is it democracy? Thought that was the soul of Athens. Or is it the suppression of ancient Indian customs? The speaking of English?
The "dream of freedom fighters"? What do we have to do with their dreams? Is the entire history of the sub-continent to be repudiated in favour of one single, rather small, part of the struggle against the British Empire? What were these freedom fighters dreaming of? The creation of Arabian-religious states on Indian soil? Getting a lawyer's education in England? What of our dreams?
> Frankly speaking, in a poorly developed country,
> the capitalist methods offer no chance.
Well, one is glad that the journalist finally speaks frankly. Perhaps it is the frankness that is responsible for the redundant article, before "capitalist". Fair enough, maybe the head of the Indian government really should take economics lessons. Maybe even get a degree in it. No, wait, he does have a First from Cambridge, in Economics, and a PhD in the same field from Oxford.
> We have again failed.
Ah, surely things are not all bad. At least our suicide statistics, and the calibre of our journalism, are quite outstanding.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Identifying the interviewed
This article on the BBC news website, published on 17 Feb 08, is to be pondered.
Snipped (URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7249644.stm)
> "His policies are not right for the country," said one
> man, who gave his name as Nasir.
Does that imply that the journalist suspects that the gentleman's name might not, after all, be Nasir?
Two sentences later, we find:
> Shafi, another new PPP supporter, agreed.
Notice that this is simply "Shafi", and not "a man who said that his name was Shafi". What was different in this case? Did the journalist demand to look at his passport? Subject him to a DNA test?
And now on to basic sentence construction and style issues.
> The new army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani,..., has
> ordered his soldiers to stay out of politics and
> give up lucrative jobs in the civilian bureaucracy.
This implies that jobs that are not lucrative may well continue to be done by soldiers. Or is this mere laziness on the journalist's part?
> But there is no avoiding the fact that,
> this year, retired General Musharraf is
> not a name that will win his party many votes.
Mr. Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, recently retired from the army. Hence, the appropriate address is "..the retired general, Musharraf.." and not "..retired General Musharraf..". General Musharraf, whilst retired from the army, is not quite retired from a full-time job (being the President of Pakistan must be considered one such).
And in any case, "retired General Musharraf" is not a name. The sentence should correctly read "..Musharraf's is not a name..".
The images associated with the article are consistent with what seems to be the BBC's credo that pictures are always a good idea, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with the article. Of course, even a picture of a baby elephant can be argued to have something do with a political assassination in Israel, on the grounds that the victim and the photographed are both mammals. Here the second picture (undated), credited to AP, is of an unidentified male gentleman, dressed in white, wearing a bright turban, in the process of stacking what appear to be white objects made of plastic. The caption reads "President Musharraf has said Monday's vote will be free and fair". How the picture is related to the caption or anything else in the feature is a mystery.
> Pakistan has huge problems with militancy and
> inequality, and for years the west has backed
> Pervez Musharraf as the man to deal with them.
The west of what? One presumes the journalist means "..the West.." and not "..the west..". Surely a basic grounding in the use of the language is not too much to expect from a journalist?
> "..could be his last day," argued Zaffar Abbas,
> the Islamabad editor of Dawn newspaper.
Surely "Dawn" is not a brand of detergent. Would not "..of the newspaper Dawn" or "..of Dawn, a newspaper" be more appropriate. Compare it to "..of The Guardian newspaper", or "..of Germany country" etc..
This article on the BBC news website, published on 17 Feb 08, is to be pondered.
Snipped (URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7249644.stm)
> "His policies are not right for the country," said one
> man, who gave his name as Nasir.
Does that imply that the journalist suspects that the gentleman's name might not, after all, be Nasir?
Two sentences later, we find:
> Shafi, another new PPP supporter, agreed.
Notice that this is simply "Shafi", and not "a man who said that his name was Shafi". What was different in this case? Did the journalist demand to look at his passport? Subject him to a DNA test?
And now on to basic sentence construction and style issues.
> The new army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani,..., has
> ordered his soldiers to stay out of politics and
> give up lucrative jobs in the civilian bureaucracy.
This implies that jobs that are not lucrative may well continue to be done by soldiers. Or is this mere laziness on the journalist's part?
> But there is no avoiding the fact that,
> this year, retired General Musharraf is
> not a name that will win his party many votes.
Mr. Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, recently retired from the army. Hence, the appropriate address is "..the retired general, Musharraf.." and not "..retired General Musharraf..". General Musharraf, whilst retired from the army, is not quite retired from a full-time job (being the President of Pakistan must be considered one such).
And in any case, "retired General Musharraf" is not a name. The sentence should correctly read "..Musharraf's is not a name..".
The images associated with the article are consistent with what seems to be the BBC's credo that pictures are always a good idea, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with the article. Of course, even a picture of a baby elephant can be argued to have something do with a political assassination in Israel, on the grounds that the victim and the photographed are both mammals. Here the second picture (undated), credited to AP, is of an unidentified male gentleman, dressed in white, wearing a bright turban, in the process of stacking what appear to be white objects made of plastic. The caption reads "President Musharraf has said Monday's vote will be free and fair". How the picture is related to the caption or anything else in the feature is a mystery.
> Pakistan has huge problems with militancy and
> inequality, and for years the west has backed
> Pervez Musharraf as the man to deal with them.
The west of what? One presumes the journalist means "..the West.." and not "..the west..". Surely a basic grounding in the use of the language is not too much to expect from a journalist?
> "..could be his last day," argued Zaffar Abbas,
> the Islamabad editor of Dawn newspaper.
Surely "Dawn" is not a brand of detergent. Would not "..of the newspaper Dawn" or "..of Dawn, a newspaper" be more appropriate. Compare it to "..of The Guardian newspaper", or "..of Germany country" etc..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)