As the world waits in vain for George Bush to get real (and get a life), Iraq continues in a downward spiral. The Allied Forces which is an impressive term for a motley crew of Americans and their faithful sidekicks, the British, have all but thrown up their hands. Even the Iranians are backing the Iraqis now - that's what Bush has accomplished - getting the 2 nations that at one time were at each other's throats for 8 years, on the same side. It's just about the only thing he can be proud of right now. Saddam Hussein has been "smoked out", hauled to court, tried, and convicted but no WMDs have been found; commission after commission (and finally the CIA itself) has concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that Osama and Saddam are or ever were in cahoots and the purpose of the now almost 4-year-old invasion still remains murky as ever. Did they go over all the way just to dethrone Saddam? What business is it of theirs? If that's "bringing democracy" let's all get together, read Georgie his Miranda, haul him into a criminal court, and get him convicted - God knows there are enough charges to put him away for 2 lifetimes.
Osama is alive and well and I'm sure very amused by Bush's antics. He held the Superpower by it's scruff and shook it like a rag doll almost 6 years ago and it's still reeling like it just got off a high-speed rollercoaster. No one sympathized with Osama then; in fact, the Americans had the world's sympathy but they lost it pretty quickly when they turned around and simply started shooting in the dark. Now, just about anyone can say "boo" and America will jump. Which is exactly what North Korea and Iran are doing - only this "boo" is more deadly, and America has neither the strength nor the support to do anything about it - because of Iraq. Remember the boy who cried wolf? Well...
It's a terribly sad decline that need not have been. Not too long ago, America did represent the things that she laid claim to - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She was a proud nation - rich but generous with her money, selling dreams to the rest of the world, mighty but welcoming, unopposed but democratic, and well respected. People flocked to America for the good life and she closed her eyes and opened her arms wide. Because America respected your intellect regardless of which part of the world you came from, she led the world at all negotiating tables - trade, politics, science, sport - it was the Star Spangled banner all the way. (Of course, Hollywood helped immensely with the hype and hooplah.) With the demise of the USSR, the world indulged America to the hilt. America indulged her children and became a spoilt brat.
Then, cable TV came home. Everyone could see America, warts and all, everyday in our living rooms and the sheen wore off. When trade barriers began to break down in Thomas Friedman's increasingly "Flat World" and as more nations began embracing some form of capitalism, we saw the other side of America - the selfish big bully, the rogue elephant in our backyard. But because she gave generously, we grudgingly forgave whatever she took in return.
And then George Bush ascended the throne. Bush is a marvel. It would be interesting to open his skull and peer inside - just to check, you never know. Somebody once called him "the longest serving President to have never won an election." From the start, he was a disaster. Now, he's toxic. His backdoor entry (quite literally - he abandonned the traditional walk to the podium for the presidential swearing in and sped past a barrage of eggs and a gusto rendition of "Hail to the Thief" and sheepishly took his oath) - had already assured him a place in the history books, but he wasn't about to settle for such an unimpressive footnote. Bush was determined for the world to sit up and take note and boy, oh boy, did we! His confidence is mind boggling - surely, he must inspire millions around the globe to dream big. Most of his counterparts who visit or host him, wear a bemused, perplexed look - you never know what the guy is going to do or say next. He's ill informed and quite proud of his ignorance, very often wearing it like a badge of honour. He has a history of ruining everything he touched much before his entry into politics (read Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911"). Almost every business venture he embarked on became a misdaventure and all of them tanked.
Riding in on papa's coatails, little Bush has indeed come far - it's a piece of good luck that he can still hardly believe. For a man who ducked the draft, his readiness to engage the enemy is amazing. Long after his "bring 'em on" rhetoric rebounded and started resounding in his ears, Bush continues to doggedly insist that he's "winning the war on terror" - What war is he talking about? Where is the enemy? Does he even know WHO the enemy is anymore? What has he accomplished in his 6 years of presidency except a vertical division of the world where everyone hates everyone else and everyone else hates America and America hates everyone else? Is that a great legacy to leave behind as the leader of a Superpower? Even that epithet now evokes giggles.
As the world looks on in "shock and awe," the President blunders on gamely. He trots from region to region in right earnest, signing deals, shaking hands, posing for photos, tripping on stairs, smiling, waving, making speeches, and generally making a huge nuisance of himself (as his hosts dead pan bravely barely holding it in) and providing gainful employment to millions of caricature artists the world over.
Never has America commanded such little respect and invited such universal wrath like it does today. In what should surely go down as America's most embarassing moment, Kofi Annan reprimanded the nation's arrogance and blatant disregard for the UN's voice in his farewell speech. Increasingly, America has taken upon itself the role of the UN. At the six-party talks to disuade North Korea from going nuclear (has anyone noticed it's a little too late?) that dissolved into disarray recently at Beijing, the US led an unlikely group: Russia, China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and of course Uncle Sam. It was of course a complete waste of time but you can't help marvel at America - look at that group again. Japan and China hate each other; North and South Korea hate each other; the Russians hate everybody, and everybody hates America and there they are sitting and talking! South Korea and Japan are shivering at the prospect of a nuclear weapon in the hands of Kim Jong-Il and rightfully so - Jong-Il is a mad hatter and wears his madness merrily on his sleeve, but today America has reduced both itself and the UN to a bleating sheep that no one pays attention to.
Bush, of course, is looking for one last war to go out guns blazing. His choices are Iran and North Korea. Ahmadinejad has made it very plain what he thinks of Bush. The UN approved nuclear technology sanctions against Iran 2 days ago; the sanction forbids any country from trading in civil nuclear material or technology with Iran and isolates Iran completely, but it remains to be seen if that will break Iran's backbone; highly unlikely. The Security Council also tried to bring in a travel ban against Iran which (surprise surprise) Russia didn't allow. (Russia's foreign policy has always been pretty simple: "My enemy's enemy is my friend"). Ahmadinejad's reply was characteristic: Go to hell. The next day, one of his ministers was in the media, telling everyone who cared to listen that Iran will redouble its efforts at uranium enrichment.
If America wants to be taken seriously, the Americans should first disarm themselves. Then, they should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Next, they should get out of the Israel-Palestine conflict; America will never be able to understand or solve West Asia's problems, at least, most certainly not with George Bush as the President; and lastly, America should gag and tie her President and keep him at home. The rest of us can take care of ourselves very well, thank you very much.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
It's the economy, stupid
Fending off bullets from every quarter, the beleaguered US President looks set to push the India-US nuke deal through both Houses. The nuclear deal hasn’t gone down well with either the Indian public or the US. For starters, most of us really don’t know what the fine print reads. In our own media, we have different news channels and different newspapers telling us different things – what we think depends on who we watch and what we read – and no two sources of information agree on a single point.
India is not a signatory to the NPT and traditionally, the US has refused to do nuclear commerce with non-signatories. India becomes the first exception to the rule and will receive civilian nuclear fuel and technology despite staying out of the NPT. Amid vociferous opposition from some factions about setting a bad precedent, President Bush managed to push the nuclear bill through treating India as a special case because of its responsible nuclear record (what this means is anyone’s guess since the US imposed sanctions on civilian nuclear cooperation on India because we tested in 1974). But the US has the tough task of convincing the Nuclear Suppliers Group – a group of 45 nations – to ride along. Right now, no one is really going along with anything that America says or does. So why is America going out on a limb for the deal?
It’s stupid for us to think they love us very much. India will need a lot more energy in the coming years than we are capable of producing. America’s stake in India is high, especially since 1990 when we embraced “liberalization” – it’s another matter that we were by then pushed to the wall – we hardly opened up out of choice; we had nowhere to turn. It had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Russia’s brand of socialism was not going to sustain us anymore.
India has gained America’s respect as an emerging economic power that can’t be ignored. To America’s credit, if they can’t beat you, they’ll join you which is exactly what they’ve done with India. Today, America’s investments in India need uninterrupted energy supply – we can’t guarantee that, so Uncle Sam is stepping in to take care of itself; we shouldn’t pretend that it’s not beneficial to us either and we shouldn’t expect the US not to look out for itself. They’re doing business and they will drive a hard bargain. This deal is not so much about politics as it is about business. In America, business drives politics and not the other way around like it used to be in India in the good old Nehruvian socialism days. This is a deal that the American business community wants and what they want, they usually get – despite everything, the dollar still shines brighter than every other currency. How much can we come away with? Can we match America’s selfishness and secure our own future? That should be the starting point of our negotiations on the 123 Agreement that the US and India are expected to sign, the clauses of which will become binding on India. It’s time to show the world - not just the US - how hard we can play.
India is not a signatory to the NPT and traditionally, the US has refused to do nuclear commerce with non-signatories. India becomes the first exception to the rule and will receive civilian nuclear fuel and technology despite staying out of the NPT. Amid vociferous opposition from some factions about setting a bad precedent, President Bush managed to push the nuclear bill through treating India as a special case because of its responsible nuclear record (what this means is anyone’s guess since the US imposed sanctions on civilian nuclear cooperation on India because we tested in 1974). But the US has the tough task of convincing the Nuclear Suppliers Group – a group of 45 nations – to ride along. Right now, no one is really going along with anything that America says or does. So why is America going out on a limb for the deal?
It’s stupid for us to think they love us very much. India will need a lot more energy in the coming years than we are capable of producing. America’s stake in India is high, especially since 1990 when we embraced “liberalization” – it’s another matter that we were by then pushed to the wall – we hardly opened up out of choice; we had nowhere to turn. It had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Russia’s brand of socialism was not going to sustain us anymore.
India has gained America’s respect as an emerging economic power that can’t be ignored. To America’s credit, if they can’t beat you, they’ll join you which is exactly what they’ve done with India. Today, America’s investments in India need uninterrupted energy supply – we can’t guarantee that, so Uncle Sam is stepping in to take care of itself; we shouldn’t pretend that it’s not beneficial to us either and we shouldn’t expect the US not to look out for itself. They’re doing business and they will drive a hard bargain. This deal is not so much about politics as it is about business. In America, business drives politics and not the other way around like it used to be in India in the good old Nehruvian socialism days. This is a deal that the American business community wants and what they want, they usually get – despite everything, the dollar still shines brighter than every other currency. How much can we come away with? Can we match America’s selfishness and secure our own future? That should be the starting point of our negotiations on the 123 Agreement that the US and India are expected to sign, the clauses of which will become binding on India. It’s time to show the world - not just the US - how hard we can play.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
"...When we talk of tomorrow, the Gods laugh"
When you lose someone you love, your world crumbles. Your days and nights become living hell. Every night becomes a nightmare of tears, memories, and insomnia. Every morning, you wish you didn't have to get out of bed. Then, the tears dry up. You can't cry anymore, but the grief doesn't go away. It envelopes you and nibbles at your insides. It’s almost a physical pain that won’t heal because you’re gnawing at it constantly - because you can't get the person off your mind; no matter where you go or what you do, memories relentlessly flood you - everything you see and everything you do reminds you of the person you've lost. It makes the grief unbearable. Everything becomes an effort – to talk, to eat, to dress, living itself seems like an effort that’s not worth the trouble. Then, you become desperate. What you wouldn't do to bring him/her back! What you wouldn't give to hear that voice one more time, to see that smile one more time, for one last conversation, one last hug, one last goodbye...but nothing will change. You can cry till you’re blue, you can "if only" endlessly...nothing will change. It's the final bow and the curtain won't come up. Ever.
Then, you quieten down. You resign yourself to the fact and you learn to live with your grief. Time will not heal a loss - it will only make it worse - but what Time does is, it teaches you to smile through your pain. It teaches you to function inspite of it. It also does something else: It makes you completely fearless. You forget what it is like to be afraid. What can you possibly be afraid of after you've faced this? Suddenly, you can look Life in the eye and say "Is that all there is to it?" It's strangely liberating - that you've gone to hell and come back and you’ve survived. It also realigns your priorities like nothing else can. Nothing seems so important anymore - we're all going to the same place...alone, carrying nothing with us.
This is one of my dad's favourite quotes: "Time is Nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once. When we talk of tomorrow, the Gods laugh." I never tried to understand what this meant when I had my father. I understand now, Daddy.
Then, you quieten down. You resign yourself to the fact and you learn to live with your grief. Time will not heal a loss - it will only make it worse - but what Time does is, it teaches you to smile through your pain. It teaches you to function inspite of it. It also does something else: It makes you completely fearless. You forget what it is like to be afraid. What can you possibly be afraid of after you've faced this? Suddenly, you can look Life in the eye and say "Is that all there is to it?" It's strangely liberating - that you've gone to hell and come back and you’ve survived. It also realigns your priorities like nothing else can. Nothing seems so important anymore - we're all going to the same place...alone, carrying nothing with us.
This is one of my dad's favourite quotes: "Time is Nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once. When we talk of tomorrow, the Gods laugh." I never tried to understand what this meant when I had my father. I understand now, Daddy.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
It's Dark Inside
Death is the most life-changing experience. It's universal yet its enormity, its horror, and its finality can never be understood till it comes home. When you lose someone, you die with that person - the life you had with that person dies, a part of you dies, and you carry on living with that dead part inside you. It's a grief that will never go away and it's a grief that no tears or words can comfort or heal. You go on living simply because you have no other choice. It's not because you're brave or because you've gotten over your loss. You NEVER get over your loss simply because your life has changed forever. Things will never be the same again. The thought that you will never see the person again, hear his voice, or touch his hand is a grief that can never be put into words. You discover in how many ways you can miss a person, you discover how much more that person meant to you than you realized when he was alive. You rediscover your Faith which is the realization that Faith doesn't give you what you want from life - it only gives you a little strength to cope when life happens to you. You are completely alone in your grief and you will feel the loneliness most acutely when people surround you after your loss - when they comfort you, when they wipe away your tears, when you have to answer their questions, when you have to function, when the business of living cannot be suspended, when you must push back your grief, act "normal" and carry on living. That's when you realize how tough it is to pick up the million, fragmented, confused, hopeless pieces that your life has become within a fraction of a second and hold them together; you cannot possibly join them back into a whole, so you hold the pieces and you put one step in front of the other and you go on. But for you, it's over - through your smiles, your tears, your memories, your days, and your nights, forever, it will always be dark inside.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
THE LAST LAUGH
Once upon a time, there were two kids, A and B.
A suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder which made C very excited - C constantly lectured him, punished him, pleaded with him and generally gave him too much attention which A loved and his syndrome thrived. He truly was an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.
B was a psychopath but he was a quiet one (still waters run deep). He was the real danger but no one bothered about him because they were so busy with A. This allowed B to indulge in some serious crimes, but C was so spent trying to pacify and control and change A that he ended up a helpless onlooker to B's grave crimes.
Now, here's a little puzzle for you - identify Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, and George Bush from A, B, and C.
A suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder which made C very excited - C constantly lectured him, punished him, pleaded with him and generally gave him too much attention which A loved and his syndrome thrived. He truly was an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise.
B was a psychopath but he was a quiet one (still waters run deep). He was the real danger but no one bothered about him because they were so busy with A. This allowed B to indulge in some serious crimes, but C was so spent trying to pacify and control and change A that he ended up a helpless onlooker to B's grave crimes.
Now, here's a little puzzle for you - identify Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-Il, and George Bush from A, B, and C.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Mohammed Afzal Guru vs Manu Sharma
Manu Sharma is the son of a heavy-weight Congress "leader" in Haryana. One of his aunts is ex-President Shankar Dayal Sharma's daughter. He's also Jessica Lall's murderer. Who admitted to killing the lady in a deadpan confession. He's also a free citizen of India. He's in fact, thriving.
If all goes well, Mohammed Afzal Guru will be hanged on October 20, 2006, for masterminding the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001. If at all Guru should be hanged, it should be for the security men who gave up their lives so that the rats inside Parliament can continue to live and prosper. Mohammed Afzal Guru did not actually kill anyone - painful as it may be for the security personnel's families to hear people protest his death penalty, the fact remains that Guru didn't pull the trigger on anyone.
Afzal Guru in fact did us a great service. He tried to cleanse the rot in our Parliament. For that, he needs to go into our history books as the greatest patriot that ever lived. He's a hero. He had the guts to do what any of us would've loved to do if we had his guts. We don't, so we vote - and in some cases, like mine, we don't do even that. (Of course, we blog which helps our great democracy a great deal).
As things stand today, India's only hope is to bomb Parliament when it's in full session (which it never will be unless MPs are hiking their pay). What can you say of elected representatives who will harbour and protect murders within their own families? There are numerous cases of high profile brats literally getting away with murder, but Manu Sharma's case beats them all hands down. Here we have a scumbag who goes on tape to admit that he pulled the trigger on a woman simply because she refused to serve him a drink after the bar was closed - she got killed for doing her job and this despicable apology for a human being roams free today - he's doing much more than that - he's thriving. Because his father happens to be in the right place at the right time. Life has finally caught up with him - hopefully (the confession tape was on air today and if he's not sent to the gallows even after this, the rest of us should hang).
If Guru can be hanged even though he did not actually pull the trigger on anyone, why can't Manu Sharma be hanged when he not only pulled the trigger without provocation but also admitted to doing it with a cockiness that comes from knowing he's above the law?
"Elected representatives" in our state legislatures all over the country are thugs. Many of them are illiterate. Some of them have been charged with murder and they make laws, pass bills, and "rule" us. Why shouldn't they be hanged? Everyone is incensed about the attack on the symbol of our democracy - what about letting murderers sit in Parliament? Isn't that an attack on the symbol of our democracy? Politicians of all hues are frothing at the mouth because Parliament was attacked - none of them died, remember? But millions of innocent people have lost their lives in this country to senseless violence in every single state, most of them "masterminded" by politicians. Why is justice never done in those cases? Why doesn't anyone ever hang? Why not hang Dawood? Narendra Modi? Manu Sharma? Santosh Singh? (Priyadarshini Matto's murderer) Vikas Yadav? (Nitish Katara's murderer who confessed to the crime and also makes a guest appearance in the Jessica Lall murder) The killers of the young IAS officer (I've forgotten his name - public memory, you see) who paid with his life because he stood up to the UP/Bihiar mafia - because he did his job? Why not hang VP Singh whose Mandal politics killed so many young students? Why not hang HKL Bhagat (I think he's already dead, does anyone remember?) and Buta Singh and all those who watched the massacare of Sikhs when Indira Gandhi was assassinated?
Arun Jaitley calls this "the most gruesome attack on India." In what sense? He doesn't breathe a word about the security men who gave up their lives to protect him - he's talking about the attempt on his life (which unfortunately for all of us, remains just an attempt). What kind of a democracy are we? If I sit in Parliament, my life is more precious than yours if you're standing behind a bar counter. Even if you're doing your job behind the bar counter while I'm bleeding the nation dry sitting in Parliament.
Oh, forget it. Let's celebrate "Gandhi Jayanti." Sanjay Dutt is preaching about Gandhian values to us - it can't get more ridiculous than this even in the theatre of the absurd. Thank God Gandhi is dead.
If all goes well, Mohammed Afzal Guru will be hanged on October 20, 2006, for masterminding the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001. If at all Guru should be hanged, it should be for the security men who gave up their lives so that the rats inside Parliament can continue to live and prosper. Mohammed Afzal Guru did not actually kill anyone - painful as it may be for the security personnel's families to hear people protest his death penalty, the fact remains that Guru didn't pull the trigger on anyone.
Afzal Guru in fact did us a great service. He tried to cleanse the rot in our Parliament. For that, he needs to go into our history books as the greatest patriot that ever lived. He's a hero. He had the guts to do what any of us would've loved to do if we had his guts. We don't, so we vote - and in some cases, like mine, we don't do even that. (Of course, we blog which helps our great democracy a great deal).
As things stand today, India's only hope is to bomb Parliament when it's in full session (which it never will be unless MPs are hiking their pay). What can you say of elected representatives who will harbour and protect murders within their own families? There are numerous cases of high profile brats literally getting away with murder, but Manu Sharma's case beats them all hands down. Here we have a scumbag who goes on tape to admit that he pulled the trigger on a woman simply because she refused to serve him a drink after the bar was closed - she got killed for doing her job and this despicable apology for a human being roams free today - he's doing much more than that - he's thriving. Because his father happens to be in the right place at the right time. Life has finally caught up with him - hopefully (the confession tape was on air today and if he's not sent to the gallows even after this, the rest of us should hang).
If Guru can be hanged even though he did not actually pull the trigger on anyone, why can't Manu Sharma be hanged when he not only pulled the trigger without provocation but also admitted to doing it with a cockiness that comes from knowing he's above the law?
"Elected representatives" in our state legislatures all over the country are thugs. Many of them are illiterate. Some of them have been charged with murder and they make laws, pass bills, and "rule" us. Why shouldn't they be hanged? Everyone is incensed about the attack on the symbol of our democracy - what about letting murderers sit in Parliament? Isn't that an attack on the symbol of our democracy? Politicians of all hues are frothing at the mouth because Parliament was attacked - none of them died, remember? But millions of innocent people have lost their lives in this country to senseless violence in every single state, most of them "masterminded" by politicians. Why is justice never done in those cases? Why doesn't anyone ever hang? Why not hang Dawood? Narendra Modi? Manu Sharma? Santosh Singh? (Priyadarshini Matto's murderer) Vikas Yadav? (Nitish Katara's murderer who confessed to the crime and also makes a guest appearance in the Jessica Lall murder) The killers of the young IAS officer (I've forgotten his name - public memory, you see) who paid with his life because he stood up to the UP/Bihiar mafia - because he did his job? Why not hang VP Singh whose Mandal politics killed so many young students? Why not hang HKL Bhagat (I think he's already dead, does anyone remember?) and Buta Singh and all those who watched the massacare of Sikhs when Indira Gandhi was assassinated?
Arun Jaitley calls this "the most gruesome attack on India." In what sense? He doesn't breathe a word about the security men who gave up their lives to protect him - he's talking about the attempt on his life (which unfortunately for all of us, remains just an attempt). What kind of a democracy are we? If I sit in Parliament, my life is more precious than yours if you're standing behind a bar counter. Even if you're doing your job behind the bar counter while I'm bleeding the nation dry sitting in Parliament.
Oh, forget it. Let's celebrate "Gandhi Jayanti." Sanjay Dutt is preaching about Gandhian values to us - it can't get more ridiculous than this even in the theatre of the absurd. Thank God Gandhi is dead.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
FAHRENHEIT 9/11
I'm reading The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 reader - yes, it's a little dated (only 2 years!) but I don't think books should be read and movies watched when they're basking in their hype; it takes away the attention from the content and the hype becomes a thing with a life of it's own - also, the spin doctors are out when hype is in the air, so you're never able to put the book or the movie in any sort of perspective. Anyway, bottom line - I'm reading it now and I'm going to recommend this to EVERYONE I know (of course, there's a real possibility I'm the last one to get my hands on it).
What doesn't add up for me though is HOW Bush could've won a second term despite this. I thought the American electorate was a lot more intelligent. This book contains pages and pages of documented truth about the Iraq war, the lies and the manipulation that made it possible. With lots of accolades for Michael Moore with letters by the dozen from born-again Democrats, first-time voters, vindicated Democrats saluting and thanking Michael Moore for telling them the truth - it's just amazing despite ALL of this, Bush got back in the driver's seat for a second term. I'm not sure whether it was Jay Leno or Moore himself who called Bush "the longest serving President to never have won an election" - that's on the dot. A couple of pages are devoted to how Bush stole the election from Al Gore - by getting his (Bush's) first cousin John Ellis who ran the FOX News Channel's election desk, to call the election in his favour in Florida AFTER all the networks and AP had declared Al Gore the winner. Once FOX called in Bush's favour, everyone followed suit. The book describes how the President had to cancel his traditional walk to the White House for the swearing in as 1000s of Americans poured into the streets of Washington DC to pelt his limo with eggs as it sped to what has now become symbolic of this presidency - a backdoor entry.
Also, the thing that doesn't add up is why Osama was let off when he could've been caught.
This book depicts in great detail the extremely up close and personal relationship that the Bushies shared with the bin Ladens, how when all flights were grounded post 9/11, "at least 6 private jets and nearly 2 dozen commercial planes" flew the Saudis and bin Ladens out of America - apparently, (this is chilling!) the bin Ladens and the Bushes and their friends have common investment interests in "the Carlyle Group, a multinational conglomerate that invests in heavily government-regulated industries like telecommunications, health care, and particularly defense." Osama's half-brother and a crowd of Americans were in the same room meeting about their investment interests at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington DC as they watched the planes go into the Towers - but the book also gives the impression (without stating so explicitly) that Osama had no sanction from his family to do this - but of course we forget THE most important pieces of the puzzle - greenbacks and oil.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary and it won in The Best Picture category, that too at Cannes. It must be Wow! I have to get my hands on this movie - I know, I'm only 2 years behind!
What doesn't add up for me though is HOW Bush could've won a second term despite this. I thought the American electorate was a lot more intelligent. This book contains pages and pages of documented truth about the Iraq war, the lies and the manipulation that made it possible. With lots of accolades for Michael Moore with letters by the dozen from born-again Democrats, first-time voters, vindicated Democrats saluting and thanking Michael Moore for telling them the truth - it's just amazing despite ALL of this, Bush got back in the driver's seat for a second term. I'm not sure whether it was Jay Leno or Moore himself who called Bush "the longest serving President to never have won an election" - that's on the dot. A couple of pages are devoted to how Bush stole the election from Al Gore - by getting his (Bush's) first cousin John Ellis who ran the FOX News Channel's election desk, to call the election in his favour in Florida AFTER all the networks and AP had declared Al Gore the winner. Once FOX called in Bush's favour, everyone followed suit. The book describes how the President had to cancel his traditional walk to the White House for the swearing in as 1000s of Americans poured into the streets of Washington DC to pelt his limo with eggs as it sped to what has now become symbolic of this presidency - a backdoor entry.
Also, the thing that doesn't add up is why Osama was let off when he could've been caught.
This book depicts in great detail the extremely up close and personal relationship that the Bushies shared with the bin Ladens, how when all flights were grounded post 9/11, "at least 6 private jets and nearly 2 dozen commercial planes" flew the Saudis and bin Ladens out of America - apparently, (this is chilling!) the bin Ladens and the Bushes and their friends have common investment interests in "the Carlyle Group, a multinational conglomerate that invests in heavily government-regulated industries like telecommunications, health care, and particularly defense." Osama's half-brother and a crowd of Americans were in the same room meeting about their investment interests at the Ritz-Carlton in Washington DC as they watched the planes go into the Towers - but the book also gives the impression (without stating so explicitly) that Osama had no sanction from his family to do this - but of course we forget THE most important pieces of the puzzle - greenbacks and oil.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary and it won in The Best Picture category, that too at Cannes. It must be Wow! I have to get my hands on this movie - I know, I'm only 2 years behind!
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Jack-in-office (or it's not just the Peter Principle, stupid)
Lao Tzu, a 6th century Chinese philosopher, said "To lead the people, walk behind them." When you walk behind your people, you pick up things that you can never pick up if you're constantly sitting in a glass cabin into which you expect people to remove their footwear before they enter. It does something to otherwise ordinary mortals when they get into their cabins and sit on their thrones - wise exceptions continue to stay mortals, but most of them morph into insensitive jacks-in-office; these jacks-in-office live in an incredibly happy atmosphere and for the life of them, can never understand why others can't be as happy as they are!
Hello! I'm jack-in-office; I make all important decisions that I don't have to communicate - read that again - THAT I DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE - those 6 words are the root cause of everyone's misery; they allow me to be completely insensitive to you because I don't even know you exist; I'm not the messenger, and people only shoot messengers. I will make a decision - Yes, No, Maybe - but you communicate it - and you get shot in the process, thank you very much.
But you ask, "Since I'm anyway getting shot, will I be allowed to make my own decisions and then get shot for my decisions instead of getting shot for yours?"
"No way! I'm jack-in-office, stupid. You're just jack's jack."
And how did I make these decisions? Not by talking to the people who will be affected by them or at least listening to assistant jack, but by talking to other jacks like me who also reside in similar glass houses and flick away their assistant jacks and other ordinary mortals from their cabins like flies. Assistant jack goes out to communicate jack-in-office's decisions to the ordinary mortals who revolt and flog assistant jack because they don't have access to jack-in-office to flog him. Assistant jack can't mollify his people, so he resorts to the next best thing - like third-degree torture.
Meanwhile, good ole' jack-in-office is protected from the mayhem, seated as he is in his sterile glass cabin, so he's happy and for the life of him, can never understand why others can't be as happy as he is!(Oh, sorry, am I repeating myself?)
Instead picture this: I'm jack-in-office; I want a decision I made implemented, so I go out and announce my decision and face the consequences, good or bad; I communicate and I (not you) am accountable to my subordinates; I listen to the concerns, I think about them, and a few egg and tomato omelettes later, I become sensitive; not because I've grown a brain at last but because I know now what it is to have my goose cooked, so it forces me to think about other people for a change, especially if I have to go out and meet them and talk to them and be accountable for my actions.
None of the above is practical in large organizations and that is why decision making should be decentralized at every level, organizations, city administrations, state, and even central administration. Instead, both these conditions don't exist. Decision making remains very centralized in most large organizations and definitely even in so called democracies despite lofty mouthings to the contrary and people who make the decsions are least accountable, least accessible, least connected, least knowledgeable, and the very least sensitive.
Blasphemy! If decision making were to be decentralized, what about me?!? I would be unnecessary and I'm not skilled to do what I'm asking you to do! So, what about me? Hush, hush now....
Hello! I'm jack-in-office; I make all important decisions that I don't have to communicate - read that again - THAT I DON'T HAVE TO COMMUNICATE - those 6 words are the root cause of everyone's misery; they allow me to be completely insensitive to you because I don't even know you exist; I'm not the messenger, and people only shoot messengers. I will make a decision - Yes, No, Maybe - but you communicate it - and you get shot in the process, thank you very much.
But you ask, "Since I'm anyway getting shot, will I be allowed to make my own decisions and then get shot for my decisions instead of getting shot for yours?"
"No way! I'm jack-in-office, stupid. You're just jack's jack."
And how did I make these decisions? Not by talking to the people who will be affected by them or at least listening to assistant jack, but by talking to other jacks like me who also reside in similar glass houses and flick away their assistant jacks and other ordinary mortals from their cabins like flies. Assistant jack goes out to communicate jack-in-office's decisions to the ordinary mortals who revolt and flog assistant jack because they don't have access to jack-in-office to flog him. Assistant jack can't mollify his people, so he resorts to the next best thing - like third-degree torture.
Meanwhile, good ole' jack-in-office is protected from the mayhem, seated as he is in his sterile glass cabin, so he's happy and for the life of him, can never understand why others can't be as happy as he is!(Oh, sorry, am I repeating myself?)
Instead picture this: I'm jack-in-office; I want a decision I made implemented, so I go out and announce my decision and face the consequences, good or bad; I communicate and I (not you) am accountable to my subordinates; I listen to the concerns, I think about them, and a few egg and tomato omelettes later, I become sensitive; not because I've grown a brain at last but because I know now what it is to have my goose cooked, so it forces me to think about other people for a change, especially if I have to go out and meet them and talk to them and be accountable for my actions.
None of the above is practical in large organizations and that is why decision making should be decentralized at every level, organizations, city administrations, state, and even central administration. Instead, both these conditions don't exist. Decision making remains very centralized in most large organizations and definitely even in so called democracies despite lofty mouthings to the contrary and people who make the decsions are least accountable, least accessible, least connected, least knowledgeable, and the very least sensitive.
Blasphemy! If decision making were to be decentralized, what about me?!? I would be unnecessary and I'm not skilled to do what I'm asking you to do! So, what about me? Hush, hush now....
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Peter Principle (with dollops of Dilbert)
"I get mail; therefore I am." - Dilbert
Laurence J Peter authored Peter Principle (published 1968) in which he contends that "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." At the time it was published, the Peter Principle might've seemed novel but now we have Scott Adams' Dilbert who encounters the Peter Principle every day at work.
Increasingly, the world is being run - workplaces, factories, institutions, and entire nations - on the Peter Principle. Simply put, with a few exceptions, most people "running the show" are collectively mad, insensitive, and clueless about the implications of their madness on their immediate subordinates.
The Peter Principle's hypothesis (now a fact) is pretty simple: Promotions are made like this: I excel at my desk job, so I'm made manager of my department. There is absolutely no logic or coherence to this decision. I've only proved my prowess at the desk job and nothing else; I know peanuts about people, let alone managing them. But this unexpected windfall makes me seriously believe in my nonexistent capabilities and I go ballistic. I wreck the system with well-thoughtout, carefully debated mismanagement. To achieve this feat, I spend hours in my cabin summoning other incompetents (who have been similarly promoted) to my desk to tell me what I wish to hear based on which I make decisions that are either completely irrelevant or unnecessary (or both) to my immediate subordinates and are guranteed to obliterate any ounce of happiness they might have previously possessed as workers. They can't shake me up, they can't take me out, so they quit.
But I'm a manager, so I can't be demoted, therefore I'll get promoted again - in a bid to disable my capacity to do direct damage to the grassroots. But in my new role, I'm an unstoppable megalomaniac. My motto is "It's either my way or the highway." Here, I'm not doing direct damage to the grassroots, but I'm causing enough grief to my fellow incompetents in middle management for them to do serious damage to their immediate subordinates, the grassroots, which they do with impish glee.
But now, I'm unshakeable. People under me just have to pray for divine intervention. Morale has plunged, everyone is cynical about everything, workers are desperate, my contribution is there for everyone to see, but I sit royally ensconced in my cabin surrounded by my yes-men telling me things never looked better though there is not an iota of data to prove this hypothesis; customers are baying for my blood, workers are quitting like rats deserting a sinking ship, those who stay are simply biding time, but I sit firmly with my rose-tinted blinkers on because now I'm so far promoted, the world I inhabit has no connection to reality.
But the unhappy people who're actually slaving for me to earn my monthly bomb keep slaving miserably at their unproductive best. Their nonperformance makes me belligerent towards them but it never troubles my nonexistent conscience that I'm the cause of their misery because my incompetence is earning me a paycheck that is 10 times fatter than theirs. Instead of keeping these people happy and trying to address the cause of their unhappiness, I do everything I can to alienate my workforce even further. I can't be demoted for my incompetence, so I demote them if they don't give me what I demand - regardless of how unreasonable my demands are. That's secondary. I'm the BOSS - that's primary.
At an organizational level, the story might end with either the organization running itself to the ground or with hiring and firing the right people. With larger playgrounds, like cities, states, or nations, the story never ends. It's easier for me to perpetuate the damage across larger areas by simply getting lost in the system and installing other incompetents like me to both cover my own back and to avoid having to deal with the mess that that has now snowballed into unmanageable proportions. I should've been at my desk job - where I was doing good work and out of everyone's way. Or I should've been shot after my first promotion. If I'd been shot at the right time, I would've become a martyr (eg. Mahatma Gandhi). Now, I'm just a royal pain in the wrong place (eg. Sonia Gandhi).
That's how Popes are made. That's how High Priests are made. That's how Mullahs are made. That's how Presidents and Prime Ministers are made. That's how the WORLD runs. And you, you miserable nincompoop, you crib about your workplace! HA!
Go read Dilbert and be happy. You're not alone.
Laurence J Peter authored Peter Principle (published 1968) in which he contends that "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." At the time it was published, the Peter Principle might've seemed novel but now we have Scott Adams' Dilbert who encounters the Peter Principle every day at work.
Increasingly, the world is being run - workplaces, factories, institutions, and entire nations - on the Peter Principle. Simply put, with a few exceptions, most people "running the show" are collectively mad, insensitive, and clueless about the implications of their madness on their immediate subordinates.
The Peter Principle's hypothesis (now a fact) is pretty simple: Promotions are made like this: I excel at my desk job, so I'm made manager of my department. There is absolutely no logic or coherence to this decision. I've only proved my prowess at the desk job and nothing else; I know peanuts about people, let alone managing them. But this unexpected windfall makes me seriously believe in my nonexistent capabilities and I go ballistic. I wreck the system with well-thoughtout, carefully debated mismanagement. To achieve this feat, I spend hours in my cabin summoning other incompetents (who have been similarly promoted) to my desk to tell me what I wish to hear based on which I make decisions that are either completely irrelevant or unnecessary (or both) to my immediate subordinates and are guranteed to obliterate any ounce of happiness they might have previously possessed as workers. They can't shake me up, they can't take me out, so they quit.
But I'm a manager, so I can't be demoted, therefore I'll get promoted again - in a bid to disable my capacity to do direct damage to the grassroots. But in my new role, I'm an unstoppable megalomaniac. My motto is "It's either my way or the highway." Here, I'm not doing direct damage to the grassroots, but I'm causing enough grief to my fellow incompetents in middle management for them to do serious damage to their immediate subordinates, the grassroots, which they do with impish glee.
But now, I'm unshakeable. People under me just have to pray for divine intervention. Morale has plunged, everyone is cynical about everything, workers are desperate, my contribution is there for everyone to see, but I sit royally ensconced in my cabin surrounded by my yes-men telling me things never looked better though there is not an iota of data to prove this hypothesis; customers are baying for my blood, workers are quitting like rats deserting a sinking ship, those who stay are simply biding time, but I sit firmly with my rose-tinted blinkers on because now I'm so far promoted, the world I inhabit has no connection to reality.
But the unhappy people who're actually slaving for me to earn my monthly bomb keep slaving miserably at their unproductive best. Their nonperformance makes me belligerent towards them but it never troubles my nonexistent conscience that I'm the cause of their misery because my incompetence is earning me a paycheck that is 10 times fatter than theirs. Instead of keeping these people happy and trying to address the cause of their unhappiness, I do everything I can to alienate my workforce even further. I can't be demoted for my incompetence, so I demote them if they don't give me what I demand - regardless of how unreasonable my demands are. That's secondary. I'm the BOSS - that's primary.
At an organizational level, the story might end with either the organization running itself to the ground or with hiring and firing the right people. With larger playgrounds, like cities, states, or nations, the story never ends. It's easier for me to perpetuate the damage across larger areas by simply getting lost in the system and installing other incompetents like me to both cover my own back and to avoid having to deal with the mess that that has now snowballed into unmanageable proportions. I should've been at my desk job - where I was doing good work and out of everyone's way. Or I should've been shot after my first promotion. If I'd been shot at the right time, I would've become a martyr (eg. Mahatma Gandhi). Now, I'm just a royal pain in the wrong place (eg. Sonia Gandhi).
That's how Popes are made. That's how High Priests are made. That's how Mullahs are made. That's how Presidents and Prime Ministers are made. That's how the WORLD runs. And you, you miserable nincompoop, you crib about your workplace! HA!
Go read Dilbert and be happy. You're not alone.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Another mountain-molehill situation
Somebody with a lot of time on their hands decided that the Muslims of India should not sing Vande Mataram, the national song, so naturally the BJP (which has more time than anyone else) decided this is unpatriotic and now, we have a raging controversy on our hands, in our newspapers, and on TV.
The media, especially in India, has become increasingly inflammatory in its coverage of sensitive topics. There's no reason to run this story day and night and stick a mike in every Tom, Dick, and Harry's face and ask for his opinion on the issue - which is basically a non-issue. In these volatile times, the media forces everyone to form an opinion and to mouth it. This is completely unnecessary and to a large extent, very irresponsible. Gone are the days when TV anchors were mere moderators in any debate. Now, they get into the debates themselves and hardly bother to conceal which side they're on. This is a very unhealthy trend. Agreed as individuals, they are entitled to their opinions, but as professionals they are required to remain neutral moderators. Instead, most of our anchors get into arguments with their panelists, guests, or audience further inflaming passions.
To come back to Vande Mataram - since when did singing a song define your patriotism or lack of it? Do we need these pseudo patriots who don't think twice before hiking their salaries "cutting across party lines" (and religious lines) when people are literally dropping dead with no food and shelter in a country where the divide between the haves and have-nots is so gaping? Why should a man who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from, sing on an empty stomach saluting his motherland? Regardless of what religion he belongs to?
Finally, why should it matter to me whether you sing the national song or not? Whether you're patriotic or not? Who is a patriot? Sonia Gandhi? Because she sings Vande Mataram?
Thanks - I'll go with the Muslims.
The media, especially in India, has become increasingly inflammatory in its coverage of sensitive topics. There's no reason to run this story day and night and stick a mike in every Tom, Dick, and Harry's face and ask for his opinion on the issue - which is basically a non-issue. In these volatile times, the media forces everyone to form an opinion and to mouth it. This is completely unnecessary and to a large extent, very irresponsible. Gone are the days when TV anchors were mere moderators in any debate. Now, they get into the debates themselves and hardly bother to conceal which side they're on. This is a very unhealthy trend. Agreed as individuals, they are entitled to their opinions, but as professionals they are required to remain neutral moderators. Instead, most of our anchors get into arguments with their panelists, guests, or audience further inflaming passions.
To come back to Vande Mataram - since when did singing a song define your patriotism or lack of it? Do we need these pseudo patriots who don't think twice before hiking their salaries "cutting across party lines" (and religious lines) when people are literally dropping dead with no food and shelter in a country where the divide between the haves and have-nots is so gaping? Why should a man who doesn't know where his next meal is coming from, sing on an empty stomach saluting his motherland? Regardless of what religion he belongs to?
Finally, why should it matter to me whether you sing the national song or not? Whether you're patriotic or not? Who is a patriot? Sonia Gandhi? Because she sings Vande Mataram?
Thanks - I'll go with the Muslims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)