If there is one way to measure how a person might fare in a new job, a sure thing is to check him or her out after a few days. For the President of the USA it is 100 days. Why 100 and not 30 or 60? No one really can answer satisfactorily. But that is how it is with the topmost job in the USA – that of the President. Well, so how did President Obama fare in the first 100 days of his presidency? Is he the right man for the job or did the voters pick the wrong guy?
Experts tell us that by most measures Obama has done a great job. Of course, the economy is still far from recovery. However, if you look at what he inherited from Bush and Cheney – an avalanche in Dow Jones industrial average trading at 14,269 from its peak in October, 2007 to almost half its value when Bush left the White House in January of 2009 you ought to feel a little bit encouraged with how Obama is handling the crisis. But probably the most important thing he has done is reversing Bush’s torture policy declaring that it was wrong. He has decided to release more memos and photos on torture.
As expected, not everyone welcomes such a decision. Last month, when asked about the Obama administration’s plan to release more photos of terrorist detainee interrogations, Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, said, “I think that is a sick, anti-American behavior.” He ought to feel ashamed and not just sick because it was his Republican party that had run the government when the torture of detainees took place, in violation of international laws. By releasing those photos what Obama is doing is nothing short of being a true American that craves for transparency and honesty in government.
As Jacob Weisburg of the Newsweek has so bluntly and aptly put, “The use of torture on suspected terrorists after 9/11 has already earned a place in American history's hall of shame, alongside the Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese internment during WWII and the excesses of the McCarthy era.” It was five years ago that most Americans came to learn what was going on inside the Abu Ghraib prison. The New Yorker magazine and the CBS TV showed hooded prisoners standing on a box with wires attached to their hands and genitals; frightened prisoners attacked by mean dogs; soldiers punching restrained prisoners; piles of naked prisoners stacked into a pyramid; prisoners forced to simulate sexual acts, often with grinning GIs on hand to point and offer a jaunty thumbs up.
For many simpleton and naïve Americans, those pictures were simply unbelievable. They sounded as if they suffer from amnesia – a selective one in that – or cognitive dissonance. They had assumed the best from their government that was led by a Church-going ‘born-again’ Christian. To them, their great nation had been setting standards for higher moral grounds everywhere, for everyone. They simply could not accept the fact that their best-trained soldiers had failed them by committing those horrendous crimes.
Those who knew better were embarrassed. They had been caught off-guard red-handed, almost like a thief caught with a hand in the cookie-jar. They had to be hypocritical. Within days, President George W. Bush offered a public apology for "the terrible and horrible acts." Even his unabashed secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, took "full responsibility" for the scandal and promised that the offenders would be brought to justice because the victims "are human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't do that." [As Americans later found out such words did not mean anything.]
And then there were guys like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter who justified such crimes. Limbaugh said “what went on over there is not torture.” According to him, the abuse was "no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation" and that the American soldiers were “having a good time” as part of their “emotional release.” If you think that his was a lone sick, demented voice, you’re mistaken. Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, claimed to be "more outraged by the outrage than … by the treatment." In CNN’s Larry King Live show Ann Coulter claimed that all normal people who have ever had a sibling, been through a fraternity hazing, or been on a sports team or misbehaved with small children have experienced water-boarding.
Fortunately, most Americans do not fall into any of the above three categories. They were genuinely repulsed by what they saw and what they read over the next few years, thanks to investigative reporters like Seymour Hersh. They learned that more harsher and demeaning torture methods were employed by American soldiers and interrogators, not just in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay but in all detention camps and centers. Torture methods included water-boarding, raping, urinating on detainees, throwing phosphoric acid, continuously hitting with metal batons on injured limb, sodomizing with batons, tying ropes around genitals and dragging the detainees on the floor, and even killing detainees. Truly, there was hardly a torture method -- considered illegal by the Geneva Convention and scores of international laws -- that was not committed by those guards and interrogators, disgracing America’s image abroad.
Americans found out that the Bush Administration had lied to them, not just with the rationale for the war itself, but also with torture. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Gonzales had actually authorized harsh torture methods. They knew what was going on in those prisons and detention camps. And then there were many top advisers like Wolfowitz, Feith, Cambone and Tenet who knew all along what their guys were doing to those prisoners. Americans also found out that Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, who had authored the torture memo that provided the basis for violating international laws, was rewarded in 2003 by President Bush with a judgeship at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It was this public revulsion with Bush’s torture policy that made sure that today guys like Inhofe are a small minority in the Congress. Americans are demanding that those who authorized torture be punished. However, much to the embarrassment of most Americans, none of the top guys has yet been convicted or tried. In what appeared to be a mockery of justice, only the foot soldiers - seventeen in total - were convicted in courts martial in 2004-2005. Of these, most were sentenced to low term prison terms, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialists Charles Graner and Lynndie England, were sentenced in 2005 to ten years and three years in prison, respectively. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who denied knowledge of the torture, was demoted to the rank of Colonel in 2005. She maintained that her superior Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez had authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods in Abu Ghraib. The ACLU claims that General Sanchez had authorized interrogation techniques that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Army's own standards.
As stated earlier, President Obama has taken the first step in dealing with this disturbing episode of torture by reversing Bush's policy. He must now order congressional hearings and perhaps an independent commission to probe the matter further so that never again this country is misused by government officials soiling its image. Pursuing criminal charges against all those who authorized torture would be a moral victory for America and help her to be taken seriously by the international community who had only seen hypocrisy from the most powerful nation on earth. Is President Obama ready for taking the next step?
References:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31594
http://mediamatters.org/research/200501050001
http://mediamatters.org/research/200405050003
http://drhabibsiddiqui.blogspot.com/2009/04/those-who-authorized-torture-must-be.html
Leon Worden. "Karpinski: Rumsfeld OK'd Methods at Abu Ghraib", Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society. http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg070204.htm. Retrieved on 2004-07-04.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
India's Tango with Israel
As has been rightly noted by Ramachandran in a Frontline article -
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20090522261003000.htm
"India-Israel cooperation actually began with the visit of Shimon Peres, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, to ISRO on January 9, 2002, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government was at the Center. A few months later, an umbrella space cooperation agreement was signed, the details of which are not known.
In 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited India, the first Israeli Prime Minister to do so. This was soon followed by another space cooperation agreement in 2003 when the then ISRO chief K. Kasturirangan visited Israel."
If one goes further back in history, one would know that after spending decades in isolation, India opened up to foreign business since the time of Rajiv Gandhi. When over the next few years, the country became more and more uncomfortable with its charade of secularism and came to openly embrace Hindu fundamentalism, it was a question of time when Gandhi's India (who chastised Zionism) would make that full transformation as an ally of the rogue state of Israel. In the mean time, scores of Muslim and non-Hindu historical places, most notable of which is the Babri Mosque, were demolished and Muslim and Christian citizens of the country slaughtered like cows. In this orgy of violence and destruction, there was hardly any difference between the Hindu chauvinist BJP and the secular Congress Party. If one looks at the ruling Likud and Labor or Kadima (in the middle), one finds a striking similarity there in Israel, too.
With 9/11 and the neo-conservative agenda for the Muslim world, it did not take much soul-searching for Indian leaders to open their doors for war criminals like Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanayahu and Ariel Sharon to India. Thus, came the trilateral defense pact with the USA and Israel, let alone the economic ones that had already preceded. The joint US-Israel forces have been training the Indian forces on not only how to crush people's aspirations for freedom in Kashmir but also in troubled north-eastern states. The Indian RAW is known for providing help to the LTTE forces to destabilize Sri Lanka. The RAW is also accused of trying to destabilize Bangladesh.
Many analysts blame Mossad for engineering the Taj Hotel terrorism. The goal was to pull India so as to make her a full partner with Israel, much like what had happened with the USA in the aftermath of 9/11. Having a reliable regional partner to the east allows Israel to have other options open should the rogue nation want to use bases inside India for its unlawful attacks inside Muslim countries like Iran and Pakistan.
As India embraces its destiny as a regional hegemonic power, we can only expect her to seal similar deals and cooperation with other militaristic countries. I wish our policy planners in Bangladesh are thinking seriously on implications of such deals of the neighbor. Does such cooperation on technology transfer compromise our own security and make us more vulnerable? If yes, what is the best course of action our nation need to take?
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20090522261003000.htm
"India-Israel cooperation actually began with the visit of Shimon Peres, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, to ISRO on January 9, 2002, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government was at the Center. A few months later, an umbrella space cooperation agreement was signed, the details of which are not known.
In 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited India, the first Israeli Prime Minister to do so. This was soon followed by another space cooperation agreement in 2003 when the then ISRO chief K. Kasturirangan visited Israel."
If one goes further back in history, one would know that after spending decades in isolation, India opened up to foreign business since the time of Rajiv Gandhi. When over the next few years, the country became more and more uncomfortable with its charade of secularism and came to openly embrace Hindu fundamentalism, it was a question of time when Gandhi's India (who chastised Zionism) would make that full transformation as an ally of the rogue state of Israel. In the mean time, scores of Muslim and non-Hindu historical places, most notable of which is the Babri Mosque, were demolished and Muslim and Christian citizens of the country slaughtered like cows. In this orgy of violence and destruction, there was hardly any difference between the Hindu chauvinist BJP and the secular Congress Party. If one looks at the ruling Likud and Labor or Kadima (in the middle), one finds a striking similarity there in Israel, too.
With 9/11 and the neo-conservative agenda for the Muslim world, it did not take much soul-searching for Indian leaders to open their doors for war criminals like Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanayahu and Ariel Sharon to India. Thus, came the trilateral defense pact with the USA and Israel, let alone the economic ones that had already preceded. The joint US-Israel forces have been training the Indian forces on not only how to crush people's aspirations for freedom in Kashmir but also in troubled north-eastern states. The Indian RAW is known for providing help to the LTTE forces to destabilize Sri Lanka. The RAW is also accused of trying to destabilize Bangladesh.
Many analysts blame Mossad for engineering the Taj Hotel terrorism. The goal was to pull India so as to make her a full partner with Israel, much like what had happened with the USA in the aftermath of 9/11. Having a reliable regional partner to the east allows Israel to have other options open should the rogue nation want to use bases inside India for its unlawful attacks inside Muslim countries like Iran and Pakistan.
As India embraces its destiny as a regional hegemonic power, we can only expect her to seal similar deals and cooperation with other militaristic countries. I wish our policy planners in Bangladesh are thinking seriously on implications of such deals of the neighbor. Does such cooperation on technology transfer compromise our own security and make us more vulnerable? If yes, what is the best course of action our nation need to take?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Comments on media-control
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=afb_1237443978
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/
The information above on Jewish control over the world media is based on facts and not illusion. However, by simply identifying the Jewish people (a matter of faith) with such charges, the non-Jewish reporters of such information often risk being charged of anti-Semitism. This is where we have to be very careful. We can only talk about people without their Jewish identity (I wish the same standard had been upheld for Muslims). For sometime, we used to speak about the evil of Zionism. But after it got revoked at the UN as not being a racist philosophy, we can't even criticize modern Zionism without being called anti-Semites. So, by definition Israel is a Jewish state, and yet its monumental crimes against humanity are non-Jewish and non-Zionist. If you criticize Israel, they would tell you that you are a Jew hater. You figure out!
When my own articles on the plight of the Palestinians first started appearing in the al-Jazeerah website and the Media Monitors Network, known to provide a media outlet on issues that matter to the Muslim world, and often at variance with the interest of powerful pro-Israel groups, I was quickly dumped as an anti-Semite, too, simply because my articles had appeared in those sites. Interestingly, the same media, owned by Jews and Christian-Zionists, would not let your non-kosher voices to be heard and push you to find alternative outlets, but as soon as you post your views in media outlets that are critical of the Israeli state, you have a new label of being an anti-Jew, an anti-Semite. You can't win either way!
Many years ago, Richard Pipes, the Jewish professor of history (father of anti-Muslim racist and bigot Daniel Pipes) tried to explain away such control as being simply a matter of choice that the Jews made in profession. In his opinion, Jews typically have been more into certain line of business, including money-making, i.e., banking and insurance, also in the entertainment industry, e.g., media, theater, music and movies, etc. He even charged Alexander Solzhenitsyn of anti-Semitism because the latter had said that there was an overwhelming representation of Jews among the Boshevists: how was such a massive representation possible in a country, which is an ocean of orthodox Christianity, where the Khajarite Jews counted so little? Solzhenitsyn blamed those Jewish Bolshevists of bringing in famine that had killed tens of millions in Russia after the October Revolution of 1917. Was he truly an anti-Semite or a neutral observer of history?
See, e.g., some comments on Solzhenitsyn's anti-communist remarks: http://reason.com/news/show/29113.html
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5190.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_Bolshevism
Before Hitler's coming to power in Germany, a review of the situation there would suggest that there was an overwhelming dominance of Jewish intellectuals in some important areas - e.g., academia and finance sector. They were even accused of bias in job hiring and promotion of the Jews (even in the universities), e.g., once they were in some high position where they could dictate the hiring of others, they made sure that the next guy and the second next in line were Jews (in corporate world we call it 'succession planning'). This created such a poisonous environment that when Hitler identified Jews as a national pariah or vampires - sucking the blood of pure-blood, hard-working Germans, there was such an overwhelming support from unemployed Germans, esp. after the Great Depression of the 1930s, which put Hitler's party in commanding lead. And yet any person talking about such issues pre-dating Hitler's coming to power risks being identified as an anti-Semite. There is an hush-hush attitude in the western world, esp. in those countries who played a vital role in the Jewish Holocaust, to punish anyone questioning some oddities with the entire Holocaust issue (this has become a big industry today) or immoral and irreligious activities of many atheist Zionists that collaborated with the Nazis.
As the account above substantiates what had long been alleged about some Jewish rich guys, one can see that even some major U.S. newspapers and TV stations that were not founded by some Jewish capitalists were later bought by them. And once they owned it, hardly did it go out of their control - transferring from one Jewish capitalist to another. The control of media today is almost complete among the rich Jews. Not surprisingly, the media caters to disinformation campaign on behalf of the Zionist state, thus, creating a totally unbalanced and unfavorable coverage on all matters Islamic, Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians (in particular). There are many Charles Krauthammers that are nothing but pen-pushing propagandists for the pariah state, reinventing yellow journalism to make a case to further Zionist interest, even if it meant costing billions of dollars to the already failing USA economy and blood of many non-Jewish soldiers fighting Israel's dirty war.
Interesting thing in all this is that Jews are at both ends of the whole game - they are the leaders of capitalism and socialism, communism. Here in the USA, most of the labor unions were started by them or at certain point came under their leadership. Some of the most outspoken voices against Zionism and anti-Israel rhetoric also come from Jews, who, not surprisingly are labeled self-hating Jews by the pro-Israel Jewish/Zionist demagogues.
In general, the Jewish people are smart people and deserve to be at the top of many institutions. However, many disingenuous Jews have found ways to keep their control intact by non-kosher means. Such behaviors solidify people's beliefs and add to giving credence to all those allegations about Jewish control on everything. In the corporate world I have seen them sometimes deliberately removing a more talented Gentile to make way for a fellow Jew who is inferior. It is unfortunate and I wish I had not seen that too many times. If my observation is not something out of the ordinary, one would be forced to conclude that the process of control (by a filthy rich segment within a minority religious group) in the USA - the most powerful county in our planet, is not just limited to the media industry alone, but in fact has reached the Corporate America today. That would be the beginning of an pre-Hitler era. I am sure the vanguards of this new-found powerhouse know it well that their reaching the top has alienated them from the vast majority and created the groundwork for an anti-Jew messiah. Thus, rather than being in the receiving end, they went into the offensive by tying the knots with millennium nuts of Christian Right to create their own Hitler for an world empire. Ideology is an important matter in all these. So came the agenda of a 'new world (dis)order', written by pro-Israel neo-conservatives. Thanks God that these forces of evil are somewhat bruised and defeated!
Based on all such information, anytime if anyone would smell Jewish control with all such activities, he/she risks being labeled as an anti-Semite, anti-Jew. And once you are labeled as such, it is a haunting label to crush your career. No matter how honest, brilliant and talented you are, and how rational you sound, they would say - well, that guy is an anti-Semite, and that is the end of it, you don't count!
And yet someone has to bell the cat, and the struggle for truth against falsehood must go on. My suggestion is that we don't want to blame a person for his/her religion but for the evil of his/her action. Control of anything in itself is not a bad thing as long as the intentions are pure and noble without harm to others. But when it becomes a vehicle for falsehood, oppression, aggression, abuse, detention, and anything Satanic or evil that is when it is a monster which needs to be brought down.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/03/16/six-jewish-companies-own-96-of-the-worlds-media/
The information above on Jewish control over the world media is based on facts and not illusion. However, by simply identifying the Jewish people (a matter of faith) with such charges, the non-Jewish reporters of such information often risk being charged of anti-Semitism. This is where we have to be very careful. We can only talk about people without their Jewish identity (I wish the same standard had been upheld for Muslims). For sometime, we used to speak about the evil of Zionism. But after it got revoked at the UN as not being a racist philosophy, we can't even criticize modern Zionism without being called anti-Semites. So, by definition Israel is a Jewish state, and yet its monumental crimes against humanity are non-Jewish and non-Zionist. If you criticize Israel, they would tell you that you are a Jew hater. You figure out!
When my own articles on the plight of the Palestinians first started appearing in the al-Jazeerah website and the Media Monitors Network, known to provide a media outlet on issues that matter to the Muslim world, and often at variance with the interest of powerful pro-Israel groups, I was quickly dumped as an anti-Semite, too, simply because my articles had appeared in those sites. Interestingly, the same media, owned by Jews and Christian-Zionists, would not let your non-kosher voices to be heard and push you to find alternative outlets, but as soon as you post your views in media outlets that are critical of the Israeli state, you have a new label of being an anti-Jew, an anti-Semite. You can't win either way!
Many years ago, Richard Pipes, the Jewish professor of history (father of anti-Muslim racist and bigot Daniel Pipes) tried to explain away such control as being simply a matter of choice that the Jews made in profession. In his opinion, Jews typically have been more into certain line of business, including money-making, i.e., banking and insurance, also in the entertainment industry, e.g., media, theater, music and movies, etc. He even charged Alexander Solzhenitsyn of anti-Semitism because the latter had said that there was an overwhelming representation of Jews among the Boshevists: how was such a massive representation possible in a country, which is an ocean of orthodox Christianity, where the Khajarite Jews counted so little? Solzhenitsyn blamed those Jewish Bolshevists of bringing in famine that had killed tens of millions in Russia after the October Revolution of 1917. Was he truly an anti-Semite or a neutral observer of history?
See, e.g., some comments on Solzhenitsyn's anti-communist remarks: http://reason.com/news/show/29113.html
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5190.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_Bolshevism
Before Hitler's coming to power in Germany, a review of the situation there would suggest that there was an overwhelming dominance of Jewish intellectuals in some important areas - e.g., academia and finance sector. They were even accused of bias in job hiring and promotion of the Jews (even in the universities), e.g., once they were in some high position where they could dictate the hiring of others, they made sure that the next guy and the second next in line were Jews (in corporate world we call it 'succession planning'). This created such a poisonous environment that when Hitler identified Jews as a national pariah or vampires - sucking the blood of pure-blood, hard-working Germans, there was such an overwhelming support from unemployed Germans, esp. after the Great Depression of the 1930s, which put Hitler's party in commanding lead. And yet any person talking about such issues pre-dating Hitler's coming to power risks being identified as an anti-Semite. There is an hush-hush attitude in the western world, esp. in those countries who played a vital role in the Jewish Holocaust, to punish anyone questioning some oddities with the entire Holocaust issue (this has become a big industry today) or immoral and irreligious activities of many atheist Zionists that collaborated with the Nazis.
As the account above substantiates what had long been alleged about some Jewish rich guys, one can see that even some major U.S. newspapers and TV stations that were not founded by some Jewish capitalists were later bought by them. And once they owned it, hardly did it go out of their control - transferring from one Jewish capitalist to another. The control of media today is almost complete among the rich Jews. Not surprisingly, the media caters to disinformation campaign on behalf of the Zionist state, thus, creating a totally unbalanced and unfavorable coverage on all matters Islamic, Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians (in particular). There are many Charles Krauthammers that are nothing but pen-pushing propagandists for the pariah state, reinventing yellow journalism to make a case to further Zionist interest, even if it meant costing billions of dollars to the already failing USA economy and blood of many non-Jewish soldiers fighting Israel's dirty war.
Interesting thing in all this is that Jews are at both ends of the whole game - they are the leaders of capitalism and socialism, communism. Here in the USA, most of the labor unions were started by them or at certain point came under their leadership. Some of the most outspoken voices against Zionism and anti-Israel rhetoric also come from Jews, who, not surprisingly are labeled self-hating Jews by the pro-Israel Jewish/Zionist demagogues.
In general, the Jewish people are smart people and deserve to be at the top of many institutions. However, many disingenuous Jews have found ways to keep their control intact by non-kosher means. Such behaviors solidify people's beliefs and add to giving credence to all those allegations about Jewish control on everything. In the corporate world I have seen them sometimes deliberately removing a more talented Gentile to make way for a fellow Jew who is inferior. It is unfortunate and I wish I had not seen that too many times. If my observation is not something out of the ordinary, one would be forced to conclude that the process of control (by a filthy rich segment within a minority religious group) in the USA - the most powerful county in our planet, is not just limited to the media industry alone, but in fact has reached the Corporate America today. That would be the beginning of an pre-Hitler era. I am sure the vanguards of this new-found powerhouse know it well that their reaching the top has alienated them from the vast majority and created the groundwork for an anti-Jew messiah. Thus, rather than being in the receiving end, they went into the offensive by tying the knots with millennium nuts of Christian Right to create their own Hitler for an world empire. Ideology is an important matter in all these. So came the agenda of a 'new world (dis)order', written by pro-Israel neo-conservatives. Thanks God that these forces of evil are somewhat bruised and defeated!
Based on all such information, anytime if anyone would smell Jewish control with all such activities, he/she risks being labeled as an anti-Semite, anti-Jew. And once you are labeled as such, it is a haunting label to crush your career. No matter how honest, brilliant and talented you are, and how rational you sound, they would say - well, that guy is an anti-Semite, and that is the end of it, you don't count!
And yet someone has to bell the cat, and the struggle for truth against falsehood must go on. My suggestion is that we don't want to blame a person for his/her religion but for the evil of his/her action. Control of anything in itself is not a bad thing as long as the intentions are pure and noble without harm to others. But when it becomes a vehicle for falsehood, oppression, aggression, abuse, detention, and anything Satanic or evil that is when it is a monster which needs to be brought down.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Comments on student hoodlums
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=86845
I am really disgusted with the hoodlums of the BCL that are trying to 'change' everything in Bangladesh. They essentially have not learned an iota of wisdom from history and give a bad name to student politics and what it had done to our nation. They forget that public hate arrogance of power, as much as they hate crime and corruption. Liking a leader does not mean disrobing another, nor removal of someone's bust of sculpture.
If these hoodlums had any common sense they could have easily found a new place, even within the same compound, to put the bust of Sk. Mujib, without having had to remove the old one 'Shelly.' But what we see is a sickening display to removing everything old. So, airports, hospitals, colleges, etc. with an old name are replaced with a new name, thus, trying to obscure history, if not totally erase its past. Not surprisingly, we don't have any more Salimullah Hall, Iqbal Hall, and even not the PG Hospital. Instead we have new names that only show our narrow-mindedness, a moth-eaten understanding of history, as if the history started only from 1971. Lost there is the past connection to the present.
Why can't the political leaders of today build a new structure and name that under whatever name they like? People won't have any problem identifying their contribution to that building or structure. But no, they won't. Because it is easy to give a new name than to build one. Thus, they go after changing the old names on which they had nothing to contribute to. Shame on them and shame on their student chelas!
I support Mandal's view wholeheartedly, and echo his voice: "I am a great fan of Bangabandhu .... Of course there can be a sculpture of Bangabandhu on the hostel premise. But why it replaces my creation?"
I am really disgusted with the hoodlums of the BCL that are trying to 'change' everything in Bangladesh. They essentially have not learned an iota of wisdom from history and give a bad name to student politics and what it had done to our nation. They forget that public hate arrogance of power, as much as they hate crime and corruption. Liking a leader does not mean disrobing another, nor removal of someone's bust of sculpture.
If these hoodlums had any common sense they could have easily found a new place, even within the same compound, to put the bust of Sk. Mujib, without having had to remove the old one 'Shelly.' But what we see is a sickening display to removing everything old. So, airports, hospitals, colleges, etc. with an old name are replaced with a new name, thus, trying to obscure history, if not totally erase its past. Not surprisingly, we don't have any more Salimullah Hall, Iqbal Hall, and even not the PG Hospital. Instead we have new names that only show our narrow-mindedness, a moth-eaten understanding of history, as if the history started only from 1971. Lost there is the past connection to the present.
Why can't the political leaders of today build a new structure and name that under whatever name they like? People won't have any problem identifying their contribution to that building or structure. But no, they won't. Because it is easy to give a new name than to build one. Thus, they go after changing the old names on which they had nothing to contribute to. Shame on them and shame on their student chelas!
I support Mandal's view wholeheartedly, and echo his voice: "I am a great fan of Bangabandhu .... Of course there can be a sculpture of Bangabandhu on the hostel premise. But why it replaces my creation?"
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Comments on Prothom Alo Polls
While voting, in general, is probably the best way to sort out the best option out of many, it is not necessarily a fair way when more than one options are available to the voter. In an electronic voting, fortunately the option is often times limited to two, e.g., yes or no, which makes it a fair assessment as long as the system can be trusted (without bugs or predetermined outcome, which an intelligent programmer can sometimes code into the program) for reliability and accuracy. For a reliability of opinion, such votes must also come from random samples and not a particular biased group. The most important parameters, however, are sample size (based on population size), degree of confidence and margin of error the results would have.
So, e.g., if we have a population size of 1 million, and we are looking for a 95% confidence (i.e, a take a risk of 5% that I could be wrong with my assessment), then we shall need a sample size of 2400 voters to vote. The margin of error will be 2%. As the population size increases, the sample size requirement increases up to a point (being an exponential type function), plateauing out above 1 million. Thus, if we have a small population to begin with, the sample size requirement would be smaller.
With this background, if we are to study, e.g., the Prothom Alo results about the CHT problem, we can say that the the sample size is adequate for a test of 95% confidence. As to the result itself, the difference of 54% for yes vs. 42% for no (ignoring the third option - undecided) shows that the 2% margin of error will not have altered the general conclusion that the current government cannot solve the CHT problem satisfactorily.
There are, however, some catches with many electronic votings that we need to be acquainted with. Some systems allow a single person to cast multiple votes, i.e., one can hit the yes- or no-button as many times as one wishes, without being restricted to do so. Even if a restriction is imposed, it is often limited to a username or a machine from where the polling site was accessed. Thus, if a person has multiple usernames and/or multiple machines, he or she could cast his/her vote multiple times, thus affecting the outcome of voting.
Since I don't usually participate in such e-votings, I don't know how reliable the Prothom Alo e-voting was. We must also take into consideration the preference of people accessing the Prothom Alo site to begin with. Who typically are the readers of the site? Do they belong to a certain ideology, age group, demography, profession, etc.? Could some activist for a particular opinion lobby or influence others to vote for the same opinion as his or her?
Without all such info available, the results of an opinion poll are just a piece of info that may not be reliable.
So, e.g., if we have a population size of 1 million, and we are looking for a 95% confidence (i.e, a take a risk of 5% that I could be wrong with my assessment), then we shall need a sample size of 2400 voters to vote. The margin of error will be 2%. As the population size increases, the sample size requirement increases up to a point (being an exponential type function), plateauing out above 1 million. Thus, if we have a small population to begin with, the sample size requirement would be smaller.
With this background, if we are to study, e.g., the Prothom Alo results about the CHT problem, we can say that the the sample size is adequate for a test of 95% confidence. As to the result itself, the difference of 54% for yes vs. 42% for no (ignoring the third option - undecided) shows that the 2% margin of error will not have altered the general conclusion that the current government cannot solve the CHT problem satisfactorily.
There are, however, some catches with many electronic votings that we need to be acquainted with. Some systems allow a single person to cast multiple votes, i.e., one can hit the yes- or no-button as many times as one wishes, without being restricted to do so. Even if a restriction is imposed, it is often limited to a username or a machine from where the polling site was accessed. Thus, if a person has multiple usernames and/or multiple machines, he or she could cast his/her vote multiple times, thus affecting the outcome of voting.
Since I don't usually participate in such e-votings, I don't know how reliable the Prothom Alo e-voting was. We must also take into consideration the preference of people accessing the Prothom Alo site to begin with. Who typically are the readers of the site? Do they belong to a certain ideology, age group, demography, profession, etc.? Could some activist for a particular opinion lobby or influence others to vote for the same opinion as his or her?
Without all such info available, the results of an opinion poll are just a piece of info that may not be reliable.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Comments on Trilateral Commission:World Shadow Government
Re: http://afgen.com/trilateral.html
In Dr. Ali Shariati's work you will find his analysis of mankind - an-Naas, which is very thought provoking. Drawing upon the verses from the Qur'an, esp. the history of creation of Adam and the story of his two sons, he says basically there are two types of men - the type of Habil and the type of Kabil. It is the Kabils who are aggressive, selfish and materialists, who like to control the world. And then there are the Habils who are soft-hearted, unselfish and spiritual, continuously concerned about his accountability, and serve others.
Following that analogy, all the powerful governments of the world (from the time of Nimrod to our present time - e.g., the USA) and their masterminds symbolize the characteristics of Kabil. The Trilateral Commission, like some other groups - Bohemian Club, Bilderberg (and obviously Free Masonry), etc. - are all embodiments of that Kabilite force ensuring their authority on all things material. They control the IMF, WB and many important agencies in our world. It is they who dictate how we, the Habils, should behave. And the sad reality is that Habils being weak find that they are cornered with often no way out and eventually give in to pressure, and thereby prolonging their servitude to the altar of Kabils of our world.
As we know Zbig has been a very towering intellectual of our time. I don't know of too many of his calibre in our world today as a global strategist. He is the one who prepared the ground for the downfall of the Soviets during the Carter Administration, albeit with our Mujahedeen who were used as the Habils. As a Rockefeller insider, he virtually picked up Jimmy from almost nowhere and then prepared him to become the president of the USA. However, with Carter's innate spiritual craving for good, he soon came at odds with his mentors, and found it difficult to get re-elected. By that time, the Kabils, with all the Jewish power in the banks, media, Hollywood, have found their new deliverer - Reagan. And the final nail in the coffin, announcing Carter's royal departure was struck by the Iranian Revolution and the ensuing Hostage crisis that followed - something that was out of the blue - no experts in the Kabil powerhouse had hoped to see such a change in Shah's 'region of tranquility.' The old Pharaoh had to go yielding place to the new. So, the history goes on and on.
In Dr. Ali Shariati's work you will find his analysis of mankind - an-Naas, which is very thought provoking. Drawing upon the verses from the Qur'an, esp. the history of creation of Adam and the story of his two sons, he says basically there are two types of men - the type of Habil and the type of Kabil. It is the Kabils who are aggressive, selfish and materialists, who like to control the world. And then there are the Habils who are soft-hearted, unselfish and spiritual, continuously concerned about his accountability, and serve others.
Following that analogy, all the powerful governments of the world (from the time of Nimrod to our present time - e.g., the USA) and their masterminds symbolize the characteristics of Kabil. The Trilateral Commission, like some other groups - Bohemian Club, Bilderberg (and obviously Free Masonry), etc. - are all embodiments of that Kabilite force ensuring their authority on all things material. They control the IMF, WB and many important agencies in our world. It is they who dictate how we, the Habils, should behave. And the sad reality is that Habils being weak find that they are cornered with often no way out and eventually give in to pressure, and thereby prolonging their servitude to the altar of Kabils of our world.
As we know Zbig has been a very towering intellectual of our time. I don't know of too many of his calibre in our world today as a global strategist. He is the one who prepared the ground for the downfall of the Soviets during the Carter Administration, albeit with our Mujahedeen who were used as the Habils. As a Rockefeller insider, he virtually picked up Jimmy from almost nowhere and then prepared him to become the president of the USA. However, with Carter's innate spiritual craving for good, he soon came at odds with his mentors, and found it difficult to get re-elected. By that time, the Kabils, with all the Jewish power in the banks, media, Hollywood, have found their new deliverer - Reagan. And the final nail in the coffin, announcing Carter's royal departure was struck by the Iranian Revolution and the ensuing Hostage crisis that followed - something that was out of the blue - no experts in the Kabil powerhouse had hoped to see such a change in Shah's 'region of tranquility.' The old Pharaoh had to go yielding place to the new. So, the history goes on and on.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunita Paul Unmasked
Here is an interesting piece on Sunita Paul from Suchinta's convenor that has appeared in the Daily Star:
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86171
Have not we suspected all along that she is really fake? I personally did not know of the existence of her second 'white' picture. Like criminals she is leaving her trails of crime everywhere.
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86171
Have not we suspected all along that she is really fake? I personally did not know of the existence of her second 'white' picture. Like criminals she is leaving her trails of crime everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)