I am incapable of generating dark humour, and accordingly, envious of anyone who can turn bad news into fodder for laughs. In other words, I am a devotee of everyone from Dave Barry to Doonesbury; and now Saturday Night Live has joined the list.
Here's the awesome parody of the Sarah Palin - Joe Biden debate (You'll enjoy it much more if you have an idea of what actually transpired):
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Mob violence seems here to stay
My earliest memory of being afraid comes from when I was a child, when I was young enough to race into my parents' bed after a nightmare. It was the voices that scared me – of a loud group of men speaking over each other so thoroughly that you couldn’t make out a single coherent word in the final sound muddle. My imagination added the yellows of fire to the soundtrack, as if they were carrying burning sticks in their hands, and I fled from my bed.
For a long time I considered the memory a real vestige from the 1984 riots. But on hindsight, my parents wouldn’t be sleeping soundly with such commotion outside. I guess the neighbors were seeing a movie on high volume and I must have seen the serial Tamas in the recent past.
But I never forgot the memory.
And India forgot it too soon.
Mob violence has a long history in India, indeed, as long as its political existence – beginning with the Partition. The mayhem of the times should have been a lesson. Instead, every time minorities found themselves at the receiving end – be it Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat or Pandits in Kashmir – the authorities proved at best apathetic and impotent, and at worst, participants in the crime.
For instance, here’s what Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had to say after his mother’s assassination in 1984, a period marked by genocide of the Sikhs. [By their genocide, I refer to mobs barging into their houses, grabbing the men of the house out of their hiding place, hooting as they dragged them out, flinging tyres around their necks and setting them afire, with their families looking on.]
Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat went one better. After the Godhra incident – when a train bearing Hindu Kar Sevaks was set on fire – every one knew there were going to be riots. I remember because it was the day I got married. All our guests took first flights out as soon as the ceremonies were over, expecting a spillover to reach Bombay any moment.
But Modi failed to rein in the police into action at a time when he should have actually called in the military for help. Worse, as several journalists found out, he was complicit in the riots.
[I know many do not believe that the pogrom was premeditated, that it was a spontaneous reaction of aggrieved Hindus; perhaps this will change your mind ]
This time, the excuse for violence was – they deserved it. A whole community of people deserved being raped, burnt alive, diced by swords, getting their wombs ripped off, because someone else from their religion had committed arson [by the way, arson by Muslims in Godhra was never proven, only conjectured].
Some of my friends went to Gujarat soon after, when the stench of carcasses and fear still hung in the air. While visiting affected localities, they saw these posters on walls: "Christians, you are next.” The man-eaters were boldly looking for the next victim.
Welcome to Orissa.
Once again, the perennial top favourites – rapes, and people burnt alive.
Once again, criminals getting away with it.
Worst, once again, a group who thinks the victims’ community had it coming and deserved every bit of the ‘punishment.’
Unfortunately, people will always find plenty of excuses to murder their neighbors. The lack of prison sentences for such murders has let loose a whole host of mobbing throngs in India, who are striking with increasing regularity. Unless the instigators [read politicians] and executors [read mobsters] are put behind bars, there will be no end to such violence.
The tone needs to be set: bestiality, no matter what cause, is unacceptable. Adrenalin, no matter how high, isn't a pardon from the gallows.
For a long time I considered the memory a real vestige from the 1984 riots. But on hindsight, my parents wouldn’t be sleeping soundly with such commotion outside. I guess the neighbors were seeing a movie on high volume and I must have seen the serial Tamas in the recent past.
But I never forgot the memory.
And India forgot it too soon.
Mob violence has a long history in India, indeed, as long as its political existence – beginning with the Partition. The mayhem of the times should have been a lesson. Instead, every time minorities found themselves at the receiving end – be it Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat or Pandits in Kashmir – the authorities proved at best apathetic and impotent, and at worst, participants in the crime.
For instance, here’s what Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had to say after his mother’s assassination in 1984, a period marked by genocide of the Sikhs. [By their genocide, I refer to mobs barging into their houses, grabbing the men of the house out of their hiding place, hooting as they dragged them out, flinging tyres around their necks and setting them afire, with their families looking on.]
But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little.
Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat went one better. After the Godhra incident – when a train bearing Hindu Kar Sevaks was set on fire – every one knew there were going to be riots. I remember because it was the day I got married. All our guests took first flights out as soon as the ceremonies were over, expecting a spillover to reach Bombay any moment.
But Modi failed to rein in the police into action at a time when he should have actually called in the military for help. Worse, as several journalists found out, he was complicit in the riots.
[I know many do not believe that the pogrom was premeditated, that it was a spontaneous reaction of aggrieved Hindus; perhaps this will change your mind ]
This time, the excuse for violence was – they deserved it. A whole community of people deserved being raped, burnt alive, diced by swords, getting their wombs ripped off, because someone else from their religion had committed arson [by the way, arson by Muslims in Godhra was never proven, only conjectured].
Some of my friends went to Gujarat soon after, when the stench of carcasses and fear still hung in the air. While visiting affected localities, they saw these posters on walls: "Christians, you are next.” The man-eaters were boldly looking for the next victim.
Welcome to Orissa.
Once again, the perennial top favourites – rapes, and people burnt alive.
Once again, criminals getting away with it.
Worst, once again, a group who thinks the victims’ community had it coming and deserved every bit of the ‘punishment.’
Unfortunately, people will always find plenty of excuses to murder their neighbors. The lack of prison sentences for such murders has let loose a whole host of mobbing throngs in India, who are striking with increasing regularity. Unless the instigators [read politicians] and executors [read mobsters] are put behind bars, there will be no end to such violence.
The tone needs to be set: bestiality, no matter what cause, is unacceptable. Adrenalin, no matter how high, isn't a pardon from the gallows.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Anne Kilkenny - is she for real?
For those who are still unaware of who she is, scroll down and read her famous letter that has reproduced itself to 271,000 pages on the net in the last four days and made it to the top post on Wordpress.
I started reading it by chance, and couldn't stop till the last sentence. IMHO, even the venerable Obama couldn't have phrased it better.
So question 1, is she for real?
Well, Anne Kilkenny certainly exists. Here, she is quoted in New York Times in an article (no mention of her letter)
And question 2, did she write it?
In the google links I went through - and I went through many - some wondered if the letter was authentic, but no one could call it a hoax for sure. Meanwhile, there were those who said they'd called Kilkenny and confirmed authenticity.
More convincingly - the New York Times article I mentioned earlier is dated Sep 2 - 2 days after her letter starting splashing around the internet (Aug 31). Unlikely that the journalist spoke with her without knowing the letter's background.
So for now, I think it is wise that when you think of Ms Palin, be scared. Be very scared.
----
the letter (reproduced)
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .
Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks. :)
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .
Thanks,
Anne
ABOUT SARAH PALIN
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.
She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.
Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
She's smart.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.
During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.
As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.
She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the
case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen
contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.
There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.
However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.
CLAIM VS FACT
•“Hockey mom”: true for a few years
•“PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
•“NRA supporter”: absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
•“Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
•“Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
•No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.
Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.
You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.
Anne Kilkenny
annekilkenny@hotmail.com
August 31, 2008
I started reading it by chance, and couldn't stop till the last sentence. IMHO, even the venerable Obama couldn't have phrased it better.
So question 1, is she for real?
Well, Anne Kilkenny certainly exists. Here, she is quoted in New York Times in an article (no mention of her letter)
Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.
And question 2, did she write it?
In the google links I went through - and I went through many - some wondered if the letter was authentic, but no one could call it a hoax for sure. Meanwhile, there were those who said they'd called Kilkenny and confirmed authenticity.
More convincingly - the New York Times article I mentioned earlier is dated Sep 2 - 2 days after her letter starting splashing around the internet (Aug 31). Unlikely that the journalist spoke with her without knowing the letter's background.
So for now, I think it is wise that when you think of Ms Palin, be scared. Be very scared.
----
the letter (reproduced)
Dear friends,
So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .
Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and their good looks. :)
You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .
Thanks,
Anne
ABOUT SARAH PALIN
I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the city.
She is enormously popular; in every way she’s like the most popular girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe".
It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for seven months.
She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.
She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.
She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.
Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palin’s kind of job is highly sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans.
Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.
She's smart.
Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 residents.
During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign.
Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her 6 years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.
While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.
These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.
As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.
In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, borrow for needs.
She’s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.
Sarah complained about the “old boy’s club” when she first ran for Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the
case of pressuring the State’s top cop (see below).
As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla’s Police Chief because he “intimidated” her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen
contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support.
She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn’t like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.
Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything publicly about her.
When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the “old boys’ club” when she dramatically quit, exposing this man’s ethics violations (for which he was fined).
As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.
As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as “anti-pork”.
She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal conservative.
Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They call her “Sarah Barracuda” because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.
As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package of legislation known as “AGIA” that forced the oil companies to march to the beat of her drum.
Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global warming. She campaigned “as a private citizen” against a state initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the State’s lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interior’s decision to list polar bears as threatened species.
McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a heartbeat away from being President.
There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable and experienced than she.
However, there’s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are regretting it.
CLAIM VS FACT
•“Hockey mom”: true for a few years
•“PTA mom”: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, not since
•“NRA supporter”: absolutely true
•social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
•pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to promote it.
•“Pro-life”: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down’s syndrome baby BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life legislation
•“Experienced”: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
•No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator to run town of about 5,000.
•political maverick: not at all
•gutsy: absolutely!
•open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining actions.
•has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
•”a Greenie”: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
•fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
•pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets to early 20th century standards.
•pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on residents
•pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government in Wasilla’s history.
•pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn’t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is pro-labor/pro-union.
WHY AM I WRITING THIS?
First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.
Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have gone to as many City Council meetings.
Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will cost me somehow in the future: that’s life.
Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's attempt at censorship.
Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.
CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.
You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day Palin’s selection was announced a city official told me that the current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90’s.
Anne Kilkenny
annekilkenny@hotmail.com
August 31, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The Chinese way - now That's creative!
Usually governments quash dissension by hunting down the dissenters. But why make they effort when you can get them to contact you instead, that too voluntarily?
At least that's what the Chinese government is doing. And successfully.
To create the impression of a dawn of free speech for Make Benefit Gullible Officials of Olympics, China created three Official protest Zones for use by demonstrators in Beijing. The catch - demonstrators would need to get an approval in advance.
Now, much to the Olympic Committe's surprise and no one else's, not one out the 77 applications has been approved. Instead, we are told, 74 have been withdrawn as they were "properly addressed by relevant authorities or departments through consultations", thereby removing the need to demonstrate altogether. In reality, reports are trickling in of people detained after putting in their requests.
Among the unresolved applicants are two old ladies who have been sentenced to "reeducation through labour". Beijing residents Wu Dianyuan, 79, and Wang Xiuying, 77 [you can see their pictures here] were accused by the authorities of "disturbing public order" since they persisted in asking for permission to demonstrate [they applied 5 times]. Apparently, if they "behave themselves", reports South China Morning post, they will not need to serve their punishment in a labour re-education camp. In any case, they will be watched.
The news has obviously turned out to be a scoop for foreign press. [For instance, New York Times and Herald tribune.] But the Chinese organizers (Bocog) are unfazed, and in fact, can't understand what the fuss is about:
Yep, we certainly don't.
At least that's what the Chinese government is doing. And successfully.
To create the impression of a dawn of free speech for Make Benefit Gullible Officials of Olympics, China created three Official protest Zones for use by demonstrators in Beijing. The catch - demonstrators would need to get an approval in advance.
Now, much to the Olympic Committe's surprise and no one else's, not one out the 77 applications has been approved. Instead, we are told, 74 have been withdrawn as they were "properly addressed by relevant authorities or departments through consultations", thereby removing the need to demonstrate altogether. In reality, reports are trickling in of people detained after putting in their requests.
Among the unresolved applicants are two old ladies who have been sentenced to "reeducation through labour". Beijing residents Wu Dianyuan, 79, and Wang Xiuying, 77 [you can see their pictures here] were accused by the authorities of "disturbing public order" since they persisted in asking for permission to demonstrate [they applied 5 times]. Apparently, if they "behave themselves", reports South China Morning post, they will not need to serve their punishment in a labour re-education camp. In any case, they will be watched.
The news has obviously turned out to be a scoop for foreign press. [For instance, New York Times and Herald tribune.] But the Chinese organizers (Bocog) are unfazed, and in fact, can't understand what the fuss is about:
On the issue of demonstration, the basic situation has been already announced by the authorities. And I think you should be satisfied with that. The demonstration parks are announced. There are three places on the basis of Chinese law. The idea of demonstration is to hoping to resolve issue it is not demonstrating for the sake of demonstration.
...We are actually quite happy to hear that many of the 77 cases have been resolved.
Wang Wei, Bocog at a press conference while rebuking a reporter on his question.
He goes on to say how we foreigners are unnecessarily aggrieved because we do not understand the Chinese way of harmony and resolution.Yep, we certainly don't.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Great for the GDP. Great for the people?
Not that I expected Sudan's Government to be anything less than ruthless, but its brazen trade policy still leaves me appalled.
Here's a quick recap on what Sudan is all about:
-- civil war has torn the country, creating a malnourished nation of refugees.
-- international donors are sending in supplies including enormous food-aid to support the nation.
Now to add to that description: the government itself is apathetically EXPORTING food to make money while its people struggle with hunger.
In an article that has appeared in at least two major newspapers, Gettleman exposes the practice:
You can read the full article here.
Of course, this is not the first case where a country with famished citizens decided to give a priority to making money.
For instance, we in India - where more than one-fourth of the world's poor live with malnutrition for company, have exported food in the past, have good reasons to continue doing so in the future.
.
.
.
Or do we?
----
I doubt clamping exports alone will solve India's food problems in a jiffy. But designing systems that can supply food to the poor will certainly be time better spent than say, having expositions on how exporting only high quality non-basmati is a good compromise.
Here's a quick recap on what Sudan is all about:
-- civil war has torn the country, creating a malnourished nation of refugees.
-- international donors are sending in supplies including enormous food-aid to support the nation.
Now to add to that description: the government itself is apathetically EXPORTING food to make money while its people struggle with hunger.
In an article that has appeared in at least two major newspapers, Gettleman exposes the practice:
Sudan is growing and selling vast quantities of its own crops to other countries, capitalizing on high global food prices at a time when millions of people in its war-riddled region of Darfur barely have enough to eat.
Jeffrey Gettleman
You can read the full article here.
Of course, this is not the first case where a country with famished citizens decided to give a priority to making money.
For instance, we in India - where more than one-fourth of the world's poor live with malnutrition for company, have exported food in the past, have good reasons to continue doing so in the future.
.
.
.
Or do we?
----
I doubt clamping exports alone will solve India's food problems in a jiffy. But designing systems that can supply food to the poor will certainly be time better spent than say, having expositions on how exporting only high quality non-basmati is a good compromise.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Members of parliament are up for sale. Yawn.
You can decry India's politicians on a thousand counts, but you certainly cannot fault them when it comes to meeting expectations. Without exception, they succeed in falling to lower depths in moronic nautankis that we depend on them to provide.
Take yesterday's no-confidence motion for instance. There was, as usual, shouting of slogans and stamping of desks. You could find familiar unruly hooligans swamping the floor of the house, whooping as they did so. Then there were the wads of money thrown up along with a myriad accusations. And finally, in a familiar flourish, there was the promise of an all-revealing CD thanks to a TV channel's sting operation.
Okay, so members of our parliament were bribed to sell their vote. Yawn. What's new???
Ah! Apparently they did not accept the bribe!! Instead, they threw up currency notes in the parliament so that CBI could seize them and investigate!!!
Yeah, right!!!!
Honestly, after years of Ekta Kapoor on TV and Politics 101 in the newspapers - who's going to buy that flimsy bullshit?? As you and I and all Indians can guess... no, not guess - we KNOW - the MPs who felt insulted at being presumed for sale were probably never approached for a bribe at all and made the whole thing up. (Had they really been offered a bribe, they would have accepted gracefully.) OR, they were bribed and then a contesting buyer for their vote bribed them even higher to spill the beans.
All this very exciting indeed, but am afraid that such conspiracies are repeated so regularly that, frankly, the episode hardly deserves attention even in a blogpost.
So let's turn our attention to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh instead, the man who survived and said the only thing I find amusing in the whole fiasco:
LOL. Manmohan Singh may not have learned the ropes of power under the shadow of Sonia Gandhi. But he has certainly picked up the politician's flair of a good speech in his struggle against the Bharatiya Janata Party
Take yesterday's no-confidence motion for instance. There was, as usual, shouting of slogans and stamping of desks. You could find familiar unruly hooligans swamping the floor of the house, whooping as they did so. Then there were the wads of money thrown up along with a myriad accusations. And finally, in a familiar flourish, there was the promise of an all-revealing CD thanks to a TV channel's sting operation.
Okay, so members of our parliament were bribed to sell their vote. Yawn. What's new???
Ah! Apparently they did not accept the bribe!! Instead, they threw up currency notes in the parliament so that CBI could seize them and investigate!!!
Yeah, right!!!!
Honestly, after years of Ekta Kapoor on TV and Politics 101 in the newspapers - who's going to buy that flimsy bullshit?? As you and I and all Indians can guess... no, not guess - we KNOW - the MPs who felt insulted at being presumed for sale were probably never approached for a bribe at all and made the whole thing up. (Had they really been offered a bribe, they would have accepted gracefully.) OR, they were bribed and then a contesting buyer for their vote bribed them even higher to spill the beans.
All this very exciting indeed, but am afraid that such conspiracies are repeated so regularly that, frankly, the episode hardly deserves attention even in a blogpost.
So let's turn our attention to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh instead, the man who survived and said the only thing I find amusing in the whole fiasco:
The Leader of Opposition, Shri L.K. Advani has chosen to use all manner of abusive objectives to describe my performance. He has described me as the weakest Prime Minister, a nikamma PM, and of having devalued the office of PM. To fulfill his ambitions, he has made at least three attempts to topple our government. But on each occasion his astrologers have misled him. This pattern, I am sure, will be repeated today. At his ripe old age, I do not expect Shri Advani to change his thinking. But for his sake and India’s sake, I urge him at least to change his astrologers so that he gets more accurate predictions of things to come.
LOL. Manmohan Singh may not have learned the ropes of power under the shadow of Sonia Gandhi. But he has certainly picked up the politician's flair of a good speech in his struggle against the Bharatiya Janata Party
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Sudan's president charged with genocide - but who will bell the cat?
Five years and counting. Finally, after an inhuman government (led by Omar al-Bashir) and its beloved militia (the janjaweed) have ratcheted a score of 200,000 dead and 2.5 million displaced in their own country, Sudan, the international governments are wondering what to do about it.
200,000. That's 5-times the number of civilians killed in Iraq since 2005.
2,500,000 displaced. That's more than three-times the Jews that emigrated to Israel after the holocaust.
If the numbers don't chill you, the anecdotes will. Press reports as well as the United Nations are aghast - at citizens being forced out of their homes and into camps, at refugees in camps being attacked and murdered, at mass tortures and mass rapes, at the recruitment of child soldiers, at girls as young as 5 being sexually abused, with their parents being forced to watch,... at innumerable other crimes against humanity.
However, the governments are, as I mentioned, still only wondering how to react. And even this effort of thought they have been forced into - by the International Criminal Court (ICC) which held Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir responsible for genocide earlier this week.
This is not the first time that the United Nations has issued a wake-up call, and by the looks of it, it won't be the last either.
After all, the last time the ICC held someone in Sudan to account for murder, it led to little more than some press releases by government spokespersons. As a result, even ten months later after indictment, Ahmad Harun is not only walking free but also strutting as a Government minister for providing relief to the victims of violence and displacement in Darfur! He continues his abusive reign as the humanitarian affairs minister.
Similarly, Ali Kushayb, the other criminal charged at the same time as Harun, also runs free as the "colonel of colonels" of the janjaweed militia.
It must have been infuriation against nothing changing that forced the ICC to bring up an unprecedented charge - the indictment is the first against a ruling president. Nevertheless, the bravado is unlikely to bring chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's (involved with both the earlier indictment and the latest) frustration to an end.
US and UK armies are overextended. Europe has an economy to worry about. African countries mind only their own business (see Zimbabwe's election for instance). Asia (except China) has no muscle to show. And China has too much at stake in Sudan's oil to wrangle with the ruling powers that be. (Moreover, China has too many skeletons of its own that it doesn't like others talking about - so it won't be setting a 'bad precedent' by criticizing Sudan.)
Naturally,
Liu Jianchao, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson in an interview
Wow. This must be some strange usage of the word stability that I was previously unaware of.*
*(With apologies to Douglas Adams)
200,000. That's 5-times the number of civilians killed in Iraq since 2005.
2,500,000 displaced. That's more than three-times the Jews that emigrated to Israel after the holocaust.
If the numbers don't chill you, the anecdotes will. Press reports as well as the United Nations are aghast - at citizens being forced out of their homes and into camps, at refugees in camps being attacked and murdered, at mass tortures and mass rapes, at the recruitment of child soldiers, at girls as young as 5 being sexually abused, with their parents being forced to watch,... at innumerable other crimes against humanity.
However, the governments are, as I mentioned, still only wondering how to react. And even this effort of thought they have been forced into - by the International Criminal Court (ICC) which held Sudan's president Omar al-Bashir responsible for genocide earlier this week.
This is not the first time that the United Nations has issued a wake-up call, and by the looks of it, it won't be the last either.
After all, the last time the ICC held someone in Sudan to account for murder, it led to little more than some press releases by government spokespersons. As a result, even ten months later after indictment, Ahmad Harun is not only walking free but also strutting as a Government minister for providing relief to the victims of violence and displacement in Darfur! He continues his abusive reign as the humanitarian affairs minister.
Similarly, Ali Kushayb, the other criminal charged at the same time as Harun, also runs free as the "colonel of colonels" of the janjaweed militia.
It must have been infuriation against nothing changing that forced the ICC to bring up an unprecedented charge - the indictment is the first against a ruling president. Nevertheless, the bravado is unlikely to bring chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo's (involved with both the earlier indictment and the latest) frustration to an end.
US and UK armies are overextended. Europe has an economy to worry about. African countries mind only their own business (see Zimbabwe's election for instance). Asia (except China) has no muscle to show. And China has too much at stake in Sudan's oil to wrangle with the ruling powers that be. (Moreover, China has too many skeletons of its own that it doesn't like others talking about - so it won't be setting a 'bad precedent' by criticizing Sudan.)
Naturally,
"China expresses grave concern and misgivings over ICC's charge against the Sudanese leader. The relevant actions of the ICC should be conducive to the stability in Sudan ....not the opposite.
"...We will work with the international community and continue our contribution to achieve at an early date the peace, stability and development in Darfur."
Wow. This must be some strange usage of the word stability that I was previously unaware of.*
*(With apologies to Douglas Adams)
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Indian Press under attack - but do we care?
We have all noticed the increasing garbage that comes in the name of news at our doorstep. Many of us excuse/accept/swallow it in the name of the free market. The argument goes: if media have the ability to sell crap to make money, why shouldn't they? Readers are buying the papers no matter how lurid or useless the articles may be. Viewers have let channels get away with the sub-standard content. Everyone has chosen to buy what has been sold.
Lately, several journalists who were reporting unflatteringly on the political state of affairs landed themselves a calling card from courts. [I know attacks on press freedom are nothing new; but a spate of emails in my inbox suggest that the frequency has increased] To name some:
Bharat Desai (Times of India's Resident Editor), Prashant Dayal (Correspondent) and photographer. Charged with sedition and conspiracy against the state. They had written a series of articles (first article here) on the alleged links of new Ahmedabad police chief O P Mathur with a mafia don and his ability to guarantee security in the city.
Ajay T.G (film maker). Charged with sedition. He supported Dr Binayak Sen (who brought attention to unlawul "encounter" killings in Chattisgarh) through his documentary Anjam. Just before his arrest he was planning a documentary on displacement.
Kumar Ketkar (editor, Loksatta). Residence attacked by a mob from the Shiv Sangram Sanghatana. He had written a satirical piece on plans to instal Shivaji Maharaj's statue in the Arabian Sea.
Prashant Rahi (former correspondent, The Statesman). Arrested under charges of sedition, conspiracy and attempt of waging war against the State. He had been personally involved in movements such as the agitation against Tehri Dam. [His daughter's campaign here]
Rahi's arrest, says a Tehelka story, is closely related in motivation with the arrests of Prafull Jha (former bureau chief, Dainik Bhaskar), Govindam Kutty (editor, People's March), Pittala Srisailam, Lachit Bordoloi. All are journalists who sympathize with and cover the grassroots.
These are just a handful episodes in a an increasing tide of attacks against the media. To my mind, the trend is alarming.
History shows freedom isn't a gift; it is something to fight for.
Yet, I find that just a pitiful 55 people have signed up for their cause; a signing up that requires nothing more than an armchair signature and no further action.
No surprise.
Update: The Chattisgarh police failed to file the chargesheet against Ajay TG within the mandatory 90 day period. So finally, he was granted statutory bail and released from prison on 5 Aug, 2008. However, the police have not yet closed the case. In other words, there are severe restrictions on his freedom to travel and he had furnish a personal bond for bail.
I suspect that politicians have reached this same conclusion. They're using this welcome revelation to brazenly silence their detractors.To me it appears that the public at large does not care enough for quality content or real news.Had they cared, they would not have compromised.
Lately, several journalists who were reporting unflatteringly on the political state of affairs landed themselves a calling card from courts. [I know attacks on press freedom are nothing new; but a spate of emails in my inbox suggest that the frequency has increased] To name some:
Bharat Desai (Times of India's Resident Editor), Prashant Dayal (Correspondent) and photographer. Charged with sedition and conspiracy against the state. They had written a series of articles (first article here) on the alleged links of new Ahmedabad police chief O P Mathur with a mafia don and his ability to guarantee security in the city.
Ajay T.G (film maker). Charged with sedition. He supported Dr Binayak Sen (who brought attention to unlawul "encounter" killings in Chattisgarh) through his documentary Anjam. Just before his arrest he was planning a documentary on displacement.
Kumar Ketkar (editor, Loksatta). Residence attacked by a mob from the Shiv Sangram Sanghatana. He had written a satirical piece on plans to instal Shivaji Maharaj's statue in the Arabian Sea.
Prashant Rahi (former correspondent, The Statesman). Arrested under charges of sedition, conspiracy and attempt of waging war against the State. He had been personally involved in movements such as the agitation against Tehri Dam. [His daughter's campaign here]
Rahi's arrest, says a Tehelka story, is closely related in motivation with the arrests of Prafull Jha (former bureau chief, Dainik Bhaskar), Govindam Kutty (editor, People's March), Pittala Srisailam, Lachit Bordoloi. All are journalists who sympathize with and cover the grassroots.
These are just a handful episodes in a an increasing tide of attacks against the media. To my mind, the trend is alarming.
History shows freedom isn't a gift; it is something to fight for.
Yet, I find that just a pitiful 55 people have signed up for their cause; a signing up that requires nothing more than an armchair signature and no further action.
Today the Wall Street Journal reported that India's press is only "partly free"; Freedom House 2008 rankings put it at number 77 among the 195 nations surveyed.
No surprise.
Update: The Chattisgarh police failed to file the chargesheet against Ajay TG within the mandatory 90 day period. So finally, he was granted statutory bail and released from prison on 5 Aug, 2008. However, the police have not yet closed the case. In other words, there are severe restrictions on his freedom to travel and he had furnish a personal bond for bail.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Enough with the preaching!
Thought I'd take a break from my usual ranting in this post and instead suggest some travel destinations. Guantanamo Bay sound good to you?
No, I am not kidding.
No, I am not kidding.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Apolitical?
Apolitical appears in the dictionary. And abounds in lofty speeches. But I doubt you'll find it anywhere else. Thing is, it doesn't really exist.
Of course, you will always find someone who insists he is apolitical. Typically, he will tell you he doesn't care which government comes to power, because it won't make a damn difference, no one's going to improve anything, sigh. And you'll nod your head, aaah that's so true.
But look close. Chances are, he couldn't care less because each of the political parties with a chance of coming into power will protect his interests. He need not care.
There are always those whose turf is protected no matter who comes to power: No one will order metropolitan cities be razed to make way for a dam. No one will decree fancy bungalows be confiscated to construct a national highway. Not happening - even if that is technically the best route. Even if the people so displaced are in a better position to relocate their livings as compared to say, tribals.
There is always a better-off section of society - a minority in numbers, but a heavyweight in power because it owns more resources (In India, for instance, Just 12.2% of the households were in the high-income bracket. More than half the population lives below the poverty line.)
Being apolitical, in short, is a luxury for those who can afford it. It is a political statement of comfort with status quo - and every bit as political as a desire for revolution.
Similarly, you will find innumerable businesses that claim to be apolitical. Yet, they offer support to and abide by whoever comes to power - absolute stooges for status quo.
[You may argue - convincingly - that of course businesses will want stability else how can they make profits efficiently? True and unavoidable. But all I ask is let's not label the support to existing power structures as apolitical.]
[Another word businesses never admit to is activism. They may advertise everywhere and all the time. They may block roads for a sponsored marathon. They may lobby through party donations. They may use their coffers to fight long-drawn court cases. But none of these activities is activism unless and until it is done by their enemy/NGO which for instance advertises against fur, takes them to court for ground water, holds a protest march, whatever]
------
Which is all a really long prologue to the over-usage of the A-word by the Olympic Committee recently.
...apparently they are not a political organisation
...apparently their decision to hold the Olympics in China is not political (just monetary)
That's rich, coming from an organisation that did not let South Africa participate for about 3 decades on the grounds of its Apartheid Policy.
That's also a load of bull, as the games have a long history of political protests.
That apart, letting China host the Olympic Games is certainly not apolitical as:
-- it is a clear signal that the Olympics Committee is ready to embrace China, no matter what its human rights record, if it has the money
-- it is is a clear acquiescence to the political principle of One-China Policy (Tibet flags unfurled by athletes at the Olympic venues will lead to sanction)
--It is an agreement that China's "sovereign matters" are its to oversee, and Olympic purse strings will not be used to bully its house to order.
Am I making a case against the holding of Olympics in China? No.
If we tried finding a perfect country to hold the Olympics, we'd likely never hold them again.
What I'm saying is that The Olympic Committe should stop playing the apolitical charade of penalising political acts of athletes.
It should also shut up all its weeping about the Tibet "activists" and the Falun Gong "activists" and the various other "political" NGOs from getting their five minutes of fame against the innumerable Coke ads that we will be forced to see.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
The Great Indian Fiscal Budget
The Indian Budget finally takes note of the farm credit crisis – starting with a US$15 billion write-off for non-performing loans in the sector. The measures may reek of populism just in time for elections, but the bigger question is, will they deliver the greater good?
Every tenth Indian is a farmer.
Every thirty minutes or so, one of them commits suicide.
And that’s the official (read underestimated) number. They end their lives mostly by drinking pesticide; they are increasingly driven to it by unmanageable debt. Yet, they have been largely ignored by mainstream media and remain out of the urban consciousness.
But once in a while, they reach limelight. Last time they managed front-page coverage when the technologically-savvy, FDI-attracting and critically-acclaimed state Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu lost an election – a loss that no one predicted but everyone post-facto easily explained. Media discovered at long last that Hyderabad may have turned Cyberabad, but a good part of the rest of his state was turning cemetery at the same time.
That pretty much sums up why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government gave the budget it did last month. This was its fifth and final budget; elections aren’t too far.
The Election Budget
In 2004, the Congress party (which leads the ruling national coalition) used the common man platform to win the election. But it didn’t do enough to stem India’s human development index from moving in an unflattering direction. Even more worryingly, it performed badly in some key state elections in recent months.
The result is a budget that can be labeled populist with ease. Income tax slabs have been changed to effectively reduce the tax burden. Excise duties on all goods stand reduced, with small cars and two-wheelers winning exceptional cuts. Developmental projects ranging across irrigation, electrification, education and transportation have received considerable funds and a mention in the speech – they all add up to the promise of inclusive growth.
But the head turner in terms of scale and controversy is the “loan waiver”. It seeks to absolve small and marginal farmers (those with land holdings up to 2 hectares) of their unpaid loans. For larger famers, a rebate of 25% of the loan will be given against payment of the balance 75%. The bill – a whopping Rs600 billion (US$15 billion).
The loan waiver has been largely read as a political stunt by observers. Nevertheless, the stunt brings relief to 40 million farmers. The loan waiver is actually in the nature of a write-off: it is applicable only to non-performing loans that were already overdue in year-end 2007 and remained unpaid at the date of the budget. Given that these write-offs are entirely unanticipated, the beneficiaries will be genuine cases. In any case, as microfinance major Grameen Bank’s experience suggests, willful default is not really a malaise of this sector.
Interestingly, this move to address private debt comes at a time when capitalist icon United States, (also, near election year) is trying to protect homeowners and buffer them from the excesses of its banking sector. Clearly, debt restructuring, routinely done for corporate clients, has its role for individuals too – especially when the circumstances impact en masse.
That hasn’t stopped detractors from crying foul in India’s case, especially as the number involved is big. So it is pertinent to ask:
How big is Rs600 billion?
Rs600 billion is about 3% of system loans (estimates Citi). It will impact the fiscal deficit forecast of 2.5%, but to what extent is not known as the modalities of the write-off have not been announced so far. There has only been talk of providing liquidity to banks as compensation.
Further, judging from analyst reports, Rs600 billion is not big enough to rock the Sensex. Most agree that the current budget doesn’t move the market – except in the short term, and that due to increase in short term capital gain (up from 10% to 15%). “(The budget) is not decisive for market direction or level,” comments analyst Aditya Narain of Citi.
Unfortunately, Rs600 billion is not enough to rescue the farmer either. According to Indian press, four out of every ten rupees are owed to private, expensive moneylenders because bank credit is scarce. This segment has been entirely ignored.
Too little, too late
Private moneylenders may seem like an untenable segment – an entirely different animal from banks, which are limited in number, regulated by law, and thus amenable to policy implementation. But they can be roped in, says P Sainath, veteran rural journalist whose body of work earned him the Magsaysay award last year. He points out to the example laid by the state of Kerala where a debt relief commission was formed to broker settlements between the lenders and loanees.
That opportunity – as well as several others to attack the root cause of low incomes in agriculture – has been missed. “There is nothing in the budget that will raise farmer income. The waiver has to be located among several other steps that have not been taken,” says Sainath. The steps taken have their share of problems too.
Seems all poor families are poor in their own way. Take for instance the Vidharba region, address to a significant number of farmer suicides and an insignificant number of rural banks, where banking accounts for no greater than one-third of all farmer loans. Since private moneylenders are not covered in the budget, a high proportion of the poorest farmers are left out of the loop.
Among those Vidharba farmers fortunate enough to have bank credit, few are eligible for 100% write off - the average land holding in the region is 3 hectares (their land has lower productivity and irrigation, consequently they often own larger tracts).
Naturally, land-quality and bank-presence vary across India. Since the budget has not been customized to account for the differences, benefits will vary widely too. Counter-intuitively, the skewness works against the Congress, says Sainath: “ it undermines the farm base of the Congress in Vidarbha.”
In response to criticism and with a belated enlightenment, Congress’s heir apparent Rahul Gandhi (with three prime ministers in his bloodline) gave a speech in the post-budget session two weeks after the budget. He requested that the 2-hectare cut-off limit be adjusted for productivity of land. He also proposed that the cut-off date be adjusted to account for different crop cycles.
The tweaking will probably make it through and be a part of the final budget. But the matter is far from over or adequate.
Reprinted with permission from The Asset, who I write this article for.
Suggested further reading:
When is a sop not a sop?
Oh! What a lovely waiver
Monday, February 11, 2008
Not Quite Perfect
Proponents of free market like to believe that the market is perfect; that sooner or later, it gives the customer exactly what it asks for.
The logic is that if Soap A is delivering the fragrance of Mrs X's armpit, which arguably no one except Mr X likes, then no one will buy it (not even Mr X - he gets it free). No soaps sold mean the manufacturer will incur losses - and viola - he will change the perfume formula to George Clooney's whiff. Now arguably, that's something we all want.
So we will all go on a buying spree and skyrocketing sales will make the manufacturer stay course with the product. As a result: we all get what we want.
Money, the most disinterested judge of things, has helped us by indicating what exactly we want and forced the manufacturer to deliver it.
Sound logic - and it works most times... but not every time.
The fashion industry sells all sorts of things. From umbrellas to skirts to umbrella-cum-skirts. Let us for the moment leave aside the fine line between art and madness and let us also ignore whether certain celebrities are essentially Emperors in New Clothes. I shall not argue whether the haute couture industry ends up stitching what we'd like to wear in public.
My only expectation from the market is that people fit into what they choose to buy.
If Mango wants to sell more dresses, it had better get its consumers body proportions right. Else Zara will thrash its market share simply by ensuring that more women fit into its frocks. And when that happens Mango will be forced to discover women have hips and redo its sizing chart. Happy Day!
So why hasn't it happened?
I for instance, struggle to shop in Hong Kong. When I try jeans, the length suggests I should be at least 2ft taller. When I put on a jacket, the shoulders fit but the buttons won't close. And God forbid I ever try on a dress again - each half of my body demands its own separate size!
No I am not heavy, not even polite-speak "healthy". I will need to eat at McDonalds for at least 6 months before AXA increases my health insurance premium.
Nor am I the only one who faces this struggle. I could name a long list friends to vouch for it. In fact, I could name several studies that confirm it. Here's one pointing the problem even half-way across the world:
A government-sponsored report, Spain.
[FYI the sample was not biased towards 'big girls'. It covered more than 10,000 women aged from 12 to 70. Only about 1 in 10 was obese.]
You may argue that the rise of plus-size brand suggests the market already has an inkling that it is failing to serve certain customers and is moving to restore the balance - but I do not think this is the right example. Big size brands are only fringe players yet. And honestly, there is a difference between large size and right size.
I think the market is working - but not quite how we expected it to. Instead of stitching clothes to the size of real women - the market is trying to make real women shrink themselves into the shape of clothes it makes!
It does this by promoting the idea that thinner is prettier. You can see across media - advertisements, movies, videos, celebrities - anything being promoted is stick thin.
The unfortunate result is women modifying their bodies unnaturally if need be. Excessive dieting, eating disorders and plastic surgeries are all in demand.
Yes the market is a strong force. But that is not always such a good thing.
The logic is that if Soap A is delivering the fragrance of Mrs X's armpit, which arguably no one except Mr X likes, then no one will buy it (not even Mr X - he gets it free). No soaps sold mean the manufacturer will incur losses - and viola - he will change the perfume formula to George Clooney's whiff. Now arguably, that's something we all want.
So we will all go on a buying spree and skyrocketing sales will make the manufacturer stay course with the product. As a result: we all get what we want.
Money, the most disinterested judge of things, has helped us by indicating what exactly we want and forced the manufacturer to deliver it.
Sound logic - and it works most times... but not every time.
The fashion industry sells all sorts of things. From umbrellas to skirts to umbrella-cum-skirts. Let us for the moment leave aside the fine line between art and madness and let us also ignore whether certain celebrities are essentially Emperors in New Clothes. I shall not argue whether the haute couture industry ends up stitching what we'd like to wear in public.
My only expectation from the market is that people fit into what they choose to buy.
If Mango wants to sell more dresses, it had better get its consumers body proportions right. Else Zara will thrash its market share simply by ensuring that more women fit into its frocks. And when that happens Mango will be forced to discover women have hips and redo its sizing chart. Happy Day!
So why hasn't it happened?
I for instance, struggle to shop in Hong Kong. When I try jeans, the length suggests I should be at least 2ft taller. When I put on a jacket, the shoulders fit but the buttons won't close. And God forbid I ever try on a dress again - each half of my body demands its own separate size!
No I am not heavy, not even polite-speak "healthy". I will need to eat at McDonalds for at least 6 months before AXA increases my health insurance premium.
Nor am I the only one who faces this struggle. I could name a long list friends to vouch for it. In fact, I could name several studies that confirm it. Here's one pointing the problem even half-way across the world:
.. yearlong study... claims that 4 out of 10 [women] have trouble finding clothes that fit them, mainly because sizes are inconsistent from one outlet to another and because what is on the racks is too small.
[FYI the sample was not biased towards 'big girls'. It covered more than 10,000 women aged from 12 to 70. Only about 1 in 10 was obese.]
You may argue that the rise of plus-size brand suggests the market already has an inkling that it is failing to serve certain customers and is moving to restore the balance - but I do not think this is the right example. Big size brands are only fringe players yet. And honestly, there is a difference between large size and right size.
I think the market is working - but not quite how we expected it to. Instead of stitching clothes to the size of real women - the market is trying to make real women shrink themselves into the shape of clothes it makes!
It does this by promoting the idea that thinner is prettier. You can see across media - advertisements, movies, videos, celebrities - anything being promoted is stick thin.
The unfortunate result is women modifying their bodies unnaturally if need be. Excessive dieting, eating disorders and plastic surgeries are all in demand.
Yes the market is a strong force. But that is not always such a good thing.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
I know I should have become immune to it by now but even after two years of dosage, Star News drives me insane. I would like to know WHOSE idea it is to make all their reporters speak as if they are hosting India's Most Wanted!
Even when they are reporting... ummmm reporting is too strong a word for what they do... well, even when they are spewing generalities about a cricket match that India won (on TV in the background as I write) their tone is railing and ranting. If I didn't know Hindi, I'd assume from their style that some woman was murdered with a gory flourish, and her children were kidnapped, and the murderer disappeared, only to be discovered now two years later, with limbs in his freezer and a knife sporting her dried blood still intact in his coat pocket.* Or worse.
Here's a sample of the channel's standardised speaking style. If you don't speak Hindi - close your eyes, listen for two minutes, and tell me - am I not right?
* Sorry, I've been reading Stephen King
Even when they are reporting... ummmm reporting is too strong a word for what they do... well, even when they are spewing generalities about a cricket match that India won (on TV in the background as I write) their tone is railing and ranting. If I didn't know Hindi, I'd assume from their style that some woman was murdered with a gory flourish, and her children were kidnapped, and the murderer disappeared, only to be discovered now two years later, with limbs in his freezer and a knife sporting her dried blood still intact in his coat pocket.* Or worse.
Here's a sample of the channel's standardised speaking style. If you don't speak Hindi - close your eyes, listen for two minutes, and tell me - am I not right?
* Sorry, I've been reading Stephen King
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
In Memorium
Were she alive, chances are I would have been denouncing the dynastic rule she represents and amnesties she gifted her criminally-charged husband.
But in her death, her loss makes one keenly aware of how pivotal she was to transform Pakistan into a secular and democratic nation.
She will be sorely missed in the fight against terrorism.
But what's with all the rioting over "grief" in her country? Goondaraj, the rule of mob, does no credit to either her memory or the the causes she said she represented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
