The issue whether Obama's forthcoming nomination as America's first black president can end racial divides in contemporary politics is a contentious one. An extremely interesting anecdote I ran into today sparked what I hope is not just a random entry here. It is definitely a powerful reminder of the fact that in any community shadowed by oppression, pride and bitteness can be hard to untangle.
For black Americans born in the 20th century, the chasms of experience that separate one generation from the next— those who came of age before the movement, those who lived it, those who came along after — have always been hard to traverse. Elijah Cummings, the former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and an early Obama supporter, told me a story about watching his father, a South Carolina sharecropper with a fourth-grade education, weep uncontrollably when Cummings was sworn in as a representative in 1996. Afterward, Cummings asked his dad if he had been crying tears of joy. “Oh, you know, I’m happy,” his father replied. “But now I realize, had I been given the opportunity, what I could have been. And I’m about to die.”
I've paid my dues -
Time after time -
I've done my sentence
But committed no crime -
And bad mistakes
I've made a few
I've had my share of sand kicked in my face -
But I've come through
I've taken my bows
And my curtain calls -
But it's been no bed of roses
No pleasure cruise -
I consider it a challenge before the whole human race -
And I ain't gonna lose -
We are the champions - my friends
And we'll keep on fighting - till the end -
- Queen, We are the champions, 1977
To all those who champion the cause of freedom and democracy, apt words indeed. This song was on right after I heard about Benazir Bhutto's assassination today afternoon. There's not much more I can add to that really, except to probably muse on the fact that whatever her failings, Bhutto was a beacon of moderateness in an Islamic society that is today in the eye of a fundamentalist maelstrom. And that is a stand not easily taken.
I totally faded there for almost a fortnight. Work, more work and other chores means that even if I'm glued to the computer half the day, I hardly have time to organize my thoughts into something which could be even remotely readable. Thankfully, the holidays are here and ought to put an end to that! Yayyyy. And I've been bursting at the seams to write *something* - do you know the feeling?!
On the political front, Nepal abolished its monarchy today - hot news as of a few hours ago. I for one welcome that change, given the bloodbaths that have been going on over the last 75 years, the most recent one being etched in all our memories. Hopefully, it leads to a lull in the maoist insurgencies too, if they have a half decent government that isn't hampered by centuries old tradition. That said, its also a sad day in some respects - I've always found monarchs rather romantic, and on every occasion, have read up all that I could find on the two most famous current ones - King Bhumibol of Thailand, and of course, Queen Elizabeth II. Its abolishment in Nepal just means another proud line will come to and end, and at best, be the gatekeepers of palaces and treasures that will revert to a government who may not know how best to care for it.
Which got me thinking about how many such governments are left today. Apart from the UK, its colonies (which don't really count) and Thaliand, the other remaining states are Japan, Cambodia, Jordan, Bahrain, UAE, Brunei, Bhutan, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Malaysia in fact has an *elected* monarch, perhaps the only such system in the world today (or ever?)! The current Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("Supreme Ruler" or "Paramount Ruler") is styled His Majesty, and cuts a pretty impressive figure on his official portrait. Much more so than jowly King Gynaendra of Nepal anyway.
On another monarchial front, QE II recently endorsed YouTube, by launching the Royal Channel. Its got some pretty nifty videos on it, including her first televised Christmas address from 1957 and even the 1923 wedding of HER parents. It was fascinating watching them - televised impressions of London from the early 20th century, and an opportunity to look at people I've only ever seen in portraits as aged royals. Its funny how one never hears of the activities of monarchs from all but a couple of famous countries. The recent death of the Tongan prince and his wife on a Californian highway was heavily telecast in the US itself, but got practically no coverage on the international media. And would we even be able to point the Jordanian King or the Malysian one for that matter, on a photo gallery?
Oh and Merry Christmas to all of you! I’m not even sure how people spend their christmases if they’re not at home eating a family style dinner. Tired as I was of this question, I ended up in San Francisco with a friend for an awesome dinner (Wild Boar with truffle sauce, yummy), finally rode the famous SF cable cars (isn’t it interesting how people who live in a city never actually do all the touristy bits?), watched Beowulf in 3D (Angelina Jolie is hotter than ever), and ended up at a catholic church for a ten minute look at midnight mass.
St. Peter and Paul's, San Francisco
Union Square, San Francisco
Szerelem pointed me to a link today, about the number of journalists in the Caucasus that have been killed for one reason or another - political rivalries, whistle blowing, or even just standing up for what should be a free press. A total of 31. Since 2000 - a mere 7 year span. An average of 4 people losing their lives due to the whims and fancies of others, in the pursuit of duty. Civilians, to boot. And this figure doesn't even include those who were roughed up, threatened, or just disappeared before publishing their exposés.
One of the things which struck me was how the author of the article above found it extremely tough to put a picture to each name (he couldn't manage it in two instances). And to be honest, apart from the infamous Politkovskaya murder which received wide press coverage due to her criticisms of the Putin's government, I haven't heard about any of the others in any mainstream media. Does that mean these lives were lost in vain?
I looked up some numbers, courtesy of the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the International News Safety Institute, and they're rather startling..
The Top 21 bloodiest countries over the past 10 years have been Iraq (138), Russia (88), Colombia (72), Philippines (55), Iran (54), India (45), Algeria (32), the former republic of Yugoslavia (32), Mexico (31), Pakistan (29), Brazil (27), USA (21), Bangladesh (19), Ukraine (17), Nigeria, Peru, Sierra Leone & Sri Lanka (16), Afghanistan, Indonesia & Thailand (13). Iran’s figures were swollen by one air accident in December 2005. A military aircraft carrying news teams to cover exercises in the Gulf crashed in Tehran, killing 48 journalists and media technicians aboard.As an aside, this puts India at 6th place in being one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. An eye opener of a statistic if there ever was one for the world's largest, and fastest growing democracy. Which brings us to the question of why they were killed in the first place. According to the CPJ,
Full coverage of the article is here. There's no one reason for all the senseless killings - and no pattern which can probably be detected without the help of machine learning mechanisms.
They either died in the line of duty or were deliberately targeted for assassination because of their reporting or their affiliation with a news organization.
Will people one day aspire to thought processes which do NOT involve eliminating potential threats from the arena in order (mostly) to make more money? or is that being naively idealistic?
Came across a very interesting interview of Noam Chomsky, the celebrated linguist and extreme left wing political commentator at Le Monde Diplomatique today. Apart from talking about Democracy in the typical firebrand way he usually does, he mentions a very pertinent point on the topic of censorship of the free press in countries that are (or call themselves) liberal democracies, vis a vis totalitarian ones.
It is one of the big differences between the propaganda system of a totalitarian state and the way democratic societies go about things. Exaggerating slightly, in totalitarian countries the state decides the official line and everyone must then comply. Democratic societies operate differently. The line is never presented as such, merely implied. This involves brainwashing people who are still at liberty. Even the passionate debates in the main media stay within the bounds of commonly accepted, implicit rules, which sideline a large number of contrary views. The system of control in democratic societies is extremely effective. We do not notice the line any more than we notice the air we breathe. We sometimes even imagine we are seeing a lively debate. The system of control is much more powerful than in totalitarian systems.
This has never been more relevant than it is today - given the handful of countries in the world which can be termed actual democracies, how many of them can really count themselves as being part of a tiny faction that allows completely free speech?
Granted that the latter is a rather naive approach to real world issues, and any country which allowed the press full freedom in action would pay dearly for it. (This was rather interestingly illustrated by the media representation of the referendum of France a couple of years ago - in may 2005 referendum on the European constitution, most newspapers in France supported a yes vote, yet 55% of the electorate voted no). The same goes for the obvious anti war sentiment in the US, which is less than accurately reflected by the mainstream media.
But as Chomsky mentions elsewhere, do you really want to be in a country where you need to satisfy minimum constraints on your views, political affiliations and (even) sexual orientation in order to make yourself heard in the mainstream?
.. when
On his News and Comment radio show this morning, ABC Radio Networks host Paul Harvey said “the media should put a stop” to labeling “women and children” killed in war as “civilians.” He said, “It was civilians, for goodness sake, who decapitated New York City.”Dictionaries define a civilian as “one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force.” Harvey disagrees. According to him, “Since the invention of the aerial bomb five wars ago, there have been no civilians.” In other words, innocent people who are killed in war are military combatants because they are victims of a military attack.
Paul Harvey News describes itself as “the largest one-man network in the world, consisting of over 1200 radio stations, 400 Armed Forces Network stations that broadcast around the world, and 300 newspapers.” President Bush gave Harvey the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005.
This isn’t the first time Harvey has callously wished for more viciousness in American war fighting. In 2005, he said the United States should use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq. After recalling the use of atomic bombs during World War II, Harvey lamented that “we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos.”
Of course, things might improve when,
“Two years after writing a law requiring highway ‘Welcome to Texas’ signs to tout the state as the home of President Bush, state Rep. Ken Paxton [yesterday] passed a bill that will remove the designation once the 43rd president leaves office.”
Not to get too political, but I just couldn't resist. OTOH, I was going to do a big post on the rising ludicrousnesses of modern Indian morality and culture. Should I?
.. about Valentine's day, about having met people as famous as Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, presidents of Stanford, Venture capitalists, inventors and CEOs suddenly didn't count. After I saw this.
A missionary holding the hands of an undernourished child in Somalia who died shortly after.
It makes you think about all the things that are not happening to uplift what is arguably the most beautiful continent in the world. What a pity.
I'll probably post about the other stuff later.
It is often said that before you die, your life passes before your eyes. It is in fact true. It's called living.
Brilliantly put.
Lets talk about a particular individual, who for brevity's sake (and for the added suspense it gives this story), we will name X. Good choice for a mystery name, if I do say so myself.. Best heard to the strains of Supertramp's Long Way Home or Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon.
Okay, enough of the atmospheric qualities. :)
A boy, born out of wedlock on what we assume was a balmy day, some 80 years ago to a servant working for a rich man - who as it will turn out, was the father. He wasn't baptized till the age of 8, enduring the ridicule of his peers - and had to wait till the age of 17 to be formally recognized by being given his father's last name, which would shape his identity a few decades down the line.
At the age of 12, he wrote a letter to the Roosevelt, the US President, expressing his will to be a friend and in return, asking for a 10$ bill because he had never seen one before. History doesn't record whether an answer was sent back, or not. Growing up, he attended a gaggle of schools, finally entering a local university to study law. Embroiled in university politics, he began to head major factions and eventually traveled to another country to protest against US policies at a local convention. As fate would've had it, the country underwent a bloody coup and the streets erupted in heavy violence leading X to seek refuge at his embassy, and be shipped back - safe, but seared with a thousand impressions which would change his life.
Finally graduating with that law degree, he used his skills to develop a constitutionally legal framework of appeals to challenge his country's ruling government (a dictatorship, rather) on charges of corruption - which, surprise surprise, were refuted immediately. He was of course, put into prison, but not before he delivered a defence speech short of nothing but a masterpiece.
I warn you, I am just beginning! If there is in your hearts a vestige of love for your country, love for humanity, love for justice, listen carefully... I know that the regime will try to suppress the truth by all possible means; I know that there will be a conspiracy to bury me in oblivion. But my voice will not be stifled – it will rise from my breast even when I feel most alone, and my heart will give it all the fire that callous cowards deny it... Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.
Granted an amnesty, and failing to see his efforts gain fruition, he traveled to the United States and with help from other exiles in residence there, trained in guerrilla warfare. Engaged in negotiations with the USSR for weapons, and collaborated with South American revolutionaries to form a task force to topple the aforementioned dictator. And was successful.
Born a catholic, although he never practiced it, X was then summarily excommunicated by the Vatican for his role in the uprising. (Yes, the Pope actually upheld the excommunication of any catholic supporting revolutions). Miffed, to put none too fine a point on it, he banned Christmas as a State Holiday for almost 30 years - It was in fact reinstated as a state holiday in 1999, when he finally went back to a cathedral - a place he'd last visited in 1946, half a century ago.
But his story is far from over. His astounding resoluteness shown by successive comebacks in the light of radically challenging difficulties is the stuff legends are made of. In his own words,
If surviving assassination attempts were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal.
Conservative estimates at the number of attempts made at assassinating him hover at around 683. Yes. Six Hundred and Eighty Three. Some of them are staid and boring, such as the sniper rifles, and bombs. Others are more intriguing, ranging from exploding cigars, poisoned diving suits, cold cream jars with poison, and in an incident reminiscent of James Bond, hiring an ex lover to kill him. Rumor has it that the US President even *consulted* Ian Fleming on his thoughts on getting rid of X. Want a piece of irony? His wife's nephews today are leading congressmen in the US and actively speak out against his policies. So does his daughter.
But personal threats were of definitely little consequence to one who was solely responsible for the closest the world ever came to exchanging nuclear missiles after WWII - what the incident was, of course, will become obvious once you get to the end of the post, so patience! Thats a good reader. Where am I going with this? The fact that this ostensibly indomitable person has been languishing in a hospice somewhere, undergoing operation over operation to save him from cancer. Which, if news reports are to be trusted, aren't going well at all. The predictions are already being made on possible death announcements, and a collective sigh of relief from the world's governments as the bane of (many of) their existence finally fades into the pages of history, albeit with 21 gun salutes rather than with the swish of a few pages shutting the last chapter of his life which they would've preferred.
I feel strangely attracted to X - his ability to resolutely stand for what he believes is right, amongst other things. To face off the biggest bullies on the block (figuratively and otherwise), and come up trumps requires guts and a razor sharp brain. Sure, there are detractors who label him a dictator, and I do agree that he's no saint - but then, how many people today can be given that honor anyway?
The capitalistic hegemony which has in recent past gotten away with the grotesque hangings of people in Iraq will be denied _this_ particular victory anyway - summary executions which are leaked to the public are bad enough, but incompetent leadership, a doting vote-base with (mostly) no inkling of anything beyond their own noses and to make matters worse, absolute belief in their leader have made the US nothing more than a bully on the world stage. But coming to the point - a gentle introduction to X.
Standing on the world stage as the longest serving communist leader ever, right across the waters of the world's oldest democracy is hardly easy. Bearing the burden of a dozen sanctions, economic and otherwise, he managed to not only revolutionize his country as much as was possible, he even sent support in the form of troops, resources and doctors to other countries. For this he was nominated for the Peace Nobel in 2001.
Ladies and Gentlemen. Give it up for Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, the president of Cuba.
He may not have been perfect, but there's a lot we can learn from the likes of him.
Update:
I found that letter too!
