By FAWZI AFZAL-KHAN
Written on the eve of Women’s History Month.

“I had a terrible dream yesterday with military helicopters and the Taleban. I have had such dreams since the launch of the military operation in Swat. My mother made me breakfast and I went off to school. I was afraid of going to school because the Taleban had issued an edict banning all girls from attending schools.
Only 11 students attended the class out of 27. The number decreased because of Taleban’s edict. My three friends have shifted to Peshawar, Lahore and Rawalpindi with their families after this edict.
On my way from school to home I heard a man saying ‘I will kill you’. I hastened my pace and after a while I looked back if the man was still coming behind me. But to my utter relief he was talking on his mobile and must have been threatening someone else over the phone.”
These are the words expressing the thoughts going through the mind of a 7th grade schoolgirl in Swat, as reported by the BBC online news on January 3rd, 2009.
Bill Roggio, reporting in The Long War Journal on February 18, 2009, tell us that since winning the election last spring, the Zardari-Gilani government has entered a series of peace agreements with the Taliban throughout the tribal areas and the settled districts of the Northwest Frontier Province, which includes Swat. “Between March and July of 2008, the government negotiated seven agreements with the Taliban in North Waziristan, Swat, Dir, Bajaur, Malakand, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, and Hangu. Negotiations were also underway in South Waziristan, Kohat, and Mardan before fighting in Swat and Bajaur broke out, effectively ending the talks.” Thus, this latest round, which cedes control of Swat, a part of Pakistan proper (NOT the remoter badlands of the Tribal Frontier) is not without precedent. Except, that it bodes far worse than previous “agreements”—because Swat was never a tribal hinterland, it was quite well-developed, a tourist haven, with schools for girls and over 3,500 women teachers employed to teach them—all now without jobs, as the girls are without schools—a projected 110,000 girls will in the coming years be deprived of a basic education. Indeed, as Roggio goes on to describe:
The current Malakand Accord has granted the Taliban control over a region that encompasses more than 1/3 of the Northwest Front Province, effectively cementing the Taliban’s control over most of the province and the tribal areas.
This means that
The Taliban’s recruiting base has almost doubled, as has its taxation base. The Malakand Division, which is made up of the districts of Malakand, Swat, Shangla, Buner, Dir, and Chitral, has a population of more that 4.3 million, according to the 1998 census. The Taliban effectively control the tribal areas (population estimated at 6.5 million in 1998) and many of the bordering districts with millions more. The Taliban also have a strong presence or influence in nearly all of the other districts in the province.
The day I saw the NYT front page picture of the Malakand Accord being agreed to I cried. Senior cabinet members of the Pakistan government—all men—were seated side by side with bearded mullahs wearing the ubiquitous turbans-signifiers of extremists who burn girls schools, behead their opponents, and leave mutilated bodies of women they consider “un-Islamic” lying in town squares—like that of Shabana, a traditional dancing girl, reported killed on 12th January 2009, after defying the Taliban’s ban on dancing. Shabana’s bullet-ridden body was found slumped on the ground in the centre of Mingora’s Green Square, strewn with money, CD recordings of her performances and photographs from her albums, and local Taliban claimed responsibility stating over their illegal radio station (which broadcasts Maulana Fazlullah’s, the ruling cleric’s edicts regularly) that the same or worse fate would befall any other such woman daring to perform “un-Islamic” activities.
How, I asked myself, could the government of Pakistan, cede control of Pakistan’s “Switzerland”—that peaceful valley of fruit orchards and beautiful streams and lakes surrounded by majestic mountains, a favorite spot for local and western tourists alike—to men bent on turning heaven on earth into living hell? If these Pakistani Taliban—here led by the father-in-law of Maulana Fazlullah, Sufi Mohammad, responsible for proudly leading hundreds of young men to their deaths in adjoining Afghanistan on jehadi missions–could claim a swath of territory as large as Delaware and as near to Islamabad as a mere 100 miles—what did that mean for the rest of Pakistan’s future? What especially would it mean for Pakistani women—most of whom—like women anywhere else in the world– like to dance, sing, talk, work in offices, in the fields, wear colorful clothes, smile, laugh, show off dozens of colorful glass bangles on their slender arms, nose-rings on their wheat-complexioned faces, sometimes hide behind the burqa, at others flaunt their beauty in public places or private, study, go to school, to college if they are lucky, have dreams of becoming somebody the world can respect, help deliver babies, tend to the sick and dying, fly in the sky, no shame for the sun…..become lovers, wives, mothers, teachers, artists, doctors, lawyers, activists, performers, politicians…the list goes on. What will become of them if….I shudder. The thought is too terrible to name.
But my reaction is perhaps precisely the ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand mentality that has gotten Pakistan and Pakistanis into the ditch they’re in now, without much hope of being able to clamber out of it…indeed, if Swat is any indication, the ditch is about to get bigger. Instead of facing the Taliban threat head-on, acknowledging it for what it is, too many of my Pakistani brethren, of the secular, progressive, liberal middle-class intelligentsia kind—have ducked the Talibanization of Pakistan question for decades. Theirs—and especially the even more-westernized upper classes’ response—has been that of the proverbial blind man: see no evil. “Pakistan is a moderate country, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are foreign imports—they command no base of real support amongst our sensible citizens. You, dear Fawzia, are a victim of American propaganda—what is this Taliban-are-coming-scare you keep ranting about?” Then, changing tracks, the same group of self-appointed intellectuals would proclaim: “If there is any problem here, its because of the d-d Americans—their drone bombs and their continuous interference in the affairs of our country is what has led to this situation…people are angry at them, that is why they—some of them—are turning to the Taliban. If the Americans would stop escalating their war in neighboring Afghanistan and dropping bombs on our people in the Northern areas—well, this craziness would stop.”
Read More

This International Women’s Day, we can all make a difference.
By Helene Gayle

Atlanta – Anasuyamma stood her ground. Even when her husband and in-laws poured kerosene on her. Even when they lit the match and held it near. Anasuyamma refused to go back to the days when a daughter couldn’t wed unless a bride price or “dowry” was paid to the groom’s family.
“A dowry degrades women,” Anasuyamma told me last year from inside her village home in India. Sitting on floor mats around her were the women who helped save her life that day four years ago. She broke free, and with the support of those friends, she prevailed. Her daughter married without payment.
Every day throughout the world, women fight for equality, asserting their rights. But they rarely succeed alone. As in Anasuyamma’s case, progress most often depends on collective action.
“A single woman can’t change all social issues we face, but a dozen women can make a difference. You can easily break a single matchstick, but not 12 together. Unity is our strength,” Anasuyamma said, referring to her village savings and loan group of women who support each other in this poor, dusty village called Dharmajipet. “Together, we are building businesses, educating our children, and improving healthcare here.”
Anasuyamma’s group pulled their money together and, over time, saved enough to start their own soapmaking business. These women – who recently taught themselves to write their names – make 3,200 bars every day. Then they sell them in markets. Using the profit, they send their children to school. One daughter is now the first from this village to attend college.
“We used to depend on our husbands for everything,” said Anasuyamma. “Now we support our households. Before we didn’t speak out, but now we have no fear.”
There’s power in numbers. As we approach International Women’s Day on March 8, we can apply Anasuyam-ma’s lesson of strength as we renew our commitment to women’s rights around the globe.
Worldwide, millions of women and girls face horrific realities. In Congo, more than 400 women a month are raped. Girls in Afghanistan have acid thrown in their faces because they go to school. One pregnant woman dies each minute, on average, from mostly preventable causes. At least 1 out of every 3 women and girls will be severely beaten in her lifetime. This is unacceptable.
Throughout my career in public service, traveling to villages not even on the map, I’ve seen how poverty has a woman’s face. I’ve seen it in the faces of her children, like a torn hand-me-down passed from generation to generation when the cycle isn’t stopped.
Like Anasuyamma, we can start by helping women organize in village groups where they not only learn to save and invest in businesses but also collectively empower one another. It means we must get off the sidelines, get in the game and help our sisters abroad conquer social inequities. Our mothers and grandmothers, the ones who laid the foundation for our success today, would expect nothing less.
It means not only helping girls and women receive formal education, but also helping them gain legal rights, quality healthcare, and economic opportunity. Studies show, for example, that every extra year of secondary school raises a girl’s lifetime wages by 15 to 25 percent. And those educated girls will go on to have healthier, better-educated families.
However, women and girls can’t break the cycle of poverty alone.
Men and boys must be part of the solution, supporting this change of a status quo that has treated women and girls as second-class citizens for far too long. Working together, everyone benefits.
Let’s make this International Women’s Day a day for action. Take time to join events in your community. Add your strength and generosity to the movement. Like Anasuyamma, let us not back down until women and girls everywhere enjoy full human rights.
Read More

By M. SHAHID ALAM

“The Achilles’ heel of the Arab coalition is Lebanon. Muslim supremacy in this country is artificial and can easily be overthrown. A Christian State ought to be set up there, with its southern frontier on the river Litani. We should sign a treaty of alliance with this State. Then, when we have broken the strength of the Arab Legion and bombed Amman, we could wipe out Transjordan; after that Syria would fall. And if Egypt dared to make war on us, we would bomb Port Said, Alexandria and Cairo. We should thus end the war, and would have settled the account with Egypt, Assyria and Chaldea on behalf of our ancestors.”
David Ben-Gurion, 1948
In their first test of strength with the ‘natives’ in 1948, the Zionists had gained control of nearly four-fifths of Palestine, expelled most of the Palestinians from these territories, and repulsed the combined forces of five Arab proto-states.
Yet, the Zionists were not about to rest on their laurels: their interests did not lie in making peace with the Arabs. The events of 1948 had demonstrated what they could achieve; with minor losses of their own, they had obliterated Palestinian society and handily beaten back the Arabs.
This was a historic moment, a messianic moment, that would be seen by many as the fulfillment of ancient prophecies. This was no time to seek peace by making amends to a weak, defeated enemy.
Their stunning military victory would only encourage the Zionists to aim for their maximalist goals, which now appeared attainable. The Zionists would augment their numbers, expand their territory, and strive to become the dominant power in the Middle East.
* * *
In 1948, the Jewish colonization of Palestine had only just begun. At this point, Israel contained some 650,000 Jews, who made up only four percent of the world’s Jewish population.
If Israel aspired to house half the world’s Jewry, its population would have to expand more than ten-fold. Israel’s share of world Jewry would have to rise dramatically because this was an imperative of Zionist ideology, which promised that Israel would be a safe haven for the world’s Jews. It would be embarrassing for the Zionists if this Jewish ‘safe haven’ housed only a small fraction of the world’s Jews.
In addition, Israel would be driven towards demographic expansion by two other objectives: the Zionist goal of territorial expansionism and the need to maintain a crushing military advantage over its neighbors.
With only “seven hundred thousand Jews,” Ben-Gurion insisted, Israel “cannot be the climax of a vigil kept unbroken through the generations and down the patient centuries.” Even if Israel did not face any external threats to its security, “so empty a state would be little justified, for it would not change the destiny of Jewry, or fulfill our historic covenant.”
As a result, soon after 1948 – indeed even before 1948 – the Zionists were working to bring millions of Jews into Israel. In the calculation of Zionists, a demographic expansion of this magnitude was not only desirable: it was also necessary and attainable.
Zionist ambitions would carry Israel beyond the territories it had conquered in 1948. “Zionist mainstream thought,” writes Benny Morris “had always regarded a Jewish state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River as its ultimate goal.”
Read More

New research report in The FASEB Journal gets to the roots of gray hair

Bethesda, MD—Wash away your gray? Maybe. A team of European scientists have finally solved a mystery that has perplexed humans throughout the ages: why we turn gray. Despite the notion that gray hair is a sign of wisdom, these researchers show in a research report published online in The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org) that wisdom has nothing to do with it. Going gray is caused by a massive build up of hydrogen peroxide due to wear and tear of our hair follicles. The peroxide winds up blocking the normal synthesis of melanin, our hair’s natural pigment.

“Not only blondes change their hair color with hydrogen peroxide,” said Gerald Weissmann, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “All of our hair cells make a tiny bit of hydrogen peroxide, but as we get older, this little bit becomes a lot. We bleach our hair pigment from within, and our hair turns gray and then white. This research, however, is an important first step to get at the root of the problem, so to speak.”

The researchers made this discovery by examining cell cultures of human hair follicles. They found that the build up of hydrogen peroxide was caused by a reduction of an enzyme that breaks up hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen (catalase). They also discovered that hair follicles could not repair the damage caused by the hydrogen peroxide because of low levels of enzymes that normally serve this function (MSR A and B). Further complicating matters, the high levels of hydrogen peroxide and low levels of MSR A and B, disrupt the formation of an enzyme (tyrosinase) that leads to the production of melanin in hair follicles. Melanin is the pigment responsible for hair color, skin color, and eye color. The researchers speculate that a similar breakdown in the skin could be the root cause of vitiligo.

“As any blue-haired lady will attest, sometimes hair dyes don’t quite work as anticipated,” Weissmann added. “This study is a prime example of how basic research in biology can benefit us in ways never imagined.”

The FASEB Journal (http://www.fasebj.org) is published by the Federation of the American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and is the most cited journal worldwide according to the Institute for Scientific Information. FASEB comprises 22 nonprofit societies with more than 80,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. FASEB advances biological science through collaborative advocacy for research policies that promote scientific progress and education and lead to improvements in human health.
Read More

By Arundhati Roy

The night before the Oscars, in India, we were re-enacting the last few scenes of Slumdog Millionaire. The ones in which vast crowds of people – poor people – who have nothing to do with the game show, gather in the thousands in their slums and shanty towns to see if Jamal Malik will win. Oh, and he did. He did. So now everyone, including the Congress Party, is taking credit for the Oscars that the film won!

The party claims that instead of India Shining it has presided over India ‘Achieving’. Achieving what? In the case of Slumdog, India’s greatest contribution, certainly our political parties’ greatest contribution is providing an authentic, magnificent backdrop of epic poverty, brutality and violence for an Oscar-winning film to be shot in. So now that too has become an achievement? Something to be celebrated? Something for us all to feel good about? Honestly, it’s beyond farce.

And here’s the rub: Slumdog Millionaire allows real-life villains to take credit for its cinematic achievements because it lets them off the hook. It points no fingers, it holds nobody responsible. Everyone can feel good. And that’s what I feel bad about.

So that’s about what’s not in the film. About what’s in it: I thought it was nicely shot. But beyond that, what can I say other than that it is a wonderful illustration of the old adage, ‘there’s a lot of money in poverty’.

Read More

by B. R. GOWANI

It will probably be a long time before any clue as to who murdered the opposition leader and the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (while she was leaving the political rally after addressing a gathering in Rawalpindi) is found. Were they the enemies of Bhutto in the intelligence agencies or were they the Islamic radicals? According to the hospital people, the government hadn’t permitted them to do an autopsy.

Pakistani Government claimed through its interior ministry spokesman Brigadier (retd.) Javed Iqbal Cheema that Benazir died not because of a gun shot or bomb shrapnel but when she tried to reach for a safety “the lever [of her SUV’s sunroof] struck near her right ear and fractured her skull!” For the bomb blast and the gun shots, Cheema said there was “irrefutable evidence” that South Waziristan-based Al-Qaeda leader Beitullah Mehsud is the central culprit. To further strengthen its case, the government also released the transcript of Mehsud’s telephone conversation, which it had intercepted, where he is congratulating a cleric on Bhutto’s murder. But the government hasn’t released the recording.

However Mehsud’s spokesperson Maulana Mohammed Umer denied the accusation. “The fact is that we are only against America, and we don’t consider political leaders of Pakistan our enemy. The suicide attack on Benazir Bhutto was not launched by us.” He further added, “I am clarifying our position after receiving instructions from Baitullah Mehsud.”

Usually, the militants, when they are involved, do accept responsibility for their action in order to enhance their base by creating more fear among the population. Or, perhaps, Mehsud is behind the attack but wants to avoid opening up a third front against Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). (The two fronts they are fighting on are the US and the Pakistani Government.)

Vice versa, it can be that PPP may have some suspicions about Mehsud or some other fundamentalist group but don’t want any entanglement at the present time.

Before returning from her self-exile, Benazir had told the Guardian that “I’m not worried about Baitullah Mahsud; I’m worried about the threat within the government.” Because in her opinion, “people like Baitullah Mahsud are just pawns. It is those forces behind him that have presided over the rise of extremism and militancy in my country.”

The PPP is also pointing a finger at the government. Its spokesperson Sherry Rehman said “there was a clear bullet wound at the back of the neck. It went in one direction and came out another.”

However, the US government suspects Mehsud’s group was behind Bhutto’s assassination. The FBI has offered to help but Pakistan has declined the offer. The FBI is good at extracting confessions.

(This author doesn’t know how to operate a gun or any such weapon and is not familiar with making bombs or conceiving terroristic plots. Nevertheless, if the FBI (or the CIA) were to pick him up and then torture and beat the hell out of him, he would confess whatever they would want him to; even to be the mastermind behind the 9/11. Torture usually does have the power to extract the truth; the one which the torturer would want to hear.

Whoever was behind Bhutto’s murder, one has to accept the fact that the real culprit cannot be anyone else but the Musharraf Government. Just in October, 148 people died during the welcoming procession in Karachi upon Benazir’s return after a long self-imposed exile. At that time, undoubtedly, it was a difficult task to provide adequate security due to the number of people (200,000) and the vast area involved and a number of other factors, including Bhutto’s own fault. But this time around, it was possible for the government to provide her with proper security as it was in a park, and that also not a big one, with less than 10,000 people, especially when the world was watching.

(As a last resort, filmmaker Oliver Stone should be asked to solve the mystery. He has done it once before in the Kennedy assassination case, though not very neatly, according to people familiar with history. But still what’s the harm.

Musharraf declared a three day mourning period and the flying of the flag at half mast. But this dramatic gesture doesn’t absolve him from culpability.

Cheema seems to be a nice person: “There are other people who are under threat and whenever we receive information we pass it on to the concerned people.” Nawaz Sharif, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Aftab Sherpao, Amir Muqam, and Sheikh Rashid Ahmed were the names he gave.

Or is it that the warner and the killer are one and the same?

Player Becomes a Pawn

Up until December 27, Bhutto was one of the central players in this US led game of power-sharing or transfer of power to a civilian administration in Pakistan. The minute she died, she became just a pawn in this cruel game of politics. The US media became hyperactive and it seemed as if Condoleezza Rice or Hillary Clinton had been murdered. It resembled somewhat to the eulogistic dramas played out during Lady Diana’s and Mother Teresa’s deaths. The only thing missing was the live telecast of the funeral ceremony; but that was because of the volatile situation in Pakistan. The Republican and Democratic presidential candidates blurted out, each according to her/his knowledge and understanding or lack of it on Bhutto’s assassination.

Bush paid tribute. Musharraf also said nice words. The other major opposition leader in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, felt sad on losing his major opponent whom he called “sister.”

Nuclear weapons

The worry which most bothers the ruling elite in the US is what will happen to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, estimated to be between 55 and 115, in case of that country’s failure. The United States never thinks that it is the US support of Pakistan’s armed forces in the first place that has brought that country on the brink of disaster. The news media has parroted this propaganda on a worldwide scale as if the nuclear bombs are some kind of M & M’s candies where 115 militants will each grab a candy and board the planes headed to 115 western cities. Once there, they’ll swallow their M & M candies and then blow themselves up and turn London, Paris, New York, Berlin, Los Angeles, and other cities into Hiroshimas and Nagasakis.

Musharraf’s End

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration invented this super speed brakeless train called The War on Terror Express and dragged Musharraf on it at the gunpoint. Once the train passes, the rail tracks melt down and so the train cannot go back. Every pupil has a plan which many a times is different than that of her/his guru. Musharraf has his own agenda, that of prolonging his life in power as much as possible, which is now clashing with that of Uncle Sam and so he has been pushed out of the compartment but has been allowed to hang onto the door. At the same time, a few others are running after the train to be pulled in. Now it is simply a matter of time when the Uncle Sam clamps his boot on Musharraf’s hand and extends his hand(s) to pull one or more of the puppets onto the War on Terror Express. The Bush people are learning the name of Makhdoom Amin Fahim, the vice chairperson of PPP, and are getting in touch with other politicians in Pakistan. They are familiar and friendly with the new head of the armed forces Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, a graduate of Fort Leavenworth military college in the US.

Perhaps, like the Marcos of the Philippines, Musharraf will end up in the US and give some tips to his son Bilal, who is always out to defend his Dad, as to what mistakes he should avoid in case he decides to enter politics.

Political Heir

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was overthrown in 1977 by a military man Zia-ul-Haq and was hanged in 1979. In 1988, when Zia, along with the then US Ambassador, died in a plane crash-a mystery unsolved to this day-Bhutto’s daughter Benazir won the election. With the US blessing, she was handed the premiership when she promised not to interfere in the army matters. Now the PPP has chosen her 19 year old son Bilawal, a student at Oxford University, as the Party chairperson. <1>

Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari said the PPP will be managed by his father while he completes his education. He announced “the party’s long struggle for democracy will continue with renewed vigour,” as “my mother always said, democracy is the best revenge.” (Bhutto was added to the name on the day he was officially declared Benazir’s political heir.)

Smooth Transition

In the US, two parties control the presidency, whereas in Pakistan (India, and many other countries) families control the premiership or presidency.

It was a smooth transition of power. Unlike the US, there were no primaries, no constant lies, no media pundits destroying your thinking cells day in and day out, no polls, no wastage of millions of dollars. <2>

PPP’s Prime Ministerial Candidate

Benazir’s husband, Asif Zardari (also known as Mister “ten percent” for corruption) is not to be PPP’s prime ministerial candidate. It is understandable. He is a single father now with the custody of three children so he’ll have to work hard to increase the percentage level. Instead it is Fahim; which is a great blunder. If it really wants to maintain any semblance of a liberal party then it should go for Ms. Rehman. Despite the faults of Benazir-as they were many-she was still a symbol of hope for millions of women. I am not speaking here about high society women-they have their role models in models, actresses, and glamour women- but the average and the poor women who are at the mercy of men and society. Sherry Rehman, a former editor of the English language monthly Herald, and a very articulate, intelligent, media savvy woman, can play an important role, and unlike Bhutto, could really deliver something.

About Fahim, back in 2002, Pakistani newspaper Dawn’s columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee wrote that “Faheem’s four sisters are married to the [Muslim Scripture] Quran – the custom that waderas [feudal lords or landlords] have in [the province of] Sindh to marry off their women in order to keep the family wealth intact. If this is true, it is appalling. It indicates the sick mindset typical of such waderas. How can we expect a man like this to be able to make progressive policies for the poor womenfolk of our country who desperately need uplifting? People need to know this. It is very disheartening to see the parade of illiterate bigots on our television channels, day and night, vying for slots in the government, each with his own agenda.”

The Beneficiaries

Whether the Muslim fundamentalists belonging to Al-Qaeda, Taliban, or any other group had a hand in Bhutto’s death or not, there is no doubt that they must be celebrating the most as their aversion to women is well known through their deeds and statements.

Besides some of her political enemies and those in the establishment who hated her, the others who must be gloating in the sad demise of Bhutto are the Saudi Arabian rulers. They are number one enemy of women-not in bed, but outside where the women demand their rights. It may seem strange that the US was supporting Bhutto whereas the Saudis were for Sharif, who is soft with the religious fundamentalists. But at least the US allows its minions this much leverage.

Crisis Will Continue in Crisistan.

Since its birth, Pakistan has seen crisis after crisis and has gotten weaker and weaker as the armed forces have gotten stronger and stronger. It won’t look odd if the name Pakistan were to be replaced with “Crisistan,” as Bhutto’s death has created another crisis. <3>

While I was finishing this article, I heard on radio that Sharif warned that the postponement of elections will be protested out on the streets. The assassination crisis and violence is not over yet; another crisis is already brewing.

Sixty years ago, it was under the birth-crisis that Pakistan was created out of India amid great violence and misery. The great Faiz Ahmad Faiz wrote:

“This stained-splendor, this night-maimed dawn
The one we waited for, this is not that dawn”

Alas! That dawn never saw the morning light
Sixty-years gone, but more sad is its plight.

B. R. GOWANI can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

Notes

1. The mother country India’s political dynasty has faced tragedies somewhat similar to the Bhutto dynasty. In 1984, India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was murdered and her son Rajiv became the Prime Minister. Upon his assassination in 1991, his Italian wife Sonia (who later acquired Indian citizenship) became Congress Party’s President. She couldn’t become prime minister because Hindu religio/nationalist party BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party) exploited her foreign-ness. Her son Rahul is in politics now and will probably one day become the prime minister.

(Indira’s father Jawaharlal Nehru was India’s first prime minister after the British departed in 1947.)

2. And it is not that after all this hoopla and burning of tens of millions of dollars-which by the time when the elections are over in November will run into hundreds of millions of dollars-you are going to get somebody like Dennis Kucinich. No. Not even John Edwards who, it seems, is genuine and constantly raises labor and poverty issues. It will be one or the other bullshitter with lots of money.
Mind you, the US political system is so rotten and corrupt that even if some decent candidate reaches the White House, the US Congress living on bribes from corporations would disrupt any drastic measures which could bring some meaningful changes in common people’s lives.

Mark Twain once said: “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”

3. The United States has played a central role in many of the crisis. Another country which has done the most damage to Pakistan is Saudi Arabia.

The US has done immense harm to many countries around the world through its overt, covert, and not so covert wars and violence in the name of “democracy,” “freedom of speech,” “human rights,” and other such rubbish. However, the Muslim countries have one other enemy too, the Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom has through its petro-dollars exported the worst kind of Islam to Muslim countries. The result is that religious intolerance has reached an unbearable level in many Muslim countries and is creating more divisions among the people and families.

B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com

Shahzad Roy is a South Asian Singer and runs Zindagi Trust in Karachi which pays money to poor children for attending school. His website is http://www.shehzad-roy.com/ and the Zindagi Trust is http://www.zindagitrust.org/

The song is about the state of crisis Pakistan is in.

By Maureen Dowd

Talk about being teed off.
The economy is croaking and bankers are still partying at a golf tournament here on our dime.
It’s a good argument for nationalization, or better yet, internationalization. Outsource the jobs of these perfidious, oblivious bank executives to Bangalore; Bollywood bashes have to cost less than Hollywood ones.
The entertainment Web site TMZ broke the story Tuesday that Northern Trust of Chicago, which got $1.5 billion in bailout money and then laid off 450 workers, flew hundreds of clients and employees to Los Angeles last week and treated them to four days of posh hotel rooms, salmon and filet mignon dinners, music concerts, a PGA golf tournament at the Riviera Country Club with Mercedes shuttle rides and Tiffany swag bags.
“A rep from the PGA told us Northern Trust wrote one big, fat check in order to sponsor the event,” TMZ reported.
Northern No Trust had a lavish dinner at the Ritz Carlton on Wednesday with a concert by Chicago (at a $100,000 fee); rented a private hangar at the Santa Monica Airport on Thursday for another big dinner with a gig by Earth, Wind & Fire, and closed down the House of Blues on Sunset Strip on Saturday (at a cost of $50,000) for a dinner and serenade by Sheryl Crow.
In the ignoble tradition of rockers who sing for huge sums to sketchy people when we’re not looking, Crow — in her stint as a federal employee — warbled these lyrics to the oblivious revelers:
“Slow down, you’re gonna crash,
Baby, you’re a-screaming it’s a blast, blast, blast
Look out babe, you’ve got your blinders on …
But there’s a new cat in town
He’s got high payin’ friends
Thinks he’s gonna change history.”
Northern Untrustworthy even offered junketeers the chance to attend a seminar on the credit crunch where they could no doubt learn that the U.S. government is just the latest way to finance your deals and keep your office swathed in $87,000 area rugs.
In what is now an established idiotic ritual of rationalization, the bank put out a letter noting that it “did not seek the government’s investment” even though it took it, and that it had raised $3 million for the Los Angeles Junior Chamber of Commerce Charity Foundation and other nonprofits. They riposted that they have a contract to do it every year for five years; but this isn’t every year.
The bank cloaks itself in a philanthropic glow while wasting our money, acting like the American Cancer Society when in fact it’s a cancer on American society.
It asserted that it earned an operating net income of $641 million last year and acted as though it did Americans a favor by taking federal cash.
I would ask Northern No Trust: If you’re totally solvent, why are you taking my tax dollars? If you’re not totally solvent, why are you giving my tax dollars to Sheryl Crow?
Coming in a moment when skeptical and angry Americans watched A.I.G., Citigroup, General Motors and Chrysler — firms that had already been given a federal steroid injection — get back in line for more billions, the golf scandal was just one more sign that the bailed-out rich are different from you and me: their appetites are unquenchable and their culture is uneducable.
President Obama served them notice on Tuesday night in his Congressional address, saying: “This time, C.E.O.’s won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.”
But will they notice?

Read More

ScienceDaily — Doodling while listening can help with remembering details, rather than implying that the mind is wandering as is the common perception. According to a study published today in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology, subjects given a doodling task while listening to a dull phone message had a 29% improved recall compared to their non-doodling counterparts.
40 members of the research panel of the Medical Research Council’s Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit in Cambridge were asked to listen to a two and a half minute tape giving several names of people and places, and were told to write down only the names of people going to a party. 20 of the participants were asked to shade in shapes on a piece of paper at the same time, but paying no attention to neatness. Participants were not asked to doodle naturally so that they would not become self-conscious. None of the participants were told it was a memory test.

After the tape had finished, all participants in the study were asked to recall the eight names of the party-goers which they were asked to write down, as well as eight additional place names which were included as incidental information. The doodlers recalled on average 7.5 names of people and places compared to only 5.8 by the non-doodlers.

“If someone is doing a boring task, like listening to a dull telephone conversation, they may start to daydream,” said study researcher Professor Jackie Andrade, Ph.D., of the School of Psychology, University of Plymouth. “Daydreaming distracts them from the task, resulting in poorer performance. A simple task, like doodling, may be sufficient to stop daydreaming without affecting performance on the main task.”

“In psychology, tests of memory or attention will often use a second task to selectively block a particular mental process. If that process is important for the main cognitive task then performance will be impaired. My research shows that beneficial effects of secondary tasks, such as doodling, on concentration may offset the effects of selective blockade,” added Andrade. “This study suggests that in everyday life doodling may be something we do because it helps to keep us on track with a boring task, rather than being an unnecessary distraction that we should try to resist doing.”

Read More

By Susan Jacoby

NEARLY everyone now takes for granted the wisdom, constitutionality and inevitability of some form of federal financing for community social services run by religious groups. Who anymore can imagine that the United States managed to exist for over 200 years without the government providing any direct aid to faith and its works?
It is truly dismaying that amid all the discussion about President Obama’s version of faith-based community initiatives, there has been such a widespread reluctance to question the basic assumption that government can spend money on religiously based enterprises without violating the First Amendment. The debate has instead focused on whether proselytizing or religious hiring discrimination should be permitted when church groups take public money. This shows how easy it is to institutionalize a bad idea based on unexamined assumptions about service to a greater good.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton started down the slippery slope toward a constitutionally questionable form of faith-based aid when he signed a welfare reform bill that included a “charitable choice” provision allowing religious groups to compete for grants. Under President George W. Bush, a separate White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was established — a significant expansion of “charitable choice.” Mr. Bush, who instituted his faith-based program through executive orders rather than trying to get a bill establishing the office through Congress, quickly put the money to political use.
The administration provided large grants for projects favored by the Christian right, like Charles Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries and Teen Challenge, a drug rehabilitation program that openly pushed religious conversion (even using the phrase “completed Jews” to describe teenage converts from Judaism) as a way of overcoming addiction. John J. DiIulio Jr., the first director of Mr. Bush’s faith-based office, resigned after only eight months and later complained about the politicization of the program.

Throughout Mr. Bush’s second term, the Democratic Party’s “religious left” maintained that the party needed to shed its secular image to attract more religious voters. As far as these Democrats were concerned, the only problem with faith-based programs was that most of the money was going to religious and political conservatives.
Enter Barack Obama, who spoke the language of both faith and secularism — and who promised during the campaign to expand faith-based aid while, at the same time, prohibiting proselytizing and religious hiring discrimination in federally financed programs. Yet earlier this month when the president announced his new faith-based team, headed by a Pentecostal minister, Josh DuBois, Mr. Obama left the Bush orders in place and Mr. DuBois later announced that hiring practices would be vetted by the Justice Department “case by case.”

Read More