The average IQ of the Bangladeshi intellectual is woefully low. There does not appear to be an atom of original thought in the Bangladeshi mind. Now, why's that?
You'd think that the hot shots like Mozaffar Ahmed, Rehman Sobhan, Mosharraf Hossain, Debapriya Bhattacharya, et al., would say something refreshing when they opened their mouths.
Why this antipathy towards the intellect?
One tempting answer is authoritarianism. Our culture, it may be argued, does not permit originality. This argument would be stupid. The Muslim civilisation has been around for fourteen hundred years. It has produced men of the highest calibre.
The answer lies elsewhere: in Bangladesh, the intellectual can be bought. He serves the interest of the neocolonial powers. He's the collaborator to the imperialist.
One striking aspect of the Bangladeshi intellectual is his total silence on Palestine. As a country of 150 million Muslims, one would expect us to show a flicker of solidarity for the Palestinians. There isn't a glimmer.
One wonders how much money is disbursed by the Israel lobby to the local intelligentsia. I suppose there will never be any research done on the subject, and for obvious reasons.
Mind you, young Bangladeshis don't start off as imbeciles. But they learn from their university teachers and their elders that they are required to be corrupt. I have taught very intelligent young boys and girls but somehow they later lose their steam. They become socialised.
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Corrupting the Youth of the Middle East
freedomhouse.org: Program Detail: "A new generation of young Egyptian citizens is dedicated to expanding political and civil rights in their country. Referred to as the 'YouTube Generation,' many of these courageous men and women are supported by Freedom House to enhance their outreach, advocacy and effectiveness. The New Generation project helps to reinforce the values of free expression, human rights, women's rights, and rule of law.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
In a previous blog, I described how software has been used to spread the idea of democracy. Freedom House (financed mostly by the US government) has been training and indoctrinating young Egyptians. It would seem safe to assume that the germ of democracy around the Middle East has been cleverly spread by the US government, and was not a sudden expression of 'people power'. However, my theory was the 'mad crowd' theory, so beloved of Gustave Le Bon. The method-in-madness hypothesis has been well-argued by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulirich, a close watcher of the Middle East (she herself is Iranian).
The two hypotheses may not be contradictory. After priming the pump for democracy, Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and others must have been pleasantly surprised to give 'crowd control' a whole new meaning.
Socrates was tried for corrupting the youth of Athens. Freedom House, et al, have been corrupting the youth of the world in general, and those of the Middle East in particular. Their corruption will no doubt pay off when these kids start realising the value of money. Until then, it must be people like El Baradei who will need to be bought.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Democracy in the Middle East: Did the US do it?
Mining social networks: Untangling the social web | The Economist: "Once these societal networks of influence can be accurately mapped, they can be used to promote the spread of particular ideas—those that support stability and democracy, for example. Last year America’s army, which jointly funds SOMA with the air force, began disbursing about $80m in five-year research grants for network analysis to promote democracy and national security. An authoritarian government, for instance, may have difficulties slowing the spread of a new idea in a certain medium—say, internet chatter about a book that explains how corruption undermines job creation. Diplomatic services can use this information to help ideas spread. Brian Uzzi of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who advises intelligence agencies on democracy-promotion analytics, says diplomatic services are mapping the “tipping point” when ideas go mainstream in spite of government repression.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Did the US military start off the revolutions in the Middle East?
It seems that there is software that can spread an idea like a virus. Of courses, the US Congress claims to have been on the back foot, but the military and the secret services could have been working with the president and his staff to spread democracy in the Middle East. The reason? How to replace ageing autocrats.
In Tunisia and Egypt, the question of succession was acute as both countries' rulers were long in the tooth. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was known to be terminally ill nearly a year ago. But who would succeed him? Besides, these rulers had no popular mandate, and that was stymying efforts to block the peace process, with Israel looking increasingly bad.
A democratic mandate for Israel from surrounding countries was thereby needed: hence the bottom-up democratic transitions.
But the question arises: won't a democracy be harder to control? The answer is, No.
Look at Bangladesh: a democratic Muslim country of 150 million is a docile poodle of the United States. That's because the article points to another influence on public opinion: the 'influencers'.
These are people who direct social thinking: advertisers have long known that people follow certain role-models: hence the promotion of watches and shoes by popular stars. The same thing is at work when selling an idea. If a sufficient number of influencers can be corrupted by America into praising democracy and keeping mum about Israel, then the rest of the population will follow. In Bangladesh, two such influencers are Dr. Mozaffer Ahmed (PhD from University of Chicago) and Dr. Kamal Hossain (PhD from the University of Notre Dame). There are countless other PhDs - who are a dime a dozen in Bangladesh - from western universities who have been co-opted by the west, particularly America.
El-Baradei, et al, will no doubt serve a similar purpose in Egypt.
People underestimate how easy it is to corrupt a democracy. As a Greek dramatist observed:
"...Our wise
Democratic allies
Are ruled by our state democratic."
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Did the US military start off the revolutions in the Middle East?
It seems that there is software that can spread an idea like a virus. Of courses, the US Congress claims to have been on the back foot, but the military and the secret services could have been working with the president and his staff to spread democracy in the Middle East. The reason? How to replace ageing autocrats.
In Tunisia and Egypt, the question of succession was acute as both countries' rulers were long in the tooth. Egypt's Hosni Mubarak was known to be terminally ill nearly a year ago. But who would succeed him? Besides, these rulers had no popular mandate, and that was stymying efforts to block the peace process, with Israel looking increasingly bad.
A democratic mandate for Israel from surrounding countries was thereby needed: hence the bottom-up democratic transitions.
But the question arises: won't a democracy be harder to control? The answer is, No.
Look at Bangladesh: a democratic Muslim country of 150 million is a docile poodle of the United States. That's because the article points to another influence on public opinion: the 'influencers'.
These are people who direct social thinking: advertisers have long known that people follow certain role-models: hence the promotion of watches and shoes by popular stars. The same thing is at work when selling an idea. If a sufficient number of influencers can be corrupted by America into praising democracy and keeping mum about Israel, then the rest of the population will follow. In Bangladesh, two such influencers are Dr. Mozaffer Ahmed (PhD from University of Chicago) and Dr. Kamal Hossain (PhD from the University of Notre Dame). There are countless other PhDs - who are a dime a dozen in Bangladesh - from western universities who have been co-opted by the west, particularly America.
El-Baradei, et al, will no doubt serve a similar purpose in Egypt.
People underestimate how easy it is to corrupt a democracy. As a Greek dramatist observed:
"...Our wise
Democratic allies
Are ruled by our state democratic."
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
S&R Fiction – “Sahel” by Iftekhar Sayeed | Scholars and Rogues
S&R Fiction – “Sahel” by Iftekhar Sayeed | Scholars and Rogues
(click above for story)
(click above for story)
This story is set in Kuakata, in the south of Bangladesh, where two men and a woman arrive from the Middle East by sea in a boat on a moon-lit night to join Zafar Shah for a deadly venture.
Excerpt:
"The sun sank under the cirrocumulus clouds that draped the sky in sheets of muslin while low, cumulus clouds appeared blue-back. I pushed off to a discreet distance so I could only hear the surf and the wind, and not their conversation, although it was carried on mostly in Arabic, with a few English words and the name of the petroleum company distinctly audible. I wanted to know as little as possible about the three locals in case I was tortured. I wish it had been dark when I saw their faces.
The moon had risen hours ago, but only now came into its own. Sirius twinkled, and soon Orion appeared in majesty. The wind grew cooler by degrees. The sputter of an engine-boat reached me as it floated down the Andarmanick, then grew quieter, decibel by decibel. The tide had turned, and it would come further up than before, being spring tide."
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Corrupting Morality
If I tell you to give $100 to a third person because then I will give you $200, are you being moral or corrupt? For this is how NGOs are financed by western donors. This is the final corruption: the corruption of morality.
Suppose, then, I tell you to preach democracy, and you get a further $100, are you sincere in your preaching? Psychologists call this 'cognitive dissonance' and it has been found that the lower the reward for lying about your true feelings, the greater the stress. No wonder donors pay handsomely to reduce stress.
What is at work here is that you never internalise the morality: it remains external and your whole life a sham. This is what western donors and we have done to ourselves.
Then I say, if you say anything about Palestine in public, you will lose all your $200, then naturally you clam up about Israel and Palestine. This is what has, in fact, happened: there is never any public discussion on Palestine in Bangladesh, according to the Palestinian Embassy. The anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat goes unmarked and unnoticed, year after year, while the death of a democracy activist the preceding day in 1987 is regarded as a holy event.
Of course, there are subtler forms of corruption. I might tell you that if you speak about Palestine (in public), I will not give you a scholarship to a prestigious western university, or finance a junket abroad, or I'll blackball you from all academic events.
Thus, the finest part of our society - the thinkers - are the most corrupt.
Suppose, then, I tell you to preach democracy, and you get a further $100, are you sincere in your preaching? Psychologists call this 'cognitive dissonance' and it has been found that the lower the reward for lying about your true feelings, the greater the stress. No wonder donors pay handsomely to reduce stress.
What is at work here is that you never internalise the morality: it remains external and your whole life a sham. This is what western donors and we have done to ourselves.
Then I say, if you say anything about Palestine in public, you will lose all your $200, then naturally you clam up about Israel and Palestine. This is what has, in fact, happened: there is never any public discussion on Palestine in Bangladesh, according to the Palestinian Embassy. The anniversary of the death of Yasser Arafat goes unmarked and unnoticed, year after year, while the death of a democracy activist the preceding day in 1987 is regarded as a holy event.
Of course, there are subtler forms of corruption. I might tell you that if you speak about Palestine (in public), I will not give you a scholarship to a prestigious western university, or finance a junket abroad, or I'll blackball you from all academic events.
Thus, the finest part of our society - the thinkers - are the most corrupt.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Joke That's 'Transparency International'
THOSE WHO BETRAYED GOT RICH: "Who were the winners? The rating agencies, the senior officers who walked away rich, the least moral appraisers, the least moral of the outside auditors at the big accounting firms. They were all the winners. They got rich by betraying their responsibilities.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Every time Transparency International (Bangladesh) produces a report, I guffaw. TI chases gnats in the Third World while ignoring the elephants in the First.
TIB makes us the most corrupt nation on earth - a veritable Sodom (by the way, Sodom was not destroyed for sodomy). And then if we aren't the most corrupt, then we are at least as corrupt as we were last year, while some other Gomorrah has moved up the ladder. It's just a relation among countries, and tells us nothing about the countries themselves. Mount Everest is the highest mountain; buy that says nothing about Everest but something about it and other mountains. 'Bangladesh is the most corrupt country' says nothing about Bangladesh, but about a particular relationship with other countries.
And who finds these reports of interest? They are not even accurate.
In the United States, trillions of dollars have been lost through fraud and regulatory capture, and the world economy has been brought to its knees - and still the Third World is the most corrupt? Who writes these reports? You can't take TI seriously.
'And, of course, bottom line, all of these things are what the FBI aptly term the "epidemic" in mortgage fraud and warned in September 2004, in open congressional testimony, would cause a financial crisis if it were not dealt with.' Thus says William K. Black, an expert on fraud.
Thus, in 2004, the FBI knew something criminal on a gargantuan scale was afoot - and the regulators did nothing. That's a classic case of regulatory capture.
Mr. Black explains, in case we don't know how to count (and some of us, for instance at TI, don't): "...a crisis measured in trillions of dollars of losses—and a trillion dollars is a thousand billion...."
And that's dollars, not takas.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Every time Transparency International (Bangladesh) produces a report, I guffaw. TI chases gnats in the Third World while ignoring the elephants in the First.
TIB makes us the most corrupt nation on earth - a veritable Sodom (by the way, Sodom was not destroyed for sodomy). And then if we aren't the most corrupt, then we are at least as corrupt as we were last year, while some other Gomorrah has moved up the ladder. It's just a relation among countries, and tells us nothing about the countries themselves. Mount Everest is the highest mountain; buy that says nothing about Everest but something about it and other mountains. 'Bangladesh is the most corrupt country' says nothing about Bangladesh, but about a particular relationship with other countries.
And who finds these reports of interest? They are not even accurate.
In the United States, trillions of dollars have been lost through fraud and regulatory capture, and the world economy has been brought to its knees - and still the Third World is the most corrupt? Who writes these reports? You can't take TI seriously.
'And, of course, bottom line, all of these things are what the FBI aptly term the "epidemic" in mortgage fraud and warned in September 2004, in open congressional testimony, would cause a financial crisis if it were not dealt with.' Thus says William K. Black, an expert on fraud.
Thus, in 2004, the FBI knew something criminal on a gargantuan scale was afoot - and the regulators did nothing. That's a classic case of regulatory capture.
Mr. Black explains, in case we don't know how to count (and some of us, for instance at TI, don't): "...a crisis measured in trillions of dollars of losses—and a trillion dollars is a thousand billion...."
And that's dollars, not takas.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Quit greed, and be despised
"Az bugzar wa padshahi kun;
Gardan-i-be tam'a buland shawad." Sa'di, GULISTAN
"Quit greed and as a monarch reign
For proud his station who for nothing hopes."
If you can brush off the contempt of your father and mother, the ridicule of your brothers and sisters, the condescension of your friends and relatives, then - quit greed!
But if you are greedy and corrupt, your parents will love you, your brothers shall be proud of you, your friends will grovel at your feet.
Be careful, then, of taking Sa'adi's noble advice.
Gardan-i-be tam'a buland shawad." Sa'di, GULISTAN
"Quit greed and as a monarch reign
For proud his station who for nothing hopes."
If you can brush off the contempt of your father and mother, the ridicule of your brothers and sisters, the condescension of your friends and relatives, then - quit greed!
But if you are greedy and corrupt, your parents will love you, your brothers shall be proud of you, your friends will grovel at your feet.
Be careful, then, of taking Sa'adi's noble advice.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Corruption and the Family
Omnes diligunt munera
I've known first-hand what corruption and greed can do to a family.
I've looked up Mullah's Principles of Mahomedan Law, and it assures me that I cannot disinherit myself. That is, no doubt, as it should be.
The trouble with corruption is that you have to keep your money with your wife, brothers-in-law and nephews or nieces. So, everybody has a stake and an interest in the family. The family loses its intimacy, and becomes a money-laundering machine. Of course, all goes well if everybody in the family is corrupt and greedy. The problem with me was that I never wanted much in life, just enough to get by.
So, when my father passed away, and one piece of property in an obscure part of town turned up, and I wanted to move in there, the rest of this mafia Corporation ganged up against me. My mother and brother tried to have me declared mentally incompetent; the other 'clients' watched, amused, and no one objected because they were all in on it. Then last night one of my cousins threatened me with a beating, harassment by law-enforcing agencies and - golly! - a defamation suit! Between these two extremes hovered the 'moderate' threat of a police GD. And all this with the connivance of my flesh and blood.
The problem remains: I cannot disinherit myself.
All I can offer are my words as a gentleman that I will not - repeat, not - resort to my rights. I renounce my right to my patrimony.
Will this convince my mother and brother? Even though I put it here before the world, in plain black and white, I don't think so. You see, corruption drives the family members paranoid. They think that just because the state is after their property, everybody is. After all, it wasn't earned, it wasn't something you could call 'mine'.
Now, all my life, I've been obsessed with what's truly mine. That is why I studied Farsi, as I mentioned in an article: to discover 'my' civilisation. This search for authenticity has served me ill materially, and well spiritually.
Into this difference between what's legally mine and what's morally mine - let's say de facto and de jure mine, respectively - enters a million devils. The 'respectable' people in my family are actually money launderers and corrupt businessmen. Therefore in my family I have no honour, for I have no wealth, that solitary standard by which we judge things. But that's no problem: I don't covet the honour of the dishonourable. But I don't desire their persecution either.
So, how do I convince my family that I don't want a square inch of their property? Of course, I could emigrate, but this is no age to leave one's own country, except perhaps for sightseeing, for which I lack the resources. Of course, I could allow the family hoodlum to bump me off, but that would be suicide.
How does one extricate oneself from such a situation, this side of heaven and hell, so that those in the wrong and those in the right can go their separate ways? That is the eternal conundrum.
I've known first-hand what corruption and greed can do to a family.
I've looked up Mullah's Principles of Mahomedan Law, and it assures me that I cannot disinherit myself. That is, no doubt, as it should be.
The trouble with corruption is that you have to keep your money with your wife, brothers-in-law and nephews or nieces. So, everybody has a stake and an interest in the family. The family loses its intimacy, and becomes a money-laundering machine. Of course, all goes well if everybody in the family is corrupt and greedy. The problem with me was that I never wanted much in life, just enough to get by.
So, when my father passed away, and one piece of property in an obscure part of town turned up, and I wanted to move in there, the rest of this mafia Corporation ganged up against me. My mother and brother tried to have me declared mentally incompetent; the other 'clients' watched, amused, and no one objected because they were all in on it. Then last night one of my cousins threatened me with a beating, harassment by law-enforcing agencies and - golly! - a defamation suit! Between these two extremes hovered the 'moderate' threat of a police GD. And all this with the connivance of my flesh and blood.
The problem remains: I cannot disinherit myself.
All I can offer are my words as a gentleman that I will not - repeat, not - resort to my rights. I renounce my right to my patrimony.
Will this convince my mother and brother? Even though I put it here before the world, in plain black and white, I don't think so. You see, corruption drives the family members paranoid. They think that just because the state is after their property, everybody is. After all, it wasn't earned, it wasn't something you could call 'mine'.
Now, all my life, I've been obsessed with what's truly mine. That is why I studied Farsi, as I mentioned in an article: to discover 'my' civilisation. This search for authenticity has served me ill materially, and well spiritually.
Into this difference between what's legally mine and what's morally mine - let's say de facto and de jure mine, respectively - enters a million devils. The 'respectable' people in my family are actually money launderers and corrupt businessmen. Therefore in my family I have no honour, for I have no wealth, that solitary standard by which we judge things. But that's no problem: I don't covet the honour of the dishonourable. But I don't desire their persecution either.
So, how do I convince my family that I don't want a square inch of their property? Of course, I could emigrate, but this is no age to leave one's own country, except perhaps for sightseeing, for which I lack the resources. Of course, I could allow the family hoodlum to bump me off, but that would be suicide.
How does one extricate oneself from such a situation, this side of heaven and hell, so that those in the wrong and those in the right can go their separate ways? That is the eternal conundrum.
Friday, October 9, 2009
The ghost salary of a BRAC worker
A lady came visiting the other day, and spoke to my wife on various subjects. Then the topic turned to work and pay.
"I worked for BRAC," she began. My wife was certain she was going to praise that hallowed institution. "When my salary was 30,000, I used to be paid 9,000. And when my salary was 45,000, I used to be paid 12,000."
My wife's jaws dropped and so did mine when she told me about this. We knew that NGOs mulct both the donors and the staff, pocketing the difference, but we – very naively – hadn't expected it of BRAC. So, where did the money go?
To Abed, the founder, and his family, alleged the lady.
"We can't imagine the kind of lifestyle they have."
Oh yes, we can – now.
"I worked for BRAC," she began. My wife was certain she was going to praise that hallowed institution. "When my salary was 30,000, I used to be paid 9,000. And when my salary was 45,000, I used to be paid 12,000."
My wife's jaws dropped and so did mine when she told me about this. We knew that NGOs mulct both the donors and the staff, pocketing the difference, but we – very naively – hadn't expected it of BRAC. So, where did the money go?
To Abed, the founder, and his family, alleged the lady.
"We can't imagine the kind of lifestyle they have."
Oh yes, we can – now.
Friday, August 14, 2009
All for a few dollars
Suppose somebody makes me this offer: "If you give $100 to a poor person, I'll give you $200."
Would my action, then, be a moral action?
Yet that is exactly what western donors are urging us to do: to pretend to be altruistic, when we are being supremely egotistic.
A moral action must be performed by an agent who has no ulterior motive: otherwise, it is sheer corruption.
And that is what we are: massively corrupt, with the donors corrupting us daily.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the mere act of making money is corrupting: far from it. Trade and industry are dignified pursuits. The western donor corrupts us by making us seem altruistic, by making us lie to ourselves and to others.
The NGO-wallahs know, deep down, that they have been corrupted in the worst possible manner: the man who takes a bribe and does not pretend to be honest is far less corrupt than the donation-receiving NGO-wallah. Self-deception is the supreme corruption.
Then comes pride in your corruption: the command of so much wealth, the adulation of other members of society, the prizes received…all conspire to elevate you above the rest of humanity. We begin to take pride in our fallen nature, like Satan.
"Let not thy right hand know what thy left hand doeth." But our 'philanthropy' consists precisely in letting everyone know what we are doing – noble deeds, generous acts, all for the most selfish and self-centred of reasons.
The Satanisation of our souls is complete. We have sold away our most precious possession – and for what? For a few moments of glory? For a few dollars? In a cost-benefit analysis we would appear supremely idiotic.
The worst cases are those that exhort us to go against our own civilization: for a few dollars, they denounce our culture and our traditions, our sacred and our profane heritage…all for a few dollars.
Take Transparency International, Bangladesh (TIB). Do we need to be reminded that corruption is evil by Berliners? Doesn't the Muslim ethical code serve the purpose? Why do we need an alien civilization to instill in us what we can learn better from our own? And aren't those serving the TIB corrupt to the highest extreme? They have given away not only their conscience but their very own heritage.
Would my action, then, be a moral action?
Yet that is exactly what western donors are urging us to do: to pretend to be altruistic, when we are being supremely egotistic.
A moral action must be performed by an agent who has no ulterior motive: otherwise, it is sheer corruption.
And that is what we are: massively corrupt, with the donors corrupting us daily.
Mind you, I'm not saying that the mere act of making money is corrupting: far from it. Trade and industry are dignified pursuits. The western donor corrupts us by making us seem altruistic, by making us lie to ourselves and to others.
The NGO-wallahs know, deep down, that they have been corrupted in the worst possible manner: the man who takes a bribe and does not pretend to be honest is far less corrupt than the donation-receiving NGO-wallah. Self-deception is the supreme corruption.
Then comes pride in your corruption: the command of so much wealth, the adulation of other members of society, the prizes received…all conspire to elevate you above the rest of humanity. We begin to take pride in our fallen nature, like Satan.
"Let not thy right hand know what thy left hand doeth." But our 'philanthropy' consists precisely in letting everyone know what we are doing – noble deeds, generous acts, all for the most selfish and self-centred of reasons.
The Satanisation of our souls is complete. We have sold away our most precious possession – and for what? For a few moments of glory? For a few dollars? In a cost-benefit analysis we would appear supremely idiotic.
The worst cases are those that exhort us to go against our own civilization: for a few dollars, they denounce our culture and our traditions, our sacred and our profane heritage…all for a few dollars.
Take Transparency International, Bangladesh (TIB). Do we need to be reminded that corruption is evil by Berliners? Doesn't the Muslim ethical code serve the purpose? Why do we need an alien civilization to instill in us what we can learn better from our own? And aren't those serving the TIB corrupt to the highest extreme? They have given away not only their conscience but their very own heritage.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Tale of the Intellectual Harlot
There was once a whore who wanted much more
Than a career in spreading her thighs;
She thought she recognised a customer disguised
By the feel (she was wrong) of his size.
“Are you Kamaldin?” “No, I’m Aladdin.”
“Aaaah!” she gasped, “I won’t charge you if you’ll
Make me - easy, my boy - an intellectual.”
And Shahrazad perceived the dawn of day
And ceased to say her permitted say.
At the NGO the donors then became her new owners
Who asked her to denounce the Caliphate,
Sing democracy’s praise, and their secular ways,
And to parrot that laissez-faire wasn’t great!
And before each meeting she observed
That the rights of women must be preserved!
And Shahrazad perceived the dawn of day
And ceased to say her permitted say.
But her bottom would smart just as when she was a tart
From the sitting position she used;
And her mouth would be sore like it used to before
While some flaccid old fool stood amused.
So she wanted her honesty back
And let Aladdin have one more whack!
And Shahrazad perceived the dawn of day
And ceased to say her permitted say.
Than a career in spreading her thighs;
She thought she recognised a customer disguised
By the feel (she was wrong) of his size.
“Are you Kamaldin?” “No, I’m Aladdin.”
“Aaaah!” she gasped, “I won’t charge you if you’ll
Make me - easy, my boy - an intellectual.”
And Shahrazad perceived the dawn of day
And ceased to say her permitted say.
At the NGO the donors then became her new owners
Who asked her to denounce the Caliphate,
Sing democracy’s praise, and their secular ways,
And to parrot that laissez-faire wasn’t great!
And before each meeting she observed
That the rights of women must be preserved!
And Shahrazad perceived the dawn of day
And ceased to say her permitted say.
But her bottom would smart just as when she was a tart
From the sitting position she used;
And her mouth would be sore like it used to before
While some flaccid old fool stood amused.
So she wanted her honesty back
And let Aladdin have one more whack!
And Shahrazad perceived the dawn of day
And ceased to say her permitted say.
Friday, February 6, 2009
sharia, monarchy and moolah
One thing always intrigues me.
Many of my (highly educated) compatriots – and relatives - live in the United Arab Emirates for years, then either come back with plenty of money or use some of that money to buy a citizenship in Canada.
Not only do my compatriots troop down to the UAE lured by the moolah, an army of Americans and Europeans regularly head to these rainbow-ends every month.
Come to think of it, I have known may western expatriates who have been loth to leave Bangladesh – for here they get a mansion, servants, chauffeur, and all mod cons. Back home, they'd have to live in a cramped little apartment.
Now, getting back to my relatives: these moolah-seekers never complain about the UAE. I am most surprised at the total absence of complaint regarding the sharia law.
These good, unhypocritical folk don't mind the monarchy either.
Take my uncle: he and his whole family battened on the oil-proceeds of the emirates, then emigrated to the freer climes in the west, from where he harrumphs and humphs and hoomphs about the evils of autocracy: having made his pile under autocracy and the sharia law, he finds it convenient to sound like an American.
Corruption is part of human nature: no amount of legislation or moralistic preaching or fire-and-brimstone sermons are going to rid corruption from our genes (not even in science fiction).
Many of my (highly educated) compatriots – and relatives - live in the United Arab Emirates for years, then either come back with plenty of money or use some of that money to buy a citizenship in Canada.
Not only do my compatriots troop down to the UAE lured by the moolah, an army of Americans and Europeans regularly head to these rainbow-ends every month.
Come to think of it, I have known may western expatriates who have been loth to leave Bangladesh – for here they get a mansion, servants, chauffeur, and all mod cons. Back home, they'd have to live in a cramped little apartment.
Now, getting back to my relatives: these moolah-seekers never complain about the UAE. I am most surprised at the total absence of complaint regarding the sharia law.
These good, unhypocritical folk don't mind the monarchy either.
Take my uncle: he and his whole family battened on the oil-proceeds of the emirates, then emigrated to the freer climes in the west, from where he harrumphs and humphs and hoomphs about the evils of autocracy: having made his pile under autocracy and the sharia law, he finds it convenient to sound like an American.
Corruption is part of human nature: no amount of legislation or moralistic preaching or fire-and-brimstone sermons are going to rid corruption from our genes (not even in science fiction).
Friday, September 26, 2008
Yunus doth protest too much
"I am shocked – shocked! – to learn there is gambling going one here."
Devotees of the film Casablanca will recall these lines by the Chief of Police, a constant gambler at the club.
Mohammed Yunus's protestations of ignorance at the jiggery-pokery at Grameen Telecoms sound the same. Frankly, there's no cause for anyone to be shocked – or surprised. These things are par for the course.
To quote a pithier saying: "He doth protest too much".
Devotees of the film Casablanca will recall these lines by the Chief of Police, a constant gambler at the club.
Mohammed Yunus's protestations of ignorance at the jiggery-pokery at Grameen Telecoms sound the same. Frankly, there's no cause for anyone to be shocked – or surprised. These things are par for the course.
To quote a pithier saying: "He doth protest too much".
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
China, Bangladesh and our rotten intellectuals
The Chinese government is making overtures to third world countries: it has proffered a blank check to Bangladesh for development.
Does that mean we're going to lean in China's direction, giving up our hated democracy and imitating good government and high growth?
No way!
For to restore sanity to this nation, the intellectuals have to be bought, and currently America and Europe are willing and able to pay then far more than China can.
And not just in terms of cash.
In terms of prestige, America Universities confer more of that intangible asset than the Chinese currently can (though that should change in a few decades). A degree from the University of Chicago or Columbia University has more cachet than one from Beijing University.
And the days when Moscow could confer prestige on an academic career are long gone: China has no universal ideology to offer.
How much money would it take to re-corrupt our intellectuals? It has to be a sizeable amount, with the most important having to be paid in millions of dollars to compensate for the loss of prestige of a western career. Lower down the pecking order, the price should drop substantially, with the teachers in the science subjects commanding the lowest premium.
But China can do it: it has the money.
There is, of course, a third alternative: neither Chinese, nor western.
And that is to live with dignity and self-respect: two words that never go with the word 'intellectual'.
Does that mean we're going to lean in China's direction, giving up our hated democracy and imitating good government and high growth?
No way!
For to restore sanity to this nation, the intellectuals have to be bought, and currently America and Europe are willing and able to pay then far more than China can.
And not just in terms of cash.
In terms of prestige, America Universities confer more of that intangible asset than the Chinese currently can (though that should change in a few decades). A degree from the University of Chicago or Columbia University has more cachet than one from Beijing University.
And the days when Moscow could confer prestige on an academic career are long gone: China has no universal ideology to offer.
How much money would it take to re-corrupt our intellectuals? It has to be a sizeable amount, with the most important having to be paid in millions of dollars to compensate for the loss of prestige of a western career. Lower down the pecking order, the price should drop substantially, with the teachers in the science subjects commanding the lowest premium.
But China can do it: it has the money.
There is, of course, a third alternative: neither Chinese, nor western.
And that is to live with dignity and self-respect: two words that never go with the word 'intellectual'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
