The lighter side of life

This song is so beautiful, I just had to share it. Coke Studio Sessions are an extremely successful venture showcasing popular Pakistani artists creating an east-west/old-new fusion of musical styles. As with any such experimentation, there are some failures and some spectacular successes. This song by the female duo Zeb & Haniya is a great example of really great music. It's very traditional north-western Pakistan folk music style. You can check out Coke Studio on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/cokestudio) or their website (http://www.cokestudio.com.pk/) for more music and videos.

The Art of War

The NYT has an Op-Art piece, "The Memorial of the Mind" (by Michael Norman & Ben Steele), today which I find fascinating. The article is about Ben Steele, one of the last surviving veterans of the Bataan Death March in WWII, and the sketches (see fig. below) he produced of his memories of a Japanese war prison and his fellow POWs. It's interesting, to me, for two reasons; firstly, because the sketches are really well done, stark depictions of POWs and wartime, and secondly, because Private Steele then went on to become an art professor at Montana State University. I'll present my thoughts on both in this post. I apologise if the analysis is a bit rambling, but after spending the last 4 months refining and re-refining my Master's thesis, I truly am not in the mood to do much editing.


(images taken from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/25/opinion/20090525_opart.html)

The starkness of the sketches is expected, deliberate, and appropriate. Let me explain. Expected because pen/pencil sketches in their monochrome palate and the 'rough hurried-ness' of depiction will usually create a very distinct and sharp image. And, of course, the subject matter itself results in such portrayals. I would also argue that Steele deliberately creates an unrelieved image, perhaps to typify the atmosphere and the reality of POW camps. He does this by selecting black and white sketching (with cross-hatching rather than shading) as his medium as opposed to softer mediums such as watercolours or colour sketches. He also is pointed in choosing images to draw. For example, the emaciated self-portrait is an immediate, grisly reminder of the horrific nature of war. Lastly, the atmosphere created is appropriate because romanticising war and POW camps, for instance, is rather ridiculous. Need I say more?

Steele's post-war occupation reminds me that service in the military has not always been meant to be a career as much as a requirement in a time of need. Of course, such a statement also exposes my subconscious opinion that artists cannot be soldiers unless they are forced into it, especially given that Steele joined the army at the behest of his mother, not the government. It would be interesting to compare Steele's work with other, more recent veteran art, plenty of which exists, I'm sure. The fact that Steele joined a radically different occupation after the war and yet kept producing images of war emphasizes the staying power of personal experience. How do/did others respond to returning? Do they seek to completely distance themselves? Do they embrace the past/their actions?

War Crimes and the United States

The media today is reporting Angelina Jolie's presence at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague watching the trial of Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga, who is charged with using child soldiers.

A few comments following these reports question why African warlords are being brought to justice but not potential war criminals in the United States. The answer for this is simple, the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute which would necessitate full cooperation with the proceedings of the court including the arrest and surrender of suspects. The United States did sign the treaty which signifies that a commitment to refrain from such acts as fall under the aims of the treaty but in no way obliges complete cooperation. This is emphasized further by two facts: (1) the United States government has always been very clear that it's signature is/was not a prelude to ratification, & (2) in 2002, America [and Israel] 'unsigned' the treaty.

There are few indications that Barack Obama will switch the position taken by previous administrations in this matter. His response to questions on the ICC are typically vague and emphasize the importance of national security and sovereignty, indicating that the current structure and policies of the court do not guarantee these two factors. He does acknowledge the importance of the court unlike the Bush administration, where there was a concerted effort to argue against the court's position and authority. While some of these arguments have merit and raise important questions regarding the court's structure and its jurisdiction, many were influenced by the isolationist tendencies of the American government. The significance of the United States in international politics and the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan emphasizes the need for the current administration to engage in dialogue with the goal of ratifying the treaty and signalling a more meaningful cooperation with the UN and its various bodies.

Moving On

Dear President Obama,

I am deeply concerned by the 'cratering' economy. I will be entering the job market in a few months, after getting a graduate degree in a field that survives best in strong economies. Needless to say, I'm a little concerned that I will have trouble finding a job which best fits my background and interests. I'm heavily invested in how the government and corporations respond to the current recession. And I have to tell you, for the last two weeks, I have become increasingly convinced that your response is no real response. The condemnatory statements you make regarding those responsible for the meltdown may be important to convey our shared outrage at the way financial organizations have played ducks and drakes with our future but it is far more important to demonstrate with action towards resolving many of these issues. I need you to be president now, not judge and jury. And please rein in the various arms of government that are similarly mired in the blame game. The Senate and Congress seem intent on reminding us who is responsible and convening special hearings to keep this memory alive. I understand the importance of serving justice but there is time enough to have hearings after we have stopped the downward spiral of the economy, and have helped Americans get their jobs and homes back.

Actions speaks louder than words may be a cliche phrase but its true nonetheless.

Sincerely Yours,
A Citizen

Shady Activities

The neighbours at the back have a small greenhouse in their yard (a yard which is incidentally completely surrounded by other houses so no view from the road) which is left with lights on all night.

Does that mean what I'm thinking it means?

Random thoughts on these (bleep) papers

It's an interesting commentary on life when folding laundry is used as an excuse not to work on marking.

Why does grading in red pen seem more evil than other colours?

It's bizarre that camels on a slide are described as horses by a student. Should I make a sarcastic comment about someone needing glasses or is that just too mean? I think its harsh, maybe I'll leave it off and my boss won't get mad at me.

In a class called "Islamic art and architecture", writing that an object is from 'Islamic culture' is just a little bit obvious.

Dating a painting from said class as 667 C.E. is hopelessly wrong for so many reasons.

Also, if you haven't learned anything else in this class, at least know that figurative images do not appear in Qurans. Really...

And if you don't know the answer and are going to make something up, at least be creative so I can have a good laugh and give you a marginally better bad mark on the answer.

The definition of journalism

Is Jon Stewart a journalist or a comedian? Can he be both?

The Daily Show may be a comedy fake news show but it has begun functioning almost like a journalistic fact check for many members of Mr. Stewart's audience. They like a smart guy who cracks jokes poking fun at our political system and its participants while also exposing their flaws. They like his refreshing bluntness and tongue-in-cheek repartee. What does it say about the state of cable news that some have started to look for the 'truth' in a comedy show?

I think this was highlighted in 2004 when Jon Stewart (not the Daily Show) took the hosts of Crossfire to task for their 'partisan hackery' (I think that's exactly how he labelled it) and told them to stop 'hurting America' in the now infamous interview. And it was a hugely successful critique, both in real time and the future: It's memorable when Tucker Carlson questioned Stewart on his soft-balling of John Kerry on the Daily Show, and was reminded that the Daily Show was on a comedy channel, was a fake news show preceded by prank-calling puppets. Crossfire was cancelled soon after and Stewart was referenced in the decision to pull the show.

We saw glimpses of the same this past week with Stewart and his crew hammering CNBC's terrible coverage of the economic world in the last couple of years. The culmination of three days of Santelli et. al. bashing was the interview (if we can call a mostly one-sided conversation that) of Jim Cramer on the Daily Show. Stewart lambasted Cramer, the entire CNBC crew, and implicated other financial news networks in a searing crossfire (pun intended), accusing them of complicity through their terrible reporting of financial markets and companies. Cramer was left sitting in a swamp of defeat and mea culpas. I especially liked when Stewart said the networks knew what was going in, in terms of hyper inflation and crazy odds, and did nothing, said nothing: "For now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Stewart and echo his frustration with the games played by various financiers and other complicit actors. And I agreed with his opposition to dumbed down, entertainment-centric news reporting. But what is the place of Jon Stewart in this debacle? Why does he adopt such a serious demeanour and eviscerate those who are, in his opinion, doing a disservice to America(ns)? He certainly has every right as a citizen of this country, but I am more interested in his role on television as a comedian. I ask this question because the only real criticism of Stewart that comes up in the media relating to this is his position of being able to question and then fall back into the seemingly impartial role of the comedian where he cannot be questioned because "its not real." Is this fair? I don't actually have an opinion on this question. So while personally I am very happy to see any talk of responsible journalism, especially in the arena of televised news which is so focused upon that distasteful word; infotainment, I am also unsure of who should be asking these questions.

Question

What's worse?

1. Michelle Obama continuously showing her bare arms to the public

OR

2. The Obamas' DVD gift to the British PM

This is a rhetorical question.

Please note that the offensiveness of the action is inversely proportional to how hyped it was in the American media.

Losing all your money? Hate your bank? Doesn't everyone?

As conventional banks fail left, right, and centre, here is an alternative. Perusing the environment section of the New York Times, I recently came across the term, "ethical bank". Now you may laugh at the oxymoron (ethical? banks? who knew?), but its real, I kid you not.

Ethical banks are simply banks who invest savings in socially responsible projects (e.g. wind farms) to benefit communities and make money simultaneously. So it's basically banks that are much clearer about where your savings are going (i.e. into the real economy) rather than tying it up into bundled investments which MAY eventually see the light of day outside the stock market (which originally I misspelled stick markey...appropriate in its absurdity). According to Simon Birch at The Guardian, ethical banks like the European bank Troidos are doing quite well in the current economic climate because they do not suffer from the hyper-inflation that conventional banking systems are vulnerable to (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/oct/18/savings-ethicalmoney). There is, of course, a downside to ethical banks: lower interest rates. Since they are a safe and stable investment (for the most part), interest rates remain low, though also stable, which is far more attractive to most clients. Especially when you know your investment will not benefit humans-rights abusers, the environement, etc.

After seeing the term in NYT and after doing a bit of research, I got quite excited and am seriously thinking about moving my savings into one of these banks as part of my growing move towards environmentalism and greater social responsibility.

Its an interesting model because I think its one that would work well in the developing world as well, especially if its combined with microfinance institutions who already know quite a bit about socially responsible finance. You can find out more about ethical banking on Wikipedia (I'm horrified to promote wikipedia as a source since I consistently tell my students that it is not a valid source) or you can check out the following known ethical banks:
--Troidos Bank (Europe)
--Co-operative Bank (UK)
--Wainwright Bank (USA)
--Shore Bank (USA)
--RSF Social Finance (USA)--actually its an investment firm, not a bank per se
--Citizens Bank (Canada)

Of course, like any system, I'm sure this one has its own faults but I think the the benefit of more direct investment as well as the social responsibility aspect make it worth looking at.

P.S. Similar posts have been written about Islamic banking recently: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/economy/803/can_islam_save_the_economy

Why expect Iran to cooperate when others do not?

I just finished reading an article in the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12957301

The article is about whether or not Israeli shelling of civilian targets constitutes a war crime. The problem as the article states is with the difficulty of defining war crimes where sophisticated technology is involved: "But international law has found it easier to deal with low-tech mass killings at close quarters, as in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, than with the rights and wrongs of Western-style air campaigns. Civilians are repeatedly hit by NATO aircraft in Afghanistan, but there are only regrets, not court-martials." I would also add that genocide as a war crime is a particularly tricky issue, as seen with the case of Darfur recently. The law as formulated by the UN is geared more at internal genocide than an external one; the law was meant to allow intervention in nations where otherwise national sovereignty had to be respected.

But as fascinating as this is, I'd like to highlight another portion of the article: "Isreal...tends to be wary of outside investigation. It declined to co-operate, for instance, with a UN inquiry into a shelling incident that killed 19 civilians in Gaza in 2006." I am not particularly surprised by this in many ways, partly because of the limitation imposed by the Israeli government on the media, especially the lack of access to Gaza. Nonetheless, the non-co-operation of Israel emphasizes the hypocritical stance of Western nations towards Israeli actions when compared with those of, for instance, Iran. For example: the repeated complaints about Iran's non-co-operation with the UN as per weapons inspections. Now I don't think that the Iranian government is in any way doing the right thing but this manner of double standards is very dangerous and counter-productive in assuring Middle-Eastern/Muslim nations that any peace process will be fair and balanced. Quite frankly, it seems ludicrous to expect this. Moreover, why should we expect Muslim nations to come to the table when they are being examined far more critically than others? There have been protests all over the world about Israeli actions in Gaza but there has been little action taken to stop the shelling and even less official/governmental criticism of Israeli actions (the UNHCR and the IRC notwithstanding; both are non-legislative organizations) which cannot be blindly judged to have been entirely aboveboard. Let the international watchdogs in please.

The worth of a life

A life for a life? Is life beyond any measurement? How does one justify the taking of a life?

This past week has seen hundreds of deaths in Gaza and some in Israel. I've been mulling over these events for the past few days and something has been bothering me. Reading news reports, a lot of reporters focus on the large numbers of Palestinians dead, consciously or unconsciously comparing them to the admittedly far smaller numbers of Israeli casualties. I found myself doing something similar when talking to a friend about the situation. I was very quick to say that I did not think the Israeli deaths were any less tragic and significant, but that I thought the Israeli response was still excessive (in recent counts over 700 Palestinians and 14 Israelis are dead). Am I wrong? I don't think what Hamas does is acceptable but I can't help but feel extremely distressed by the deaths of so many in the Gaza strip.

It is interesting how many readers in the United States respond to this comparison by taking offence that the Gazan deaths are emphasized over those of Israelis because of the larger numbers. But shouldn't the larger number take precedence especially given the extreme disparity? I don't mean that people living in Israel within range of Hamas rockets are less important but simply that Israelis seem to be better protected than Palestinians in Gaza and that Israel's incursion is far more effective than Hamas rockets are and that says something (though I'm not quite sure what).

Thoughts?

Red Tape

On a recent trip to New York, I received jury summons in the mail (by the way, how did I, a citizen for just over two years get this while other long-time members of this public don't for years if at all?). The problem, of course, is that I don't reside in America right now. I [mistakenly it would seem] had thought I had taken care of this problem when I received a juror qualification questionnaire and indicated that very issue. It seems, however, that the New York County Clerk's Office is unable to understand its own paperwork. I realise that bureaucracy often implies that the right hand does not know what the left hand does/knows but this is the SAME BUREAUCRACY What makes it more hilarious is that I mailed my reply to the summons from Pakistan and indicated a Canadian address! Could it get any clearer that I don't live in the United States? Is anyone there using their brains?