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.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, January 5, 2009
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?
Friday, December 12, 2008
I'm not asking for another Shakespeare
I'm just looking for some decent writing. It seems to be a fast-fading skill.
As a graduate student, I've churned out a lot of papers, which are closely scrutinised for the facts and arguments contained within, and the writing itself. The brutal honesty that graduate students receive on their papers is a good way to learn what constitutes decent writing. As a teaching assistant, my primary job is to grade papers and it has exposed me to all manners of writing styles. Why am I telling you this? So that you know that I have some background knowledge of the topic and what opinions my experience has garnered.
Recently, I sat down with a set of midterm papers for correction. As a basic survey-level course, the class is open to all undergraduates. This means you see a fair variety of writing levels. As a general rule they tend to be okay, with passable language and grammar usage. Occasionally, there are excellent papers and, just as occasionally, there are appalling ones.
This time, the one labelled, "Midterm Thing" was the primary motivator for this blog. The downward slide began when the student used words & phrases such as "whodunnit", "fiddly" and "yeah, probably" in their essay as well as their disregard for punctuation (such as the usual of capitals at the beginning of a sentence and periods...little, finnicky things). My first thoughts: How did this kid get into college? What did their entrance essay look like? And considering that all Canadian high-schoolers have to take English-12 and provincial exams etc, which self-respecting teacher and/or examiner passed this student?
I come back to this after grading a stack of final papers which has pushed me to actually post this blog. The writing was, if anything, worse than the midterms, which was somewhat surprising considering the students got more time to develop their ideas and do their research. Now I know that many students still left the papers to the last minute, (who hasn't done that in college?) but the general standard was appalling.
Writing standards seem to be declining. As much as it pains me to do this, I go easy on language when grading, as per the general departmental attitude towards undergraduate writing. But when and why did bad writing become acceptable at the college level? These are not young kids who have little to no training in writing, they have graduated from high school after all. Am I bringing an elitist element to writing by stressing on proper punctuation, smooth language etc. etc.? Don't misunderstand me by thinking that I'm asking for brilliant prose. Brilliance is, by its very nature, an achievement of few. On the other hand, competence and striving towards excellence is not. Most good academic writing is not very complex, it's beauty lies in clarity. A few polysyllabic words don't go amiss but they are not crucial for displaying competency in writing.
The point of college is to teach. This is not characterised by simply imparting information on a subject, but building skills to analyse and manipulate data, taking the information forward in new/different directions. Writing is a key tool in managing the latter component of college education, in my opinion.
Are television and chat and text messages responsible for the decline in formal prose? I don't want to sound like a white-haired biddy railing against 'youngsters today', mostly because I'm still quite young myself, but I do think that modern technology has had its fair share of negative effects. At the same time, I don't think its fair to blame computers and television for the failures in education. After all, I watched television almost daily as a child. And we had a computer in my house where I spent a fair amount of time on pacman and other video games. The difference is that I spent hours reading. And not just books like Sweet Valley Twins (which I confess to reading) but also Little Women, the Chronicles of Narnia, St. Clairs, Anne of Green Gables etc. My father actually read The Hobbit to me and my brother in installments at bedtime. And we were encouraged to peruse the newspaper, and actively enjoyed the weekly children's supplement (which is printed to this day--why don't the Times or the Boston Globe do that?).
What I'm saying is, parents and schools need to push reading and writing in order to better develop writing skills way in advance of college. College will polish those skills and refine them in readiness for stepping out into the work-world, but it shouldn't be expected to teach the basics. And colleges need to have higher standards than they do now, because letting bad writing go on is a disservice to students who are attending school for better/higher education.
As a graduate student, I've churned out a lot of papers, which are closely scrutinised for the facts and arguments contained within, and the writing itself. The brutal honesty that graduate students receive on their papers is a good way to learn what constitutes decent writing. As a teaching assistant, my primary job is to grade papers and it has exposed me to all manners of writing styles. Why am I telling you this? So that you know that I have some background knowledge of the topic and what opinions my experience has garnered.
Recently, I sat down with a set of midterm papers for correction. As a basic survey-level course, the class is open to all undergraduates. This means you see a fair variety of writing levels. As a general rule they tend to be okay, with passable language and grammar usage. Occasionally, there are excellent papers and, just as occasionally, there are appalling ones.
This time, the one labelled, "Midterm Thing" was the primary motivator for this blog. The downward slide began when the student used words & phrases such as "whodunnit", "fiddly" and "yeah, probably" in their essay as well as their disregard for punctuation (such as the usual of capitals at the beginning of a sentence and periods...little, finnicky things). My first thoughts: How did this kid get into college? What did their entrance essay look like? And considering that all Canadian high-schoolers have to take English-12 and provincial exams etc, which self-respecting teacher and/or examiner passed this student?
I come back to this after grading a stack of final papers which has pushed me to actually post this blog. The writing was, if anything, worse than the midterms, which was somewhat surprising considering the students got more time to develop their ideas and do their research. Now I know that many students still left the papers to the last minute, (who hasn't done that in college?) but the general standard was appalling.
Writing standards seem to be declining. As much as it pains me to do this, I go easy on language when grading, as per the general departmental attitude towards undergraduate writing. But when and why did bad writing become acceptable at the college level? These are not young kids who have little to no training in writing, they have graduated from high school after all. Am I bringing an elitist element to writing by stressing on proper punctuation, smooth language etc. etc.? Don't misunderstand me by thinking that I'm asking for brilliant prose. Brilliance is, by its very nature, an achievement of few. On the other hand, competence and striving towards excellence is not. Most good academic writing is not very complex, it's beauty lies in clarity. A few polysyllabic words don't go amiss but they are not crucial for displaying competency in writing.
The point of college is to teach. This is not characterised by simply imparting information on a subject, but building skills to analyse and manipulate data, taking the information forward in new/different directions. Writing is a key tool in managing the latter component of college education, in my opinion.
Are television and chat and text messages responsible for the decline in formal prose? I don't want to sound like a white-haired biddy railing against 'youngsters today', mostly because I'm still quite young myself, but I do think that modern technology has had its fair share of negative effects. At the same time, I don't think its fair to blame computers and television for the failures in education. After all, I watched television almost daily as a child. And we had a computer in my house where I spent a fair amount of time on pacman and other video games. The difference is that I spent hours reading. And not just books like Sweet Valley Twins (which I confess to reading) but also Little Women, the Chronicles of Narnia, St. Clairs, Anne of Green Gables etc. My father actually read The Hobbit to me and my brother in installments at bedtime. And we were encouraged to peruse the newspaper, and actively enjoyed the weekly children's supplement (which is printed to this day--why don't the Times or the Boston Globe do that?).
What I'm saying is, parents and schools need to push reading and writing in order to better develop writing skills way in advance of college. College will polish those skills and refine them in readiness for stepping out into the work-world, but it shouldn't be expected to teach the basics. And colleges need to have higher standards than they do now, because letting bad writing go on is a disservice to students who are attending school for better/higher education.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
A Political Drama in Countless Violent Acts
The Mumbai attacks are the latest in a long line of violent acts committed in the Subcontinent, stretching into the past few decades. This large swathe of land has seen far too much bloodshed and strife. You'd think someone would have stopped and thought, "hmmm, this is crazy we're all dying, maybe this isn't such a great idea." The Mumbai storyline has become a haunting refrain: violence in India and many are killed/injured, Indian government points fingers at Pakistan, Pakistan postures back vehemently, nothing happens. Waiting for Godot had nothing on the drama that is Waiting for Peace.
I'm tired, tired of hearing that the ISI is to blame, that Pakistan harbours terrorists and supports militia in Kashmir, tired of India's constant need to point the finger at Pakistan, tired of Pakistan's non-action. I don't care to find a party to blame anymore. The blame game can go on forever: so Pakistan provided a location from which these attacks were planned, what about Indian border controls and their own intelligence networks? Are they on vacation? There will be no commission like there was in the US after 9/11 to discover how the Indians missed this. But this gets us nowhere. I just want it all to end because this is helping no one.
We all need to take a good, hard look at ourselves because the world is crumbling into chaos. Nothing is secure anymore, the sanctity of life has become a farce. And how are we going to resolve the mess that is South and Central Asia? Here are some suggestions:
1. Western governments need to discontinue all military aid to this area.
2. America needs to stop bombing indiscriminately on the Pak-Afghan border. Really its not helping.
3. India and Pakistan both need to do some housekeeping and resolves failures in governance.
4. The OIC & SAARC both need to step up and work towards real cooperation and solution-brokering.
5. The UN needs to focus on Kashmir and do its job.
I don't think I'm asking for a lot.
I'm tired, tired of hearing that the ISI is to blame, that Pakistan harbours terrorists and supports militia in Kashmir, tired of India's constant need to point the finger at Pakistan, tired of Pakistan's non-action. I don't care to find a party to blame anymore. The blame game can go on forever: so Pakistan provided a location from which these attacks were planned, what about Indian border controls and their own intelligence networks? Are they on vacation? There will be no commission like there was in the US after 9/11 to discover how the Indians missed this. But this gets us nowhere. I just want it all to end because this is helping no one.
We all need to take a good, hard look at ourselves because the world is crumbling into chaos. Nothing is secure anymore, the sanctity of life has become a farce. And how are we going to resolve the mess that is South and Central Asia? Here are some suggestions:
1. Western governments need to discontinue all military aid to this area.
2. America needs to stop bombing indiscriminately on the Pak-Afghan border. Really its not helping.
3. India and Pakistan both need to do some housekeeping and resolves failures in governance.
4. The OIC & SAARC both need to step up and work towards real cooperation and solution-brokering.
5. The UN needs to focus on Kashmir and do its job.
I don't think I'm asking for a lot.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)